Connect with us
Maduka University Advert

News

Dismantling of ‘All Eyes on Judiciary’ Billboards: It’s beginning of dictatorship in Nigeria, Nigerians slam FG

Published

on

President Bola Tinubu and the controversial signboard
Spread the love

In a bold and thought-provoking move, billboards emblazoned with the phrase ‘All Eyes on the Judiciary’ recently sprang up across Abuja, capturing the attention of passersby.

Similarly, on the streets and in the markets across the country, it has become fashionable for the youths and women to adorn T-shirts and carry bags with ‘All Eyes on the Judiciary’ message.

This development sparked a heated debate within Nigeria’s advertising and legal communities.

However, the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria, ARCON, swiftly deemed the billboards offensive and issued an order for their immediate removal.

The council also suspended its top officials for allowing the erection of the billboards while also disbanding their unit.

Director General of ARCON, Olalekan Fadolapo, said, “the advertisement is considered a blackmail against the Nigerian judiciary, the presidential election petition tribunal and particularly the justices of the tribunal who are expected to discharge their judicial functions without fear or favour over a matter that is currently jus pendis”.

Maduka College Advert

This has left many pondering the implications of the council’s action for free speech and the upcoming judgments on the 2023 election petition cases.

The controversy surrounding the erection of the billboards has therefore ignited a nationwide discussion on the delicate balance between freedom of expression and responsible advertising.

Saturday Vanguard reports that some former state attorney-generals, lawyers, and activists who reacted to the action criticized the Federal Government, said nothing was disparaging about the billboards, and the message conveyed, while some citizens defended the government, insisting the billboards were unnecessary.

Nothing odious about the message- Nwoko, SAN

A former Attorney-General of Akwa Ibom State, Uwemedimo Nwoko, SAN, said: “As a lawyer, I see nothing offensive about the billboard or the message that it carries. I do not see why the government should take offence about such a billboard, except if there is anything in their conscience that makes it offensive.

Otherwise, I believe that if anybody says, ‘All eyes on you,’ it is for good because they are expecting you to do the right thing. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the message of that billboard. I believe those who find the message offensive may think it is putting the judiciary on edge. However, this is truly my opinion.

Usman Dan Fodio said conscience is an open wound, and only the truth can heal it, so for me, if you work with a clear conscience and somebody says ‘all eyes are on you’, you should be happy and say ‘expect I will deliver on it’. I will not find myself as attacked or antagonized by that.

But if I have anything to hide and I do not intend to do the right thing, once somebody says ‘all eyes are on me,’ I will get jittery, and worried because what I will deliver will not be the expectation of the right- thinking members of the society. That is why I am worried the government is worried about that message”

It’s beginning of dictatorship in Nigeria —Ukpai Ukiro

Legal luminary, Chief Ukpai Ukiro, described the pulling down of the billboard with the inscription “ All Eyes Are on The Judiciary”, by the Federal Government as the beginning of dictatorship in Nigeria.

Ukiro who spoke with Saturday Vanguard in Umuahia said:”It’s a breach of right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression. That is the beginning of dictatorship. Once the Government is jittery or afraid of expression of free speech it begins to drift towards dictatorship. By the action of the Federal Government, the first step on the ignoble path of dictatorship has been taken. And that is why everybody who is a lover of democracy in Nigeria must rise up to condemn this and stand against it, otherwise we are doomed democratically “.

Danger signal to our democracy —Austin Mbaka

Another Abia-based legal practitioner, Mr Austin Mbaka, also condemned the action of the Federal Government, describing it as a danger signal to democracy in Nigeria. Mbaka further said it was a sign that the Federal Government was already uncomfortable over the possible outcome of the Presidential Election Petitions Court.

“I think the Federal Government is apprehensive about the outcome of the Presidential Election Petitions Court. Otherwise, I didn’t see any reason it would have dismantled the billboard that says all eyes are on the judiciary.

The message is not offensive in any way. Are all eyes not on the judiciary now? The bitter truth is that all eyes and of course, all ears are on the judiciary. We are all listening and watching to know what the judiciary will come up with concerning the pending election matter.

It’s also a violation of the right of freedom of speech of those who erected the billboard. We have freedom of speech in Nigeria. If those behind the message had made the necessary payments and got their receipts, the federal government had no right to act the way it did”

Message not offensive to right-thinking person —Atedo Peterside

In his own contribution, Atedo Peterside, founder of Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc and Anap Foundation, argued that the “All Eyes On The Judiciary” slogan recently seen on billboards across the country is far from being offensive.

