TheNewsGuru

Tag: Sonnie Ekwowusi

  • Scandal of Nigeria’s National Health Act 2014 – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Scandal of Nigeria’s National Health Act 2014 – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    “I wish to express my deep regret for my role in driving the National Health Act 2014 as a Permanent Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Health. At the time, I was unaware of the far-reaching implications of certain clauses, particularly those related to reproductive health.

    “Professor Phillip Njemanze, Head of the Global Pro-life Alliance, brought this to my attention during a courtesy visit to my office, warning about the potential health consequences.

    “Unfortunately, I dismissed his concerns, viewing them as an attempt to undermine our progress in the health sector or as mere politicking.

    “Now, reflecting on my actions, I realize the gravity of my oversight. If there’s an opportunity for me to share my regrets with the National Assembly and the Nigerian people through a conference or any other platform, I would seize it to clear my conscience.

    “I believe it’s essential to acknowledge the concerns raised by various stakeholders, including Professor Njemanze, and to engage in a constructive dialogue about the Act’s implications”.

    The above is a regretful open confession sent by Dr. Linus Akwute to Professor Philip Njemanze today, Sunday, 27th July 2025. As soon as Prof. Njemanze received the message, he wasted no time in forwarding it to me.

    Prof. Njemanze, I, and several others vehemently opposed the National Health Bill 2014, which we believed contained vexatious and obnoxious provisions endorsing trafficking in human embryos and organs, as well as organ transplantation.

    Dr. Akwute, who was then a Permanent Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Health, co-chaired Nigeria’s Technical Working Group for implementing the National Health Act 2014, promoting it as a transformational reform for primary health care delivery and intergovernmental coordination.

    He was a strong proponent of the Act’s full implementation and often spoke publicly in its defence. In fact, Dr. Akwute positioned himself as one of the leading voices advocating for accountability and strict adherence to the policy frameworks of the National Health Act.

    However, as I mentioned earlier, Dr. Akwute wrote to us today, Sunday, 27th July 2025, expressing deep regret over his role in driving the National Health Act 2014, which is now having far-reaching negative repercussions on the Nigerian health system—particularly the clauses related to “reproductive health,” a euphemism for abortion.

    To refresh your memory, former President Goodluck Jonathan signed the National Health Bill (NHB) 2014 into law on October 31, 2014.

    It is worthwhile to briefly recall that long before the signing of the NHB 2014 into law, the Bill had been mired in serious controversy.

    While some stakeholders criticized it for being largely indistinguishable from the National Health Bill 2008 and the National Health Bill 2012—both of which late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and President Jonathan, respectively, refused to sign on grounds that they were perverse, discriminatory, inchoate, and self-serving—others faulted the NHB 2014 for violating certain provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, and other international human rights instruments.

    You may recall that on Monday, 11th February 2013, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria organized a Public Hearing on the National Health Bill at Room 231 of the Senate Building.

    The hearing was well attended by a wide array of stakeholders, including the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), the National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives (NANNM), the Association of Radiographers of Nigeria (ARN), the Nigerian Society of Physiotherapy (NSP), the Medical and Health Workers’ Union of Nigeria, the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria (AMLSN), the National Association of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, the Health Reform Foundation of Nigeria, the Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria, the Institute of Health Administrators of Nigeria, the Nigerian Physiotherapy Association, the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria, and some Northern traditional rulers.

    The Public Hearing was chaired by Senator Arthur Ifeanyi Okowa, who was then the PDP gubernatorial candidate for the 2015 Delta State election. Senator Ike Ekweremadu served as co-chair of the hearing.

    Prof. Njemanze and I both submitted memoranda vehemently opposing the National Health Bill.

    Prior to the commencement of the Public Hearing, Senator Okowa reassured all stakeholders that their inputs would be taken into account in the final version of the Bill to be adopted by the Senate.

    To his credit, Senator Okowa did give all stakeholders the opportunity to make their respective submissions. I made my presentation. Prof. Njemanze made his. I remember clearly that almost all the stakeholders present criticized Sections 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, and related provisions of the Bill, which either directly or indirectly endorsed trafficking in human embryos and organs, as well as the sale or trade in human tissues, blood, or blood products from living persons without their informed consent.

