Connect with us

Opinion

Between EFCC and ex-prosecutor Obla: Prosecution or Persecution?

Published

on

By Kenneth Atavti

The trajectory of the recently terminated trial of Chief Godwin Obla, an ex-prosecutor with the EFCC, before the Lagos State High Court by the very same Commission he acted for over the course of several years undoubtedly raises some interesting issues for any keen observer.

It would be recalled that the EFCC had previously dragged a former Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia and Godwin Obla (SAN) before Justice Hakeem Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, on a 31-Count Amended Information dated 21st February 2018.

The prosecution had initially arraigned the Defendants on a 30-count Information dated November 17, 2016. The trial before the Lagos State High Court spanned more than two (2) years and came up on more than 22 separate dates between 28th November 2018 and 16th April 2019 as follows: 28th November 2016, 8th December 2016, 9th January 2017, 30th January 2017,10th March 2017, 17th March 2017, 28th April 2017, 26th May 2017, 1st June 2017, 6th July 2018, 29th September 2017, 10th November 2017, 26th January 2018, 23rd February 2018, 23rd March 2018, 20th April 2018, 25th May 2018, 8th June 2018, 14th September 2018, 2nd November 2018, 14th December 2018, 25th January 2019 and 16th April 2019.

At the Lagos High Court, the EFCC called 14 witnesses and eventually closed its case on 14th September 2018. In response, Obla filed a no case submission urging the court to discharge and acquit him on the allegations in the charge on the ground that the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case against him.

On her part, Hon. Justice Ajumogobia thereafter raised an objection to the jurisdiction on the ground that, being a judicial officer and by virtue of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of NGANJIWA V FRN (delivered on 11th December 2017), the charge against her could not have been filed until after disciplinary action by the National Judicial Council. Not a few persons were surprised when the EFCC’s Counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, in his response to Hon. Justice Ajumogobia’s objection, hurriedly conceded to the absence of jurisdiction and in fact urged the court to strike out the charge and discharge the defendants.

It is noteworthy that Obla contended that, not being a judicial officer, the court had jurisdiction over him and ought to proceed with the severance of the charge to allow for his separate trial. Curiously, the EFCC which initiated the trial in the first place vehemently opposed this application and instead urged the court to discharge both defendants in the charge. It could be asked whether the EFCC’s opposition to Obla’s application to continue with his trial is not proof that the EFCC was not necessarily interested in the speedy and conclusive trial of Obla as much as it was in maintaining a media campaign to discredit him and damage his professional reputation.

Eventually, after more than two years of trial, Justice H. Oshodi on 16th April 2019 delivered a ruling striking out the charge before the Lagos High Court and held that based on the judicial precedent set by the case of Nganjiwa V. FRN, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit, as the EFCC “jumped the gun” in filing the Amended Information.

The Court also had some harsh words in its ruling for the prosecution counsel and the EFCC for what the Court described as their “unfortunate” conduct in the trial as follows:
“Before concluding, the Court will want to make one or two comments.
As noted above, the Prosecution, as at Monday 11th December 2017 was aware, as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal in HON. JUSTICE HYELADZIRA NGANJIWA V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (Supra) that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the criminal action filed against the 1st Defendant. As a t that day, the 1st Amended Information was yet to eb filed. As at that day, the 12th (twelfth) witness for the Prosecution was still giving evidence. One would have thought that the Prosecution would have urged the Court to strike out the case as a consequence of the decision of the Court of Appeal.

But no! the Prosecution still persisted, like a bull running amok, amended the Information and called 2 (two) further witnesses.

It ought to be pointed out for record purpose that a counsel is a minister in the temple of justice and as an officer of the Court, a counsel has a duty to assist the Court rather than mislead it. In other climes, where learned counsel that find themselves in such a position, as an officer of the court, will have brought a proper application to have the case abated.

Why the Prosecution went on with proceedings when it is obvious that all what the Court was doing amounted to a nullity is best known to them. Precious judicial time had been wasted. Though the Court is aware of the provision of Section 285 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2015, which is against a Private Prosecutor, it is so unfortunate that in our judicial system, we have still not devised ways and means to condemn a Prosecuting Agency of the Government, be it State or Federal, in a criminal action by the payment of heavy cost in situations as this instance, having in mind that a Defendant will have incurred cost in defending the charge, albeit a worthless charge.