In a tweet last Friday, Peterside said the slogan should not have been offensive to a right-thinking person. He said, “For the record, methinks #AllEyesOnTheJudiciary is a neutral slogan that should ordinarily not offend a right-thinking and sincere person in a civilised society.

I can understand someone rejecting a negative slogan like let us turn our noses up at the judiciary. Enough said.”

It is proper that eyes be on the judiciary–Ogwuche, lawyer

A legal practitioner, International Law advocate, and social activist, Festus Ogwuche, said: “The people responsible for billboards have their rights to freedom of speech and there is nothing in the publication that entails the withdrawal or derogation from that rights that is fundamental.

Indeed, it is a clarion call to the judiciary to understand the depth of feelings of the vast generality of the populace on the sacredness of the duty upon them to dispense justice with fairness and objectivity, and we make this call daily to remind the sector of this responsibility.

There is no social advocacy greater than this, particularly, as we are experiencing great failures and downturns in the judicial system that are becoming a huge threat to our existence as a nation.

Now, from that prediction, why would anybody think that it is offensive for one to demand that eyes should be on the judiciary? Are there guarantees that the present judicial officers that have churned out mind-boggling and unacceptable decisions that do not meet the minimum criteria or standards of justice have turned new leaves and the prospects of a wholesome adjudication devoid of useless technicalities and travesties are now workable? Is there any sign that the high-level corruption which the ICPC 2022 report finds the judicial sector deeply mired in has abated one bit? Yes, all eyes must be on the judiciary that has derogated from the nobility of its sanctity into the enclave of murk and putrid mockery disdain, and stench.

Eyes must be on the judiciary, which failure to stand up to its constitutional duties has resulted in the current doom and hopelessness that currently engulfed our dear nation.

We must not only put our eyes on the judiciary but also point fingers menacingly at it, for it is the abdication of justice stable for the esoteric lure, fascination of judicial drudgery, and lucre that impugn its integrity”.

The billboards didn’t say ‘All Guns on the Judiciary’ — Effiong, legal practitioner

Mr Inibehe Effiong, a prominent public interest and human rights lawyer emphasized the significance of the message conveyed by the billboards and the importance of closely monitoring the judiciary ahead of the upcoming judgements on the 2023 election petition cases.

According to him, “in the context of the upcoming 2023 election petition cases, it is paramount that we keep a close eye on the judiciary. Openness, accessibility, and accountability are the bedrocks of justice in any society, and citizens have the right to demand them from all branches of government.

Even the judiciary knows that all eyes are on it regarding the presidential election petitions. It is unacceptable and pathetic for some partisan individuals to abuse government power and deploy government agencies to clamp down on a harmless message.

Are not all eyes on the judiciary? Is there anyone in Nigeria who is not watching to see the outcome of the presidential election petition proceedings? This does not amount to a threat against the Justices of the Court of Appeal who are handling the cases; rather, the billboards merely express citizens’ interest in electoral litigation. The public was granted access to observe the proceedings, which were not held in secret. Justice is not afraid of the scrutiny of the people or the public’s interest in the administration of justice.

I fail to see how the phrase ‘All Eyes on the Judiciary’ is sub judice. The billboards did not say ‘All Guns are on the Judiciary.’ The position of ARCON, stating that the billboards were taken down because the cases are in court, lacks legal basis.

The law does not prohibit lawyers from commenting on the cases they are handling in court, as long as they do not do so in a manner that prejudices the outcome of the case. The inscriptions on the billboards are not even couched in a partisan manner; they don’t mention any political party. The eyes of all politicians are on the judiciary, including President Bola Tinubu and the Director-General of ARCON. Thus, this is just sickening hypocrisy.

If people have something they are hiding, they should be straightforward about it and stop trivializing such a serious matter. The government’s action amounts to a violation of the right to freedom of expression. The fact that some people are offended by those billboards is not enough reason to have them removed. The courts have ruled that the right to free speech is meaningless if people are not allowed to express views that may offend others, as long as they haven’t crossed the bounds of the law.”

Nigerians not bereft of creative ideas —Monye

Moses Monye, a rights advocate emphasized that the billboards served as a reminder for Nigerians to pay attention to the judiciary, particularly with regards to the upcoming judgments on the election petition cases.

He expressed disappointment at their removal and highlighted the necessity for stakeholders to engage in open discussions regarding the state of the justice system and to hold the nation’s institutions accountable.

Monye emphasized that the utilization of alternative methods by Nigerians to bypass the restrictions on billboards reflects a deep-rooted yearning for effective governance and a sense of order within the country.

He stated, “If you remove billboards, Nigerians will resort to posters; if you remove posters, they will resort to stickers; and if you remove stickers, people will end up becoming walking billboards, much like the style of the Lords Chosen. This highlights the level of frustration currently experienced by Nigerians. Do you know why? All eyes are on the judiciary.”

Erect more billboards–Dr. Mudiaga-Odje, constitutional lawyer

Constitutional lawyer and activist, Dr. Akpo Mudiaga-Odje, asserted, “This present scenario is a fallout of the outcome of the 2023 elections, which is expected in any democracy, especially where the main contenders and even pretenders to the elective offices, have surrendered themselves before the judiciary. The judiciary is now in focus and they expect its judgments to be just and fair in the circumstances.

To my limited knowledge of the law, I see nothing and absolutely nothing wrong with the erection of the said billboards, except they have not paid the required fee for erecting same.

I recently delivered a lecture to the University of Benin Alumni, Association, Warri Chapter, titled” The Judiciary In The Eyes Of The Storm”. Therefore, if I erected this lecture title, perhaps the regulatory authority will bring the billboard down as desecrating the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.

That is completely incongruous with Section 39 of our 1999 Constitution as amended, which guarantees an unmitigated right to freedom of expression for all Nigerians. The words, ‘All Eyes on the Judiciary’ are indeed much wider than the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, and include all courts in Nigeria hearing any matter relating to the 2023 elections. A militant bar and/or citizenry heralds a vibrant bench and/or judiciary.

Indeed, it is very axiomatic even without erecting it on a billboard that all eyes are actually on the judiciary now. It is the judiciary that will finally validate the election results and that automatically has put the same in the spotlight.

Before the announcement of the election results, ‘All eyes were on INEC’. After INEC, rightly, all eyes are on the judiciary. After the announcement of results, all eyes naturally are now on the judiciary, as people have filed petitions and cases for judicial determination. The erection of the said billboards is a welcome development and also a veritable means of arousing the sensibilities of our people.

That will make the judiciary sit up and live up to expectations. Therefore, the average person must now take such steps in erecting more of such billboards to protect their interest and indeed save the judiciary”.

Splitting hairs over nothing–King, activist

A human rights advocate and lawyer, Higher King, told Saturday Vanguard, “For me, the Federal Government doesn’t have to pull down billboards. They are dissipating energy on unnecessary things rather than focusing on fixing the bigger problem, which is the economy. The billboards have nothing to do with Presidential Election judgment, so why the hullabaloo? It is an infringement on the rights of the people that put up the billboards.

In the first place, they approved the billboards and collected fees before they erected those billboards, so why breach the contract?

Our eyes must be on the judiciary–Oyakonghan, ex-militant leader

Ex-militant leader, Josiah Oyakonghan, a.k.a Commander Oyimi, who spoke in Delta State, said, “Our eagle eyes should be on the judiciary because the judiciary is the last hope of the common people.

Focusing our eagle eyes on the judiciary is because Nigerians want the rule of law to be strong in the country, and they do not want to do something outside the rule of law. Anybody that says Nigerians’ eyes should not be on the judiciary, that person is ready to undermine the rule of law in Nigeria. Our eyes should be on the judiciary because the function of the judiciary is to correct wrongs.”

‘Govt must shun the hypocrisy’

Another rights activist, who preferred to speak to Saturday Vanguard anonymously, said, “The fact that top officials were suspended and their unit disbanded over billboards that highlight the importance of judicial oversight sends a worrying message. It raises questions about the state of our democracy and the willingness of authorities to tolerate dissenting voices. If anyone complains about the billboard stating ‘ALL EYES ON THE JUDICIARY,’ remind them that the Nigerian Supreme Court overturned a judgment in favor of Senator Ahmad Lawan, who never participated in legitimate primaries for the Senate race in Yobe State”.

Message unseemly; govt wrong in pulling down billboards —Emiaso, retired arbitrator

A retired President of the Delta State Area Customary Court, Miakpo Emiaso, however disagreed with the message on the billboards. He said, “I think the message in those billboards is inappropriate now that the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal is still sitting and has not delivered its judgment. It has the potential of affecting the psyche of the judges and that is not right. It is like sub judice though not commenting on the substance of what the tribunal is considering.

You do not intimidate a court; you do not influence the mind of the court when the court is still sitting over a matter. However, pulling down those billboards the way the Federal Government has gone about it without an appropriate court order is also in bad taste. That is not democracy, and that is not due process, it is the executive being the accuser and the judge in its case.

In a properly run democratic process, where the government thinks somebody has done something improper against the law, you seek a court order before you do what you have just done, otherwise, what you have done amounts to self-help, which is not allowed under our laws. You do not punish a citizen for a presumed offense without a court order. Those who put those bills there have done so ostensibly relying on their rights to free speech.

Let the judiciary breathe—Ikimi, lawyer

A senior lawyer and activist, Oghenejabor Ikimi, asserted: “Of course, the billboards with the inscription, “All Eyes on the Judiciary” mounted at strategic locations in Abuja, are no doubt targeted at judges of the Presidential Election Tribunal and this is unfair.

I submit the words conveyed to the public are most inappropriate and their removal appropriate. I agree that section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but section 45(1) restricts the said rights in the interest of public safety, public order, public morality and for protecting the rights and freedom of another person. Who says members of the Presidential Election Tribunal do not have rights, dignity, and integrity to be protected by the Constitution? The words no doubt are derogatory of the judiciary and her respective judges put on trial, and unnecessary pressure. Let the judiciary breathe.

Frightening the judiciary—Omare, ex-IYC president, Delta

Former President of the Ijaw Youth Council, IYC, Eric Omare, maintained, “I am of the view that the billboards are inappropriate. It amounts to subtle intimidation of the judiciary for people with interest in pending cases before the election tribunal or any court to mount billboards. Parties through their witnesses and lawyers have presented their cases and they should leave the judiciary unfettered to do its job.

I do not support the promoters of those billboards and it amounts to interference with judiciary independence and an act of desperation. We do not need billboards to know that all eyes are usually on the judiciary after every general election once candidates present petitions to the tribunal.
Let those interested in the outcome be patient and act within the ambit of the laws”.

It will trigger violence–Morris, environmentalist, Bayelsa

Similarly, the Program Manager/Head, ERA’s Niger Delta Resource Center, Bayelsa State, Alagoa Morris, said: “Those who conceived, accepted, sponsored, and positioned the billboards were trying to mount undue pressure on the judges and by extension- the judiciary. If allowed, it becomes an unfortunate precedent that will not allow the judiciary to breathe. Let the judiciary breathe. The entire world is watching what is happening and, that is a fact.

We should be conscious enough to resist those we think are crossing the lines into areas they ought not to take us. If you place the billboard and they allow it, do you not think others can also think of how to physically go to the tribunal environment, and sing whatever songs, demanding justice for their preferred candidates? Will that not lead to violence? Violence is not only physical harm, it could be emotional too, this is my opinion, and I am expressing it without apology to anybody or group”. (Saturday Vanguard)

News

Attorney General asks Court to deregister ADC, Accord, three other parties

Published

on

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN
Spread the love

The Attorney General of the Federation has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, arguing that their continued existence violates constitutional provisions and undermines Nigeria’s electoral integrity.

In court filings, the Attorney General contended that unless the court intervenes, INEC would “continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty” by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

The filing stressed that the right to associate as a political party is not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional limits. It further argued that it is in the interest of justice for the court to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 and filed at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, lists the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators as the plaintiff.

The defendants include INEC as the first defendant and the Attorney General of the Federation as the second defendant, alongside five political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord (A), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

At the center of the issue in the case is whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s own regulations.

Maduka College Advert

The plaintiffs argue that the affected parties have persistently failed to satisfy the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration. These include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state or local government level.

They contend that the parties performed poorly in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections, failing to win seats across key tiers of government, yet continue to be recognised by INEC as eligible political platforms.

The plaintiffs maintain that this continued recognition is unlawful and undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.

In the affidavit supporting the suit, the forum’s national coordinator, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, states that allowing parties that have not met constitutional requirements to remain on the register “is unconstitutional, illegal and a violation” of the governing legal framework.

The suit asks the court to declare that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties and to compel the commission to do so before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.

Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiffs are also seeking far-reaching orders that would bar the affected parties from participating in the next general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies and primaries. They further request injunctions restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless and until they comply strictly with constitutional provisions.

Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is their interpretation of the law as imposing a mandatory duty on INEC. They argue that the use of the word “shall” in the Constitution leaves no room for discretion once a party fails to meet the stipulated thresholds.

In their written address, they rely on statutory provisions and judicial precedents to contend that electoral performance is an objective condition that must be enforced to maintain discipline, transparency, and accountability in the political system.

Attorney General backs plaintiff
In a notice filed pursuant to Order 15 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, the Attorney General, who is a defendant in the suit, formally admitted the plaintiff’s case to the extent of his constitutional responsibilities.

He maintained that, as the chief law officer of the federation, he is duty-bound to defend and uphold the Constitution, including ensuring compliance with the Electoral Act and other laws governing elections in Nigeria.

The filing emphasised that the Attorney General’s role extends beyond litigation to preventive oversight, ensuring that laws are faithfully implemented to maintain public confidence in the electoral process. It described the case as a public interest litigation aimed at safeguarding democratic integrity and promoting constitutional observance.

According to the document, the Attorney General argued that citizens, including the plaintiff group, have the right to challenge constitutional breaches, particularly where electoral processes are concerned. He added that supporting such litigation aligns with his dual role as both a defender of the state and an advocate for citizens’ rights.

The submission also highlighted the broader implications of non-compliance by political parties. It argued that the continued existence of parties that fail to meet constitutional thresholds contributes to ballot congestion, increases the cost of election administration, and undermines the intent of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empowers INEC to deregister underperforming parties.

The plaintiff further contended that INEC has no residual discretion to retain parties that do not satisfy the constitutional criteria, insisting that failure to deregister them constitutes a continuing breach of constitutional duty. The suit warned that such inaction could be challenged through public interest litigation, as is the case before the court.

Additionally, the filing noted that the plaintiff, comprising former legislators, possesses the requisite standing to institute the action, having been directly involved in the enactment and oversight of Nigeria’s constitutional and electoral framework.

The Attorney General also underscored the importance of access to justice, arguing that his support for the suit would help bridge gaps faced by citizens seeking to enforce constitutional rights. He maintained that collaboration between government institutions and civic actors is essential to strengthening legal literacy, accountability, and democratic participation.

The Attorney General of the Federation is represented in the suit by a team of lawyers led by Prof. J. O. Olatoke, SAN, alongside O. J. David, U. O. Olufadi, D. O. Bamidele, V. D. Maiye, Waheed Abdulraheem and A. K. Abdulmumin, all of whom signed the court filing before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The case, which has drawn significant attention within political and legal circles, could have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s party system ahead of future elections, particularly if the court grants the request to compel INEC to act against the affected parties. (TRIBUNE)

Continue Reading

News

Tinubu names Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu as Minister of Foreign Affairs

Published

on

Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Spread the love

…Nominates Amb. Sola Enikanolaiye as Minister of State

President Bola Tinubu has appointed Ambassador Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu as Nigeria’s new Minister of Foreign Affairs after the resignation of Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar, who is reportedly preparing for a political move ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The President also forwarded the name of Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye for appointment as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, pending approval by the Senate.

The appointments were disclosed in a statement released on Wednesday by presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga.

According to the statement, the reshuffle is aimed at improving Nigeria’s diplomatic strategy and ensuring that the country’s foreign policy supports the administration’s economic agenda more effectively.

“These adjustments are part of ongoing efforts to reposition Nigeria’s foreign policy architecture for greater efficiency, strategic engagement, and stronger global partnerships,” the statement read.

Odumegwu-Ojukwu, who previously served as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and has years of diplomatic experience, is expected to oversee Nigeria’s international relations as the government intensifies focus on economic diplomacy, regional peace, and wider global partnerships.

Maduka College Advert

The presidency highlighted her long-standing involvement in global affairs, stating:

“Ambassador Odumegwu-Ojukwu brings decades of diplomatic experience and a deep understanding of Nigeria’s engagement with the global community,” the statement read.

Enikanolaiye, a seasoned career diplomat, had earlier worked as Senior Special Assistant to the President on Foreign Affairs and International Relations.

He has represented Nigeria in several cities around the world, including Addis Ababa, London, Ottawa, Belgrade, and New Delhi.

The statement noted that his nomination is expected to strengthen institutional continuity within the foreign service.

“Ambassador Enikanolaiye’s extensive experience across multiple diplomatic missions will support Nigeria’s evolving foreign policy objectives,” the statement added.

President Tinubu congratulated the two diplomats and urged them to place national interest at the forefront while promoting economic diplomacy and improving the welfare of Nigerians living abroad.

Continue Reading

News

Awka blacksmiths lament neglect by Govt, indigenes

Published

on

Spread the love

Continue Reading

Trending

Maduka College Advert