    Even representatives of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria held a closed-door meeting with then Health Minister, Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu, to discuss the vexed provisions. The bishops strongly urged Prof. Chukwu to ensure that those offensive sections were expunged from the Bill.

    At the time, Ban Ki-moon, who served as United Nations Secretary-General from 2007 to 2016, was in Abuja lobbying for the passage of the Bill, as Nigeria was reportedly designated as a depot for human parts trafficking globally. Sad

    Despite  Okowa’s assurances, the final version of the NHB 2014 signed by President Jonathan still contained the aforementioned offensive provisions. Specifically, Section 48(1)(b) of the National Health Act states that a person may remove tissue, blood, or a blood product from another living person without their informed consent for “medical investigation and treatment in emergency cases.”

    Strangely, the terms “medical investigation” and “treatment in emergency cases” were never clearly defined in the version of the Bill signed into law by ex-President Jonathan.

    The implication of this is that anybody, under the pretext of carrying out “medical investigations” or “treatment in emergency cases,” could waylay any non-consenting living person and forcefully remove his or her tissue, blood, or blood product.

    This could obviously lead to willful bodily injury or even the murder of a human being. Furthermore, it may lead to an increase in human tissue trafficking in Nigeria. Wealthy human-parts merchants in Europe and America, who trade in the tissues of living human beings in Nigeria, will now have a legal justification to perpetuate their illegal activities in Nigeria.

    Section 48(2) of the NHB 2014 states that “a person shall not remove ’tissue’ which is not replaceable by natural processes from a person younger than 18 years.” Clearly, this implies that tissue replaceable by natural processes may be removed from individuals aged 18 and above.

    Section 49 is ambiguously worded and could be grossly abused. It states that a person shall use tissue removed, or blood or blood products withdrawn from a living person, only for such medical or dental purposes as may be prescribed. However, the terms “tissue” and “medical or dental purposes” are not defined in the interpretation section of the Act.

    This means that anyone could remove any human part under the guise of fulfilling some undefined “medical or dental purpose.”

    Section 48(2) permits the removal of tissue from a person over the age of 18, but the section lacks a consent clause. This implies that under the pretense of medical investigation, tissue may be removed from any adult without their informed consent.

    Sections 51, 52, and 53 are even more alarming. Section 51 permits the removal of tissue or organs from a living person for transplantation into another living person, without any consent clause. The only requirement is that the removal must occur in a hospital authorized for such purposes or with the written authority of a medical practitioner in charge of clinical services.

    Section 52 authorizes a registered medical practitioner or dentist to carry out such procedures. Section 53 permits the sale or trade of human tissues such as female egg cells, sperm, and corneas, provided that the payments made are considered “reasonable” and are conducted within an appropriate health establishment.

    The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation in Nigeria is that where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the court must give effect to that meaning without inferring any other interpretation.

    This principle was upheld in cases such as *IBWA Ltd v. Imano Ltd*(1988) 3 NWLR 633 at 660 and Savannah Bank Ltd & Ors v. Ajilo & Ors (1987) 2 NWLR 421. Therefore, the language of Sections 48 and 51 of the National Health Act must be understood as written.

    It is my humble view that Sections 48(1)(b), 48(2), 49, 51, 52, and 53 of the National Health Act, which permit the removal of tissue, blood, or blood products from a living person without their informed consent for “medical investigations” or “emergency treatment,” and which authorize the sale and trade of human tissues and blood products, are in violation of Sections 33 (right to life), 34 (right to dignity of the human person), 37 (right to privacy), and 38 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) of the 1999 Constitution, as well as Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10.

    Under these sections of the National Health Act, a Nigerian medical practitioner or dentist could, upon receiving payment from a wealthy foreign merchant, remove tissue, blood, or an organ from a living Nigerian without that person’s informed consent for transplantation into the foreigner.

    This could lead to rampant cases of the theft of human tissues and organs and the sale of women’s eggs in Nigeria. It would even be legal to remove a kidney from a living Nigerian without consent and transplant it into a paying foreign recipient. Such actions would only serve to expand Nigeria’s already thriving black market in human parts.