It has to be restated that there is no doubt that a counsel is duty bound to present his clients’ case with utmost devotion. But such devotion must be coloured with professional discretion. In other words, counsel must be the master in the conduct of his client’s case and should not be dictated to by his client as to how to conduct the case. It is in recognition of that authority of counsel that Rules 14(c) and 18(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, published as Government Notice No. 69 in Federal Official Gazette No. 5 of 18th January 1980 which deals with how far a lawyer may go in supporting a client’s case and the right of the lawyer to control the incidents of the trial, makes it a provision of a law.

No fear of judicial disfavour of public unpopularity should restrain counsel from the full discharge of his duty. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defence. It must however be borne in mind that the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law…”

The scathing remarks made by the Hon. Justice Oshodi in his ruling marked an extraordinary denouement to a trial which appeared to have generated an unusual media frenzy, perhaps at the prompting of the EFCC. The media currency given to this trial was so intense that an observer may be forgiven for categorizing it as the usual “media trial”, which the EFCC has often been accused of pursuing, as opposed to court-based evidence.

The trial before the Lagos State High Court would seem even more confusing to many Nigerians, when considered against the background of the fact that the Charge centred around a prosecution successfully undertaken by Obla on behalf of the EFCC against a former MD of NIMASA. The charge alleged that Obla bribed a Federal High Court Judge, Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia with N5 million to pervert the course of justice and to secure conviction in Charge No.: FHC/L/C/482C/10 between the Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Raymond Temisan Omatseye. Curiously, the Charge itself filed against Obla was silent in mentioning the names of the parties in Charge No. FHC/L/C/482C/10. This would appear to be because it would have interested the public to know that it was an EFCC matter.

In counts one to four on the charge sheet filed at the Lagos High Court, Obla was said to have offered gratification in the said sum, by transferring the money from his company’s account Obla & Co., domiciled with the United Bank for Africa (UBA), to Nigel & Colive Ltd. The said transfer was alleged to have been made in order to restrain a public officer from acting in exercise of her official duties.

But Obla has since denied the allegation, saying that the payment of N5 million under reference was a payment he made to a company named Nigel & Colive Nigeria Ltd, for the purchase of building materials for his construction site in Abuja. This position was conveyed in a widely circulated Press Release issued by Obla and published in several national dailies on the 9th of November 2016. Obla further clarified that at that material time of the said commercial transaction and till date, he had no knowledge that Justice Ajumogobia had any interest whatsoever in the company.

Interestingly, the EFCC alleged that Obla paid a bribe of N5 million in the case of FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA v. RAYMOND TEMISAN OMATSEYE- in which Obla acted as the prosecutor for the EFCC and which commenced in 2010 and terminated in 2016. This prosecution resulted in a landmark conviction of a former Director-General of NIMASA on allegations of approving contracts in excess of lawful thresholds and other infractions under the Public Procurement Act.

Importantly, the conviction of Mr. Raymond Omatseye was very significant in the fight against corruption and was widely celebrated as the first conviction ever secured by the EFCC under the Public Procurement Act 2007. This was evidently the reason for the EFCC’s celebration of this conviction/Judgment. For instance, the EFCC in its Press Release dated 20th May 2016 which appears on its website www.efccnigeria.org commented on the Judgment as follows:

“After five years of grueling legal battle, justice is finally served as a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos today convicted a former Director General of the Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, NIMASA, Mr. Temisan Omatseye.

Justice Rita Ofili- Ajumogobia in a landmark ruling convicted the former DG on 25 of the 27-count charge bordering on alleged contract variation, bid rigging and awarding contract above his approval limit which violates the provisions of the Public Procurement Act, brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.”

Again, on May 27 2016, the Acting Chairman of the EFCC, whilst speaking at the launch of the “Clean Hands Against Corruption Campaign” at the Eagle Square in Abuja alluded to the conviction of Raymond Omatseye as one of the “140 convictions the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has secured in six months.”

It is indeed curious that the same EFCC which lauded the conviction of Raymond Omatseye made a complete volte face to allege that the conviction was secured as a result of “perversion of justice”, more so as no indication has been given as to whatever motivation Obla might have had to pay a bribe to secure a conviction in a case investigated and presented by the EFCC itself.

By alleging before the Lagos High Court that Obla attempted to “pervert the course of justice” in the case of FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA v. RAYMOND TEMISAN OMATSEYE, was the EFCC contending that the former NIMASA MD ought not to have been convicted, and instead ought to have been discharged and acquitted? If that is the case, it raises pertinent questions about the investigatory and prosecutorial modus operandi of the Commission; as to whether it randomly embarks on prosecutions where it believes the suspect is innocent, whilst proceeding to waste precious public funds in the process.

Again, at the same time as Obla’s prosecution at the Lagos High Court was ongoing for an alleged perversion of justice in the case of FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA v. RAYMOND TEMISAN OMATSEYE, the EFCC was at the Court of Appeal defending that judgment. Invariably, whilst the EFCC was at the Lagos High Court seeking Obla’s conviction for perverting the course of justice in Omatseye’s case, the EFCC was also at the Court of Appeal defending the validity of the conviction in that case and urging the Court of Appeal to sustain it. Surely, this major ambivalence on the same matter as to whether it is a perversion of justice or not raises more questions than answers.

Unfortunately, Obla was ultimately denied the opportunity to clear his name of the allegations at the Lagos High Court, as the charge was struck out for lack of jurisdiction. Obla has however appealed the decision of the Lagos High Court to merely discharge him instead of making an order of acquittal. Strangely, the EFCC, with uncharacteristic speed and in less than 24 hours after the charge filed at the Lagos State High Court was struck out for lack of jurisdiction and after Obla appealed to the Court of Appeal, proceeded to file another charge in Charge No: FHC/139C/19 against Obla and Ajumogobia- this time before the Federal High Court- on the same offences alleged in the previous charge struck out by the Lagos High Court.

Obla’s travails at the hand of the EFCC- an organization he served as a frontline prosecutor for over five years may not be unconnected with a persecution agenda harboured by some elements within the Commission who have a score to settle with him. The circumstances of his case appear to lend credence to this perspective. Obla, for the five years he was prosecuting for the EFCC, consistently moved from one courtroom to the other prosecuting corruption-related cases for the EFCC and obtaining the forfeiture of cash and assets running into several billions of Naira. However, as soon as a new leadership was appointed to head the anti-graft commission, the table turned, and he became the hunted.

First, he was severally invited over his perceived role in the Halliburton case- for which he was appointed by the former Attorney General Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke, as part of the legal team which negotiate the plea bargain agreements with the companies involved in the scandal, which culminated in the recovery of the sum of $200million for the Federal Government of Nigeria. When it looked like the EFCC would not succeed in establishing a case of wrongdoing against him in that case, the now-defunct charge before the Lagos State High Court was filed.

Obla’s travails may not also be unconnected with his suit against the EFCC before the Hon. Justice V.B. Ashi of the High Court of the FCT in SUIT NO: CV/3220/2017 where he is asking for outstanding professional fees owed to him by the EFCC over the period of 5 years to the tune of over N 685,389,928.10 (Six Hundred and Eighty-Five Million, Three Hundred and Eighty-Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira and 10 Kobo). This suit, according to sources, has seriously rattled the EFCC which has reportedly been unable to present any convincing rebuttal of the claim and the considerable evidence presented by Obla in its support.

It is a mystery that after years of seemingly meritorious service to the EFCC in various capacities, particularly as prosecutor in no less than 40 cases involving economic and financial crimes and securing convictions, the EFCC has chosen to treat him with disdain. It remains to be seen whether the pendulum of justice will eventually swing in Obla’s favour.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

OPEN LETTER TO HIS EMINENCE, THE SULTAN OF SOKOTO

Published

on

NIGERIA BELONGS TO ALL OF US

I have written this open letter to His Eminence, Alhaji Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar III, CFR, mni, Sultan of Sokoto and President-General of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, with profound respect for his office and for the historic institution he represents.

This is not an attack on Islam, neither an attack on Christianity.

Also, It is not an attempt to diminish the historical importance of the Sultanate, rather, it is a sincere contribution to a conversation I believe Nigeria must have with greater honesty, courage and intellectual maturity:

What does equal citizenship mean in Nigeria?

Our country has a complex history involving kingdoms, caliphates, indigenous political systems, colonialism, amalgamation, independence, religion, ethnicity and competing political traditions.

But after all that history, one question remains fundamental:

Who does Nigeria belong to? My answer is simple:

Nigeria belongs to all Nigerians.

I am publishing this letter openly because I believe conversations of this magnitude should not be confined to private rooms.

I hope it reaches His Eminence.

More importantly, I hope it reaches Nigerians—Muslims and Christians alike—who believe that our future must be built on equal citizenship, mutual respect, constitutional democracy and a shared sense of belonging.

I invite people to read this letter in that spirit.

Not as a provocation or as a religious argument. But as an invitation to think.

AN OPEN LETTER TO HIS EMINENCE, ALHAJI MUHAMMAD SA’AD ABUBAKAR III, CFR, mni

SULTAN OF SOKOTO AND PRESIDENT-GENERAL, NIGERIAN SUPREME COUNCIL FOR ISLAMIC AFFAIRS

Your Eminence,

OUR HISTORY MUST BE REMEMBERED HONESTLY—BUT IT MUST NOT BECOME A CLAIM ON THE FUTURE

Nigeria’s history contains great Muslim civilisations and political institutions.

Kanem-Bornu, the Hausa states and the Sokoto Caliphate represent important chapters in the history of the territories that eventually became Nigeria.

The Sokoto Caliphate, in particular, became one of the most influential Islamic political formations in West Africa.

That history deserves recognition and respect.

But history presents us with an important question:

Does historical political authority confer permanent political ownership?

I believe the answer must be no.

The British colonial conquest and occupation of the territories that now constitute Nigeria occurred over decades, with the conquest of the Sokoto Caliphate culminating in 1903. The Northern and Southern Protectorates were subsequently amalgamated in 1914, and Nigeria achieved independence in 1960.

Whatever political arrangements existed before colonial consolidation, the Nigeria that emerged as a modern sovereign state ultimately became a constitutional republic in which citizenship could not legitimately be based upon the political history of one religion, ethnic group, kingdom or region.

Nigeria became something larger than all of those histories.

It became a country.
And that country belongs equally to the Muslim, the Christian, the adherent of another faith, and the citizen who professes no religion.

Your Eminence, Nigeria’s Constitution does not establish either Islam or Christianity as the religion of the Nigerian state.

Section 10 provides that:

“The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.”

Section 38 protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Section 42 further provides constitutional protection against discrimination on the basis of religion, among other grounds.

These provisions are not merely legal technicalities. They represent an important national compact.

They establish principles of religious neutrality, religious freedom and equal citizenship.

They tell every Nigerian that his or her fundamental rights cannot legitimately depend upon belonging to the “right” religion.

That principle protects Muslims from Christian majoritarianism just as it protects Christians from Muslim majoritarianism.

And therefore, defending constitutional religious neutrality is not an attack on Islam neither an attack on Christianity.
It is protection for both.

THE DIFFICULT QUESTION OF POLITICAL SYMBOLISM

Your Eminence, this is where I believe our national conversation requires greater intellectual honesty.

A political arrangement can have two realities simultaneously:
its strategic reality and its symbolic reality.

Strategically, politicians may see a particular political ticket as an effective coalition, an electoral calculation, a mechanism for consolidating support or a means of improving political cohesion.

But citizens may interpret exactly the same arrangement symbolically.

They may ask:
Who is represented?
Who is included?
Who is excluded?
What does this say about the distribution of power?
What does this mean for people like me?

This distinction became particularly visible in Nigeria’s debate over the Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket.

Some citizens saw strategy while others saw symbolism.
Some saw political competence, Others saw the possibility of religious exclusion.
Both reactions can exist simultaneously.

A mature democracy must therefore be capable of understanding not only what a political arrangement is, but also what people believe that arrangement means.

This is not an argument against Muslims occupying political office nor should it be an argument against Christians occupying political office.

It is an argument for understanding the enormous responsibility that comes with political symbolism in a deeply religious society.

Political leaders must therefore understand that electoral strategy does not exist in a vacuum. Every political decision is interpreted through the lived experiences, fears, hopes and historical memories of the citizens who encounter it.

That is why responsible leadership requires both strategic intelligence and sensitivity to political meaning.

The Muslim citizen must not feel like a tolerated Nigerian, neither should the Christian.

This is perhaps the most important principle I wish to communicate.

A Christian should never have to feel that his citizenship is conditional upon political accommodation by Muslims. A Muslim should never have to feel that his citizenship is conditional upon political accommodation by Christians.

Neither should have to prove that his loyalty to Nigeria is greater than his loyalty to his faith.

Both should be able to say:

“Nigeria is my country, and nobody needs to give me permission to belong here.”

That is the Nigeria we should be building.

Your Eminence, traditional and religious leaders occupy a unique position in Nigerian society.

Political leaders come and go.
Governments change.
Political parties rise and fall.
But institutions such as the Sultanate carry historical memory.
That gives your words a different weight.

When a politician speaks about religion, Nigerians may suspect political calculation but when a respected religious leader speaks about coexistence, citizenship and national unity, the message can carry a moral authority that politics often cannot achieve.

This is why I believe the Sultanate has an extraordinary opportunity.

Not merely to speak for Muslims, But to speak to Nigeria.
To say clearly that the greatness of Islam in Nigeria does not require the political diminishment of Christianity. And equally, that the flourishing of Christianity in Nigeria does not require the political diminishment of Islam.

The strength of one faith should not require the weakness of another.

The security of one community should not depend upon the insecurity of another.

And the political advancement of one Nigerian should never require the political humiliation of another Nigerian simply because of religion.

WE SHOULD MOVE BEYOND THE COMPETITION FOR RELIGIOUS OWNERSHIP OF NIGERIA

There is a dangerous psychological temptation in deeply divided societies.

Each community begins to measure its security by the amount of power the other community possesses.

Then politics becomes a permanent struggle for religious arithmetic.

Who has the President?
Who has the Vice President?
Who controls the security institutions?
Who appoints judges?
Who controls the legislature?
Who controls the governors?
Who controls the economy?
And eventually, citizens stop asking the most important question:
Does the country work for everyone?

That is where we must break the cycle.

Nigeria cannot become great by producing a permanent contest between Muslim political power and Christian political power.

It can become great when both communities begin demanding something larger:

competent political power exercised for the common good.

The ultimate measure of political leadership should not be the religion of the person holding office.

It should be the quality of governance, the protection of citizens, the fairness of institutions, the security of communities and the opportunity available to every Nigerian.

PERHAPS OUR GREATEST NATIONAL TEST IS NOT RELIGIOUS DOMINANCE—BUT MUTUAL TRUST

Your Eminence, I believe Nigeria’s deepest problem is not simply that Muslims distrust Christians or Christians distrust Muslims.

It is that decades of political competition, violence, injustice, insecurity, corruption and unequal experiences of citizenship have created an enormous deficit of trust.

Religious suspicion is often the language through which that distrust expresses itself.

Therefore, if we want to defeat religious tension, we must do more than preach tolerance.

We must build institutions that make tolerance unnecessary as a condition of citizenship.

A Nigerian should not need to be tolerated.
He should simply be equal.
A Christian should not need a Muslim’s permission to belong.
A Muslim should not need a Christian’s permission to belong.

Our common citizenship should be the foundation upon which our religious differences are accommodated—not the other way around.

Your Eminence, I respectfully propose that Nigeria’s most respected Muslim and Christian leaders begin a different kind of conversation.

Not another conference where speeches are made and photographs taken.

But a serious national dialogue around five questions:

  1. What does equal citizenship actually mean in Nigeria?
  2. How should religious diversity influence political representation without becoming a mechanism for religious entitlement?
  3. How do we distinguish legitimate political strategy from symbolism that creates unnecessary fear or exclusion?
  4. How can traditional and religious institutions help rebuild trust between communities?
  5. What constitutional, institutional and political reforms are necessary to ensure that no Nigerian believes the country belongs more to another citizen than to himself?

These are difficult questions. But perhaps Nigeria has spent too many decades avoiding difficult questions because they are uncomfortable. And perhaps the price of that avoidance is becoming too high.

Your Eminence, history gives leaders a choice.
Every generation inherits history. But every generation also decides what to do with it.
We can use history as a weapon or wisdom

We can teach our children that Nigeria is a battlefield between religious communities.
Or we can teach them that Muslims and Christians inherited a complicated country together and have the responsibility to make it work together.

We can continue competing over who has the greater historical claim.

Or we can build a country where historical claims do not determine the value of a citizen.

I respectfully believe the latter is worthy of the office you occupy.

The greatest legacy of a historical institution is not merely that it preserves the memory of what once was.

It is that it helps a nation decide what it can become.

My final appeal Your Eminence, I do not ask you to abandon Islam.

I ask you to help Nigerians understand that Islam does not need Nigeria to belong exclusively to Muslims for Muslims to belong completely to Nigeria.

And I would say the same to Christian leaders:

Christianity does not need Nigeria to belong exclusively to Christians for Christians to belong completely to Nigeria.

The future must therefore be bigger than both arguments.

Nigeria must belong to Nigerians.

Not to Muslims.

Not to Christians.

Not to Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, Tiv, Fulani, Igala, Idoma, Nupe, or any other ethnic nationality.

Not to the North.

Not to the South.

Not to one historical institution.

To all of us.

That, in my humble view, is the foundation upon which a truly united Nigeria can eventually be built.

I respectfully submit this thought to Your Eminence—not as an accusation, but as an invitation to a deeper national conversation.

May our religious differences become a source of moral strength rather than political division.

May our history become a source of wisdom rather than entitlement.

May our political differences never become a justification for denying one another’s citizenship.

And may the Nigeria we leave our children be a country in which neither Muslim nor Christian ever has to ask:

“Does this country belong to me?”
Because the answer should always be:

“Yes. It is your country too.”

With profound respect,

Dr. Mike Achadu
A Nigerian Citizen

Continue Reading

Opinion

OF GOVERNANCE AND THE ZULUMFICATION OF GOVERNANCE IN BORNO: RANDOM MUSSINGS ON GOV. ZULUM’S 3RD YEAR 2ND STANZA.

Published

on

By

By: Inuwa Bwala. inuwabwala3@gmail.com

By the time I put down my pen, the media space would have been awash with narratives about the achievements of Mr President and governors, as a mark of celeberation of their third year in office.
I will not bother chronicling what will be told of their achievements, rather I want to look into the curious magic wand that made my own governor to stand differently tall.
One will not find the definition of title coinage for this piece in any conventional English lexicon, but no Nigerian will claim ignorance of what it signifies in our present governance discourse.
Many words have today been personified after certain people, who popularize an idiosyncritic mannerism.
And so, in Borno’s 15-year war against insurgency, Governor Babagana Umara Zulum seem to have chosen an unconventional playbook: governance style, reminisceint of an emergency doctor, not a distant administrator, which led to above coinage.
Three idiosyncrasies define his second term in particular, and the gains are showing on the ground to the effect that, these idiosyncracies gave rise to the coinage: Zulumfication.

Zulum’s trademark has been his unannounced visits; 2am checks on General Hospitals, surprise trips to IDP camps in Monguno, Baga, Damboa and others. Sudden stops on bad roads in Gwoza and unsheduled night overs in dangerous localities, as his routine.
He inspects projects with torchlight and asks hard questions: sometimes sacking absentee staff on the spot.
And the gains have added speed and discipline to government Contracts and civil servants.
They promptly deliver, knowing Zulum could appear any day any time.
This obviously explains how, 238 projects got completed in year one of his second term and 1,195 projects in five years. That urgency earned Governor Babagana Umara Zulum the Nigeria Union of Journalist’s Good Governance Award on Education in 2023.
And while Borno spent about N100bn on security in 2025, Zulum kept prioritizing people, with N727m going to 28,801 tertiary students. N1.5bn covered nursing students’ fees, besides the cash support reacheming 343,293 women.
His logic, has been that, “Education is the real antidote for insurgency. The payoff is human recovery.
Records indicate that, over 1,000 teachers were recruited, 150+ schools rebuilt, and the 104 Mega School Initiative launched. And so, when President Tinubu commissioned three mega schools in Maiduguri in 2026, he called them “tangible evidence of effective governance.” Kids who once hawked on Maiduguri streets are back in class because opportunity replaced despair.

Again, Zulum is known to have zero tolerance for waste. He has queried commissioners live on TV, sacked ghost workers, and confronted contractors who abandoned sites. It nay be uncomfortable in politics, but it works. Borno scored 89.7/100 on the 2025 Governance Accountability & Transparency Index, up from 86.3 in 2024, ranking among Nigeria’s top 10. Ministries now expect scrutiny, and leakages have shrunk.

Zulum blends this with reconstruction plus reconciliation. While 20,000+ resettlement homes house over 1 million returned IDPs, his “Borno Model” has convinced 200,000+ fighters and families to surrender and got reintegrated. Markets in Bama, Dikwa and Gwoza are reopening. Roads are being rebuilt, though insecurity still stalls some projects in southern Borno.

He remains low-profiled but with very high-output, avoiding political noise and letting the work speak. The Muslim News Nigeria honored him with its 2025 Transformational Leadership Award for “courage, accountability, compassion.”

Perfection is not claimed. Pockets of violence persist, and security costs strain finances, but Zulum’s style proves a point
In a crisis situation, presence builds trust, empathy rebuilds people, and accountability restores institutions. Borno is moving from “state of emergency” to “state of reconstruction” — one unannounced visit produces uncommon results.
Thiese in my opinion are amingst the exceptional things governor Babagana Umara has done, which have given rise to his national acclaim as an outstanding performer.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Aondoakaa, a Leader Who Opens Doors: My Personal Story of Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN

Published

on

By

By Iorwuese Tyopev, PhD

Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, is, in my experience, a transformational leader, and I can personally testify to this from years of direct engagement with him.

Although I initially knew him only casually as an elder brother from Ushongo, our relationship deepened when I approached him to patronise the business I managed as a hotel manager in Abuja. From that point, Siman Suites in Garki became his preferred accommodation whenever he was in the Federal Capital Territory.

Each time he was travelling to Abuja, his usual call would come: “Tyopev, my brother, please keep a room for me, I’m on my way.”

A defining moment in 2006

One of the most memorable moments in our relationship came in 2006 when he was conferred with the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). For his swearing-in ceremony at the Supreme Court, he booked almost the entire hotel for family, friends, and well-wishers who travelled from far and near to celebrate with him.

Beyond the business value, his consistent patronage strengthened my professional standing at the time and positively influenced my performance evaluation at work.

Continued relationship in public service

Our relationship continued after his appointment as Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice in July 2007 under the administration of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.

Coincidentally, around the same period, my late boss, Senator J.I. Akaagerger, was elected into office and invited me to serve as his Senior Legislative Aide at the National Assembly. Chief Aondoakaa also expressed interest in bringing me into the Ministry of Justice as an aide. Although I chose to remain with my principal at the National Assembly, he respected my decision and maintained a cordial, brotherly relationship with me.

Prison decongestion intervention

Shortly after assuming office as Minister, he launched a prison decongestion initiative. In September 2007, I submitted an application requesting allocation of prison decongestion cases. He immediately asked whether I had legal representation, and upon confirmation, he promptly assigned several cases to me.

That support continued throughout his tenure until 2010.

Career support and mentorship

By mid-2008, I expressed dissatisfaction with my role at the National Assembly. He advised patience and assured me of better opportunities.

True to his word, in January 2009, he informed me of an opportunity with Dr Paul Orhii, then Director-General of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), who agreed to engage me as Special Assistant.

Although I resumed duty, I was later informed—within 30 days—that my services were no longer required due to a change in preference. Chief Aondoakaa was abroad at the time, but upon his return, he reassured me, saying: “Don’t worry, another opportunity will come.”

New opportunity at NAPTIP

Shortly after, I was invited to his residence in Apo, where I met Barr. Simon Chuzi Egede, MON, who had just been appointed Executive Secretary of the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP).

There, I was informed that I would serve as Special Assistant to the new Executive Secretary.

In a remarkable turn of events, I received my appointment letter the next day as Special Assistant at Grade Level 16 Step 5, along with an official vehicle and chauffeur. I was also integrated into top management committees and exposed to both national and international engagements.

End of an era and lasting gratitude

Following the death of President Yar’Adua in 2010 and subsequent political changes, Chief Aondoakaa left office as Minister, which also affected my position at NAPTIP due to its political nature.

Looking back, I remain deeply grateful to Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, for his loyalty, mentorship, and willingness to uplift others.

Some leaders inspire with words; others transform lives through action. Chief Aondoakaa, in my experience, belongs firmly to the latter category.

NB: This is Part 1 of a series of reflections on my personal experience with MKA, highlighting his mentorship and support to those around him, shared in anticipation of his birthday on June 12.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.