Analysis
The wages of presidential subterfuge
On the evening of 5 April 2012, the prime-time bulletin on the television news of the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC), announced to the country that the president, Ngwazi Professor Bingu wa Mutharika, “had been taken ill and had been flown to South Africa for specialist treatment.”
At another end of the capital city, Lilongwe, a presidential convoy was on its way to the Kamuzu International Airport (KIA) where an air ambulance awaited with instructions to fly to South Africa a president who was supposedly alive but unwell.
Earlier in the day, around 11:00 in the morning, Ngwazi Professor Bingu had collapsed while receiving in audience the Member of Parliament representing the south-east constituency of the capital city, Lilongwe, Agnes Penemulungu.
The judicial commission of inquiry which later investigated what transpired thereafter received evidence which showed quite clearly that the presidential court had not prepared nor practiced for the possibility of a life-and-death emergency involving the president. Elton Singini, a senior judge, chaired the inquiry.
The commission of inquiry established as a fact that the president died earlier in the day inside the ambulance en route to Kamuzu Central Hospital in the capital city. According to the inquiry report, “the President was brought in dead (BID) at Kamuzu Central Hospital [KCH] at around 11.25 in the morning” of 5 April.
At the time of the news bulletin announcing that he was to be flown to South Africa later on the same day, President Bingu had been dead for over eight hours. Despite being aware of this, the presidential retinue instructed staff at the hospital to apply cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the president’s remains for over two hours. In the process, they crushed his rib-cage.
More was to follow. At the airport, the air ambulance pilots from South Africa declined to board the body, citing the fact that their permission was to fly with a patient not a corpse. High-level conversations ensued between Lilongwe and Pretoria.
It may have helped and was certainly relevant that Malawi’s Foreign Minister at the time was Peter Mutharika, President Bingu’s younger brother who was also intent on stepping into the shoes of his just-deceased brother. Peter needed time to set the wheels in motion to leap-frog Vice-President, Joyce Banda in the succession stakes.
South Africa’s President, Jacob Zuma who had retired for the day had to be woken up to personally authorize the flight. Shortly after mid-night on 6 April 2012, the air ambulance took off for South Africa. In Malawi, the people were told their president was headed to South Africa for medical attention.
In South Africa, the authorities knew that the air ambulance on its way from Lilongwe would arrive with the dead body of Malawi’s president. Shortly after 02:30 on 6 April, the aircraft landed at South Africa’s National Defence Force (SANDF) Waterkloof Airbase on the outskirts of Pretoria. From there, the corpse was transferred to a mortuary.
The authors of all this malign chicanery designed to deceive the people of Malawi, however, forgot to also notify the processes of bio-chemistry. By the time the body arrived the morgue in South Africa, it had been “in the open without refrigeration for about 18 hours after death.”
As a result, the very important and high-profile invitees to the state funeral of President Bingu which took place on 23 April, 2012, had to endure the uncomfortable company of flies, as well as the majestic fragrance of human putrefaction. As the report of the Justice Elton Singini Commission of Inquiry recorded, “the body had started decomposing as evidenced by the smell and a few flies hovering around.”
Four years earlier, in August 2008, Levy Mwanawasa, the president of neighbouring Zambia, died in a military hospital near Paris in France. While attending the summit of the African Union in Cairo, Egypt, on 29 June 2008, President Mwanawasa had collapsed following what was later understood to be an aneurysm (Stroke).
He was stabilized there before being transferred to France where he died two months later. At his death, it came out that two years earlier, during his first term as president in 2006, President Mwanawasa had suffered an earlier stroke. For that, he received extended treatment in the United Kingdom. No one told Zambians.
The year after the death of President Mwanawasa, in June 2009, Omar Bongo, who had ruled Gabon for 41 years died in hospital in Spain.
When he left Libreville at the beginning of the previous month, his compatriots believed that their president, the doyen and favourite of France Afrique, was away on a working visit – a phrase all too familiar to Nigerians – to his favourite haunts in Europe.
At his death, it emerged that more than one month before his death, President Bongo had been hospitalized for cancer treatment in Spain.
President Bongo was not the last long-serving African president to die in Spain. On 8 July 2022, former Angolan president, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, also died there after prolonged cancer treatment.
Following his death, a family crisis broke out over his funeral, which delayed the repatriation of his remains to Luanda for more than one month. Six weeks after his death, in the third week of August 2022, a judge in Spain finally authorized the return of the body of President dos Santos to Angola for burial.
When he departed Abuja on 2 April, the presidency issued a statement claiming that Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nigeria’s president, was off to France on a “short working visit”, during which he would “retreat to review the progress of ongoing reforms and engage in strategic planning ahead of his administration’s second anniversary.”
The statement barely stopped short of telling Nigerians that their president was headed to Lourdes for the grace of its historic apparitions.
President Tinubu is a Muslim; it was in the middle of the Christian season of Lent and no one had apparently bothered to advise him or his image makers that it is usually Christians who undertake two week-long retreats in the middle of this season.
The day after the end of the initially announced 14 days, the same presidential retinue disclosed that the president had relocated from France to the United Kingdom, from where he was doing an excellent job as Nigeria’s president in Europe.
The evidence seems inescapable that President Tinubu has significant health challenges and needs regular medical attention from doctors overseas. For this, his destination of choice is clearly France. In 22 months as president, Tinubu has made at least eight trips to France under different guises for a cumulative period of over 60 days.
While he’s been away this time, hundreds – if not more Nigerians – had been killed in massacres in different parts of the country. As president, Tinubu is also the Commander-in-Chief of Nigeria’s armed and security forces.
Yet, from Europe, he is reported to be passing the buck to state governors to do that which only he has the tools to accomplish under Nigeria’s constitution.
Excluding the five years and three months of the presidency of Goodluck Jonathan from February 2010 to May 2015, Nigeria has had a presidency in near-permanent occupancy of sanatoriums overseas for 15 years.
The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), which Tinubu led, was aggressively voluble in asking for candour on the health status of a terminally ill President Umaru Yar’Adua, Jonathan’s predecessor in office.
After going into marriage with Muhammadu Buhari’s Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) to create the All Progressives Congress (APC), the coalition made virtue of onlooking when Buhari took up residence in foreign hospitals for much of his presidency.
It should be no news that a man of President Tinubu’s age is unwell. Those invested in concealing that reality from Nigerians are more interested in protecting their present perquisites than in the well-being of their principal or of the country.
The presidency is more than just an office. For those around the occupant of the office, it also means money, power, and privilege. To preserve it, most people in and around the presidency take liberties, sometimes, even with the health and well-being of their principal or with accountability to the people in whose name the president holds office. For the country and even for the president, the wages of this interminable subterfuge are prohibitive.
A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu.
*By Ofonime Honesty
For years, the story of small businesses has been one of resilient hustle hampered by a familiar adversary: access to capital. A struggling tailor with a waiting list of clients cannot afford an industrial machine. A rural farmer watches his business struggle due to his inability to expand and invest in modern tools. Even the tech startup with a brilliant idea operates on little, or zero budget.
This narrative is what the Akwa Ibom State Government and the Bank of Industry (BOI) are aiming to rewrite with a landmark N4 billion intervention fund, one of the most significant private sector injections the state has seen in recent years.
Announced recently, the comprehensive loan scheme for Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) is designed to be more than just a cash disbursement. Its objectives are multi-faceted: create over 5,000 new jobs, stimulate economic growth, boost agricultural productivity, and ultimately enhance household welfare across the state’s communities.
The program represents a deliberate and structured intervention to build the economy from the ground up. Rather than simply giving out loans, the initiative focuses on investing in the businesses that form the backbone of the local economy and equipping them for sustainable growth.
The programme framework outlines clear eligibility criteria aimed at ensuring transparency and impact. To qualify, businesses must be formally registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) and have their operational headquarters within Akwa Ibom State.
Applicants must also provide valid means of identification during the application process.
The application process is a four-stage journey designed to vet and prepare applicants. It begins with online submission of business details through the official portal at https://aksgboiloan.akwaibominvest.ng, followed by a rigorous document verification stage where applicants must upload all required supporting documents.
Crucially, successful applicants will not receive funds immediately but will undergo mandatory capacity-building training with the Ibom Leadership and Entrepreneurship Development (Ibom-LED) agency before final approval and disbursement.
This training component serves as the soul of the scheme, building business acumen alongside providing financial capital. The approach aims to ensure businesses thrive long after the loan has been repaid.
For aspiring entrepreneurs dreaming of expanding their operations, the application portal is a gateway to possibilities.
This intervention is a game-changer since MSMEs represent one of largest employers of labour in any developing economy, and injecting N4 billion directly into this sector will definitely create significant ripple effects.
By Emeka Ugwuonye
6. Did the Court of Appeal decide that Kanu should not be tried for treasonable felony?
ANSWER: Not quite. While the Court of Appeal made a ruling regarding Kanu’s trial, that judgment was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. As a result, the findings of the Court of Appeal have become irrelevant.
Currently, the law is defined by the judgment of the Supreme Court, which takes precedence over any previous appellate rulings. This means that Kanu can indeed be tried for treasonable felony, as the Supreme Court has upheld the charges against him. In legal terms, the most recent and authoritative ruling is what matters, and at this moment, that ruling supports the continuation of Kanu’s trial for the offenses he faces. It’s essential to recognize that legal outcomes are shaped by the highest court’s decisions, not by earlier judgments that have been overturned.
7. Should the judge have explained to him all these things when he asked the judge that question in court?
ANSWER: No, the judge should not have provided that explanation. Doing so would have amounted to the judge offering the kind of assistance that is typically provided by legal counsel. Nnamdi Kanu made the choice to represent himself, which means he cannot expect the judge to clarify or elaborate on legal matters outside the established rules of the court.
Moreover, Kanu’s question was posed in the context of his challenge to the court’s jurisdiction. This issue will be addressed in the court’s forthcoming judgment, and it would be inappropriate for the court to divulge information that pertains to a decision that has yet to be rendered. Judges must maintain impartiality and adhere to proper judicial protocol. Providing guidance or clarity on legal questions during court proceedings could compromise that impartiality and undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
In summary, it is essential for defendants to seek clarification and understanding from their legal counsel rather than from the judge. The legal system is designed to ensure that each party is responsible for navigating it according to established procedures and rules. By choosing to represent himself, Kanu has placed himself in a position where he must rely on his own understanding of the law, and the court must remain neutral, providing a level playing field for all parties involved.
8. What is the implication of Nnamdi Kanu representing himself?
ANSWER: Representing himself is arguably the gravest mistake Nnamdi Kanu could make. While he has the legal right to defend himself, this is a right that no reasonable person should choose to exercise in a complex legal battle. It’s akin to firing your doctor and attempting to perform an appendectomy on yourself—an act fraught with peril and devoid of sound judgment.
Self-representation in legal proceedings can lead to disastrous consequences, as it places the individual at a significant disadvantage. The law is intricate, filled with procedural rules and nuanced arguments that require expert knowledge and experience to navigate effectively. By opting to represent himself, Kanu risks undermining his defense and jeopardizing his position in court.
Furthermore, there appears to be an inclination for Kanu to enjoy the spotlight and assert his voice, but that desire should not override practical legal considerations. The courtroom is not a forum for personal expression but a formal setting where skilled attorneys utilize their expertise to advocate for their clients’ best interests. By eschewing professional legal representation, Kanu not only diminishes his chances for a favorable outcome but also engages in a self-defeating strategy that could have serious ramifications for his case.
In summary, while the choice to represent oneself is protected under the law, it is rarely a wise decision—especially in a high-stakes legal environment like the one Kanu finds himself in. Professional legal representation is crucial for ensuring that rights are upheld and justice is pursued effectively. Ignoring this reality is a significant miscalculation that Kanu may come to regret.
9. What is the implication of him refusing to present his defense?
ANSWER: Initially, I considered the possibility that his decision might be a strategic one. However, it has become clear that this refusal to present a defense is a significant miscalculation. By not offering a defense, Nnamdi Kanu leaves himself completely vulnerable, providing no counterarguments against the allegations and evidence brought forth by the prosecution. As a result, the prosecution has a clear path to victory.
Without any defense to challenge the prosecution’s case, the court is effectively compelled to convict him. The legal principle at play is that the court has already established that the prosecution has presented a prima facie case—which means they have provided sufficient evidence for the case to proceed. Kanu’s failure to defend himself means that he is allowing the prosecution’s arguments to stand unopposed.
This situation puts Kanu at a serious disadvantage and effectively undermines any chance he had of achieving a favorable outcome. When a defendant does not testify or present evidence in their favor, the court is left with only the prosecution’s narrative, increasing the likelihood of a conviction. It is crucial in any legal proceeding for a defendant to engage actively in their defense, as neglecting to do so can lead to a self-inflicted defeat.
10. Can Kanu be tried in Nigeria for broadcasts he made outside Nigeria?
ANSWER: Yes, Kanu can indeed be tried in Nigeria for statements made outside the country. The law takes into account the location where the effects of an action occur, rather than where that action was carried out. A person can commit treasonable felonies or incitement from abroad, especially if the incitement has the potential to impact individuals or events in Nigeria.
The crucial factor is where the individuals being incited are located or where the unlawful act is intended to be executed. This principle underlines the legal precedent that holds individuals accountable for their words and actions, regardless of their physical location at the time.
Moreover, the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2013 was specifically amended to extend its reach beyond Nigeria’s borders, allowing for the prosecution of offenses committed outside the country if they have implications within Nigeria. This means that Kanu’s statements from abroad could fall under the jurisdiction of Nigerian law, especially if they are perceived to incite unlawful activities or threaten national security.
In summary, Kanu’s geographical location does not absolve him from accountability under Nigerian law. He can be prosecuted for his statements made outside Nigeria as long as those statements have consequences within the country. This legal framework emphasizes the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions, irrespective of where those actions are conducted.
By Emeka Ugwuonye
There has been so many false information flying around about the case of Nnamadi Kanu. Unfortunately, many people are believing such false claims and are actually relying on them. Hence, I will identify 24 such false claims and debunk them.
1. Was the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013 ever repealed?
ANSWER: No, the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2013 has not been repealed. The Act was an amendment to the original Terrorism (Prevention) Act of 2011 and introduced important changes, including provisions for extra-territorial application of the law and enhancements related to terrorist financing offenses.
2. Did the Nigerian Supreme Court rule that Nnamdi Kanu cannot be tried under the Terrorism Act?
ANSWER: The Nigerian Supreme Court did not explicitly rule that Nnamdi Kanu cannot be tried under the Terrorism Act. In October 2022, the Supreme Court of Nigeria dismissed the appeal filed by Kanu challenging the charge of terrorism against him, stating that his initial issue regarding jurisdiction was not substantiated, and the lower courts had the right to adjudicate the case. The court effectively upheld the earlier decisions that allowed for Kanu’s trial to proceed.
3. Is it true that Nnamdi Kanu is not being tried under a written law as the Constitution requires?
ANSWER: All the seven counts proffered against Nnamdi Kanu in the ongoing trial are based on written laws, principal the Criminal Code Act and the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, both of which are written laws.
4. Is it true that Kanu does not know the law under which he was charged?
ANSWER: No, that is not true. Kanu knows the law and sections of the law under which the charges against him were brought. He became aware the moment they handed his charging documents and he read the charges against him. Each count of the charge states what he is alleged to have done wrong, the date and place where he did it and the law which declared his alleged actions to be a crime. Also, during his arraignment, the court official read out the charges to his hearing in open court and he was asked if he understood each charge and he answered Yes before pleading to each charge.
5. What offense exactly did the government of Nigeria accuse Nnamdi Kanu of committing?
ANSWER: The offenses the accused Kanu of committing fall into two groups. The first group is treasonable felony, which basically accuses Kanu of doing certain things with the intention and purpose of intimidating and threatening the officials of government with the purpose of forcing them to change policy – the secession of Biafra. The second group is the defamation of President Buhari. (This is the weakest of all the offences charged).
The third group relates to the terrorism offenses. Here is accused of incitement (the sit-at-home orders). These offenses are well-spelled out in the charging documents.
-
News7 days agoBREAKING: Nnamdi Kanu writes Trump, calls for US inquiry in S’east killings
-
World7 days agoUS Congress Introduces Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Bill
-
News5 days agoShari’ah Council urges Tinubu to immediately sack INEC chairman
-
World6 days agoBREAKING: US Revokes Visas of 80,000 Nigerians, Others
-
Analysis6 days agoHow Nnamdi Kanu’s claim that the Nigerian court lacks the authority to try him falls flat
-
News6 days agoBREAKING: Judge sets date for judgement in Nnamdi Kanu’s trial
-
News6 days agoBREAKING: Nnamdi Kanu capitulates, agrees to open his defense
-
News6 days agoGet ready for onslaught against terrorists — Army chief tells troops
-
News2 days agoTension in Abuja as soldiers block Wike from entering disputed land
-
News6 days agoMan rapes, strangles woman to death in Rivers State