    Owing to widespread poverty, some relatives of patients, in collusion with unethical medical professionals, may begin to sell off vital body parts of their living patients without obtaining the patients’ informed consent.

    Therefore, Sections 48(1)(b), 48(2), 49, 51, 52, and 53 of the National Health Act are in flagrant violation of Sections 33, 34, 37, and 38 of the 1999 Constitution, as well as Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

    It is noteworthy that among all the fundamental rights provisions in the 1999 Constitution, only those under Section 34 are granted in absolute terms. Not even a state of emergency or war permits derogation from the prohibition against torture, inhuman treatment, slavery, and servitude.

    While rights under Sections 37 and 38 may be curtailed under Section 45(1) in the interest of defence, public safety, order, morality, or public health, or to protect the rights of others, the non-consensual removal of tissues or organs for transplantation cannot be considered a law reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

    Indeed, the continued retention of Sections 48(1)(b), 48(2), 49, 51, 52, and 53 in the National Health Act threatens to exacerbate the insecurity crisis in Nigeria.

    More importantly, as I earlier noted, Sections 48(1)(b), 48(2), 49, 51, 52, and 53 of the National Health Act are inconsistent with Sections 33, 34, 37, and 38 of the 1999 Constitution, as well as Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10.

    Relying on the case of Denloye v. Medical & Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, the Nigerian Supreme Court held in *Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. Dr. John Emewulu Nicholas Okonkwo* (2002) AHRLR 159 that failure to obtain a patient’s informed consent before administering a blood transfusion constitutes a violation of the patient’s fundamental human rights to privacy (Section 37) and to freedom of religion and conscience (Section 38).

    The Supreme Court held that a patient’s constitutional right to object to medical treatment—or, specifically in this case, to the removal of his tissue, blood, blood products, or organs—is rooted in the fundamental rights protected under the 1999 Constitution, namely:

    1.   The right to privacy – Section 37;

    2.   The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion – Section 38.

    The Court further stated that the right to privacy “implies a right to protect one’s thought, conscience, or religious belief and practice from coercive and unjustified intrusion; and one’s body from unauthorized invasion.”

    The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, it continued, includes “a right not to be prevented, without lawful justification, from choosing the course of one’s life, fashioned on what one believes in, and a right not to be coerced into acting contrary to religious belief.”

    These freedoms are limited only when they infringe on the rights of others or threaten public welfare or health.

    In sum, the rights to privacy and to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion guarantee that an individual should be left alone to choose the course of his life—unless a clear and compelling overriding state interest justifies otherwise.

    Under English law, the consent of a living person to medical treatment or to the removal of any part of his body is absolutely mandatory.

    It is a violation of medical ethics to remove a living person’s organ without his or her consent. In fact, such a person may maintain an action in tort for damages for trespass to the person against a medical practitioner or hospital for removing tissue, blood, or any body part without consent.

    See *Wells v. Surrey AHA*(1978). Even where consent has been obtained, it is the duty of the medical practitioner—said Justice Bristow in *Chatterton v. Gerson* (1980)—to explain in advance what is intended and its medical implications, in a manner consistent with what a careful and responsible doctor in similar circumstances would do.

    If the doctor claims that the procedure was performed in a medical emergency, the burden of proving that an emergency existed rests with him—and this may be difficult to establish.

    The argument advanced by proponents of Sections 48(1)(b), 48(2), 49, 51, 52, and 53 of the National Health Act—that since the sale or trade in human parts is now a thriving business in Nigeria, it is better to regulate it than to ban it outright to ensure only authorized persons engage in it—is fundamentally flawed.

    First, a society does not regulate a crime simply because it is widely committed. For instance, a society cannot regulate the heinous crime of armed robbery merely because it has become rampant.

    Second, given Nigeria’s ineffective policing, weak judicial oversight, and poor regulatory enforcement, attempts to regulate the sale or trade of human parts are likely to be futile.

    Third, Section 21(a) of the 1999 Constitution enjoins the State to protect, preserve, and promote Nigerian culture.

    Fourth—and more importantly—under Section 4(2) of the 1999 Constitution, the National Assembly is empowered to make laws for the peace, order, and good governance of Nigeria.

    That means making laws that reflect the country’s social and religious realities. Trading in or selling human parts is not part of Nigerian culture.

    Laws must align with the values of the people. Every country seeks to protect what it holds dear—its cherished values. It is self-destructive to import alien practices and lifestyles into Nigeria and attempt to impose them as law under the guise of fulfilling international obligations.

    As Professor John Ademola Yakubu argues in his book *Who Gives the Law? Determining the Jurisprudential Question*, the only way to avoid chaos in a society is for the legislature to make laws that reflect the values and aspirations of the people.

    It is a major scandal that in a country like Nigeria—where countless patients are dying due to lack of access to basic primary healthcare—our National Health Act is creating a leeway for trading in human tissues and organs. I do not understand why we cannot get our priorities right in this country.

    Therefore, to the extent that the National Health Act is inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, it is null, void, and unenforceable.

    In *Military Governor of Ondo State & Others v. Adewumi (1988) 3 NWLR 280, Justice Nnaemeka-Agu (of blessed memory) held that the Constitution is the grundnorm—the fundamental or organic law of the land. Similarly, in *Nafiu Rabiu v. State*, Justice Udo Udoma emphasized that the Nigerian Constitution is the supreme law and must not be treated as if it were an ordinary statute passed by the legislature.

    All other laws derive their validity from the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is void to the extent of its inconsistency.

    Nigerian courts, in the exercise of their judicial powers, are empowered to declare any legislation of the National Assembly that contravenes the 1999 Constitution invalid and unconstitutional—whether the contravention is substantive or procedural, or whether it merely interferes with any constitutional fundamental, including guaranteed rights, federalism, or the constitutionally recognized principle of separation of powers.

    (See the pronouncements of Justices Fatayi-Williams, Bello, Idigbe, Obaseki, Eso, Nnamani, and Uwais in *Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Others*). Also, in M.O. Oloyo v. B.A. Alegbe, Speaker, Bendel State House of Assembly (1985) 6 NCLR 61 at 80, Justice Kayode Eso stated:

    “The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 is not intended to be a merely academic model Constitution. It is a pragmatic Constitution made for Nigerians, by Nigerians, and by a process of constitution-making which is expected to have benefited from the experience of this country under previous Constitutions and to provide, as much as possible, a panacea for the ills of the past.”

    In light of the foregoing, urgent steps must be taken to amend the National Health Act to bring it into conformity with the 1999 Constitution.

    Until such an amendment is effected, the National Health Act remains unconstitutional and, therefore, unenforceable. The Federal Ministry of Health in Abuja is in dire need of reform.

    In a constitutional democracy, sovereignty resides with the people. That means leaders must govern with the consent of the governed. Once that consent is absent, genuine democracy is lost. The American Founding Fathers aptly stated that:

    “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    The Tinubu administration should be reminded that access to affordable healthcare is a constitutional right—not a privilege.

    By virtue of Section 17 of the 1999 Constitution, the government is duty-bound to improve the welfare of Nigerian citizens by ensuring they have access to adequate medical and health facilities.

    If this obligation is fulfilled, the billions of Naira wasted annually on medical tourism could be saved.

  • Pope Francis: A bridge builder of mercy and peace – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Pope Francis: A bridge builder of mercy and peace – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Pope Francis was, by all standards, a Pope of mercy. Following the teaching of Jesus Christ—exemplified in His eating and drinking with sinners—and in line with Jesus’ dictum, “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners” (Matthew 9:13), Pope Francis, since the beginning of his pontificate, has always opened his arms to welcome and receive sinners and all who sought his company, even to the misunderstanding of some.

    Like Jesus Christ, Pope Francis understood that his mission was not to condemn or judge others, but rather to reach out and save others, especially those abandoned in the periphery. I remember that when the Nigerian Catholic lawyers visited the Vatican some years ago, Pope Francis told them and others that, beyond operating in parishes, they should go into the world and bear witness for Christ.

    In 2015, Pope Francis declared an Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy, calling on people to embrace God’s mercy and be more merciful toward others. He has consistently reached out to marginalized groups—such as refugees, the poor, the vulnerable, prisoners, and people with disabilities. He has emphasized that the Church should focus on those on the periphery of society rather than the powerful or elite. This is seen as an act of mercy, as he believes the Church’s mission is to heal and support the suffering.

    Pope Francis’ message of mercy, love, forgiveness, a non-judgmental stance, and compassion for sinners underscores the importance of humility, the recognition of one’s own sinfulness, and the need for God’s grace and mercy.

    Amid high-level terrorism, suicide bombings, wars, rumors of a Third World War, and human tragedies afflicting humanity and threatening international peace, several Popes have constructed an ethical framework for human solidarity in finding solutions to the absence of peace in the world.

    For example, shortly after the First World War in 1919, President Woodrow Wilson was received at the Vatican by Pope Benedict XV to foster peace in the world. President Eisenhower visited Pope John XXIII in Rome to discuss world peace. In his epic Encyclical Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII established four pillars upon which peace should be built.

    Remember President Bush’s meeting with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to promote peace in the world? With 104 trips outside Italy (including 16 trips to the African continent), St. John Paul II the Great was outstanding for his tenacity in promoting peace, tolerance, commitment to social justice, respect for human dignity, and inter-religious dialogue.

    On October 6, 1979, President Jimmy Carter had the pleasure of hosting the first White House visit by a Pope when St. John Paul II visited the United States, advocating for peace in the world. In fact, St. John Paul II acted directly as an intermediary in the promotion of justice and peace in countries where peace was threatened.

    Recall that on December 15, 1982, St. John Paul II had

    an audience with Yasser Arafat on the peaceful settlement of the Palestinian question. Not to mention his famous meeting with King Hassan II on August 19, 1995, which was attended by well over 80,000 youths, or his visits to Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Cameroon, and Nigeria.

    In fact, his visit to Nigeria during the reign of dictator Sani Abacha remains indelibly engraved in the minds of many Nigerians—if not for anything else, for the fact that the Pope called for peace in Nigeria.

    Therefore, following in the footsteps of his predecessors in the Papacy, Pope Francis had throughout his Papacy doggedly committed himself to the promotion of international peace throughout the duration of his pontificate. He has advocated for the abolition of nuclear weapons, stressing that their existence is an “immoral” threat to humanity. He has urged world leaders to invest in peace rather than in arms, warning against the destructive power of modern weaponry. Pope Francis has also been a vocal critic of the arms trade, which he believes fuels conflicts around the world.

    Lest we forget, Pope Francis played a key role in the peace process between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). In 2017, he met with both sides in an effort to broker reconciliation and peace after years of violent conflict. Pope Francis has consistently advocated for peace in the Middle East, emphasizing that the spilling of human blood in Gaza is a slur on our human existence. He has called for a two-state solution, stressing the rights of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples to live in peace and security.

    On June 8, 2014, Pope Francis hosted Israeli President Shimon Peres, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomaios in the Vatican Gardens to explore new ways of building peace in Jerusalem and reconciling seemingly irreconcilable foes.

    At that historic meeting, the participants acknowledged that despite the failure of previous efforts by world leaders to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian and broader Middle East crises, renewed and greater efforts must be made to broker peace in the region.

    In his address, Pope Francis—whom President Peres described as “a bridge builder of brotherhood and peace”—stated that while human ingenuity is essential in resolving the Middle East crisis, peacemakers must also begin to rely on the help of God. He stressed the urgency of the moment, noting that children weary and worn out by the conflict are now pleading with leaders “to tear down the walls of enmity and to set out on the path of dialogue and peace, so that love and friendship will prevail.”

    In his emotional and poetic response, President Peres said, “The tears of mothers over their children are still etched in our hearts. We must put an end to the cries, to the violence, to the conflict. We all need peace—peace between equals. Your invitation to us to join you in this momentous ceremony to call for peace, here in the Vatican Garden, in the presence of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Druze leaders, graciously reflects your vision of the aspiration we all share.”

    Pained by the seemingly unending war and the continued spilling of human blood in South Sudan, Pope Francis, in 2019, organized a retreat for South Sudanese leaders and their warring opposition groups at the Vatican. It was a two-day retreat—what Cardinal Parolin called a “spiritual, ecumenical, and diplomatic” initiative.

    Among the preachers at the retreat were Archbishop John Baptist Odama of Gulu, Uganda, and Nigerian Jesuit priest Father Agbonkhianmeghe Orobator. Other notable attendees included the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion worldwide, Archbishop Justin Welby, members of the South Sudan Council of Churches, and other Catholic and Presbyterian church leaders from across Africa.

    At the end of the retreat, Pope Francis addressed the attendees in Italian, saying: “There will be struggles and disagreements among you, but keep them within you—inside the office, so to speak. But in front of the people, hold hands, united. So, as simple citizens, you will become fathers of the nation… I am asking you as a brother to stay in peace. I am asking you with my heart: let us go forward. There will be many problems, but they will not overcome us. Resolve your problems.”

    Therefore, following in the footsteps of his predecessors in the Papacy, Pope Francis has doggedly committed himself to the promotion of international peace throughout the duration of his papacy. He has advocated for the abolition of nuclear weapons, stressing that their existence is an “immoral” threat to humanity. He has urged world leaders to invest in peace rather than arms, warning against the destructive power of modern weaponry. He has also been a vocal critic of the arms trade, which he believes fuels conflicts around the world.

    Lest we forget, Pope Francis played a key role in the peace process between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). In 2017, he met with both parties in an effort to broker reconciliation and peace after years of violent conflict. He has consistently advocated for peace in the Middle East, emphasizing that the spilling of human blood in Gaza is a stain on our shared humanity. He has called for a two-state solution, upholding the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security.

    On June 8, 2014, Pope Francis hosted Israeli President Shimon Peres, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomaios in the Vatican Gardens to explore new avenues for peace in Jerusalem and reconciliation between seemingly irreconcilable foes. During this historic meeting, the leaders agreed that although previous efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian and broader Middle East crises had borne little fruit, renewed and intensified efforts were necessary.

    In his address, Pope Francis—described by President Peres as “a bridge builder of brotherhood and peace”—stated that in addition to human effort, peacemakers must rely on divine assistance. He underscored the urgency of resolving the crisis, noting that children, weary and worn out by prolonged conflict, are now pleading with leaders “to tear down the walls of enmity and to set out on the path of dialogue and peace, so that love and friendship will prevail.”

    In his emotional and poetic response, President Peres said, “The tears of mothers over their children are still etched in our hearts. We must put an end to the cries, the violence, the conflict. We all need peace—peace between equals. Your invitation to us to join you in this momentous ceremony to call for peace, here in the Vatican Garden, in the presence of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Druze leaders, graciously reflects your vision of the aspiration we all share.”

    Pained by the seemingly unending war and bloodshed in South Sudan, Pope Francis, in 2019, organized a retreat for South Sudanese leaders, including members of the opposition and rebel groups, at the Vatican. This two-day retreat—described by Cardinal Parolin as a “spiritual, ecumenical, and diplomatic” initiative—was attended by various Christian leaders, including Archbishop John Baptist Odama of Gulu, Uganda, Nigerian Jesuit priest Father Agbonkhianmeghe Orobator, Anglican Archbishop Justin Welby, and members of the South Sudan Council of Churches.

    At the close of the retreat, Pope Francis addressed the leaders in Italian: “There will be struggles and disagreements among you, but keep them within you—inside the office, so to speak. In front of the people, hold hands, united. As simple citizens, you will become fathers of the nation… I am asking you as a brother to stay in peace. I am asking you with my heart: let us go forward. There will be many problems, but they will not overcome us. Resolve your problems.”

    Thereafter, Pope Francis did something dramatic. Clad in his white cassock and zucchetto, he stooped low—flattening himself on the ground—and kissed the feet of the South Sudanese leaders and their opponents.

    Though they were wearing shoes, the Pope humbly kissed their dusty footwear. With this profound gesture, he appealed to them to lay down their arms and allow peace to reign in South Sudan. Many visitors and onlookers were deeply moved by the Pope’s extraordinary humility.

    It is clear that if mankind is to pursue peace, now more than ever, we must rediscover the path that leads to genuine reconciliation, concord, and unity. It is not enough to wax philosophical on the vexing matter of global peace. World leaders must identify common values as the foundation for a new international order grounded in justice, service, mutual respect, and human dignity.

    For peace to reign in the world, warring factions must learn to forgive one another. Peace begins in the heart. As Josemaría Escrivá wrote, “It is useless to call for external calm if there is no calm in men’s consciences.”

    Therefore, peace is born from a purified heart. It is nurtured in sacrifice. It is sustained by justice.

    Building on the Church’s ecumenical dialogue with Muslims, Pope Francis established strong relations with Muslim leaders. A milestone was his 2019 visit to the United Arab Emirates, where he signed the Document on Human Fraternity with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar. The document emphasized cooperation between Christians and Muslims to foster peace, tolerance, and mutual respect.

    Age upon age, wrote Emmet John Hughes on October 20, 1958, the city of Rome “has affected the destiny and trial of the Church in profound and ever new ways. No matter who sits on the throne of St. Peter in Rome,” continued Hughes, “he can know but one heritage, one purpose and, in G.K. Chesterton’s words, ‘one scheme…bestriding lands and ages with gigantic arches, and carrying everywhere the high river of baptism upon an aqueduct of Rome.’”

    These prophetic words find fulfillment in Pope Francis’ recent declaration, Dignitas Infinita (“Infinite Dignity”), released on April 8, 2024. This 20-page document unequivocally denounces, among other things, LGBT ideology, surrogacy, and gender ideology as grave violations of human dignity and transgressions against God’s teaching and divine plan for humanity. Citing the prophet Isaiah—”Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness”—Dignitas Infinita bluntly criticizes these practices. It affirms the Church’s longstanding position that the human person is a unity of body and soul, and that “the dignity of the body cannot be considered inferior to that of the person as such.”

    This reiterates the Church’s established doctrine, previously outlined in the 2008 document Dignitas Personae and in Donum Vitae some twenty years prior, which condemned artificial reproduction, surrogacy, and experimentation on human embryos as violations of human dignity and offenses against God.

    In an age when many define their worth by the size of their cars, houses, or wealth, Pope Francis’ austere lifestyle and detachment from materialism are striking. He has deliberately renounced the comfort and luxury often associated with high office, modeling his life on Jesus Christ, who said: “If any man wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me. For he who would save his life will lose it; but he who loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but ruins or loses his soul?”

    During his visit to America, Pope Francis famously chose to ride in a modest black Fiat 500L, rather than a limousine. Flanked by other vehicles, his humble choice of transportation stood as a powerful symbol of simplicity and servant leadership—one that, to many, was deeply edifying.

    In Washington D.C., Pope Francis made a clear and compelling case for American founding principles as understood and exemplified by President Abraham Lincoln, civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., Catholic Worker Movement founder Dorothy Day, and Cistercian monk Thomas Merton. He presented these figures as enduring sources of hope and as bulwarks of American democracy.

    Addressing a joint session of the American Congress (Pope Francis is the first pope ever to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress), he reminded the senators and representatives that politics is not the first thing; rather, politics is an expression of the deeper values within humanity. Therefore, politics should not be perceived as a mere instrument for promoting secular progressivism at the expense of the lofty values that reside in the human heart.

    But the crowning moment of Pope Francis’ visit to America, in my humble view, was his speech at the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Pope began by reflecting on the lofty ideals that led to the founding of the United Nations as the successor to the League of Nations. He praised the great achievements of the UN, as it turned 70, in promoting peace, human fraternity, and the advancement of human rights.

    However, he expressed regret that the misuse of political power and environmental degradation has left many people marginalized. As a solution, Pope Francis advocated for inclusive politics and responsible environmental stewardship that benefits all—economically, socially, politically, and spiritually. He emphasized that integral human development is rooted in three material and spiritual goods: housing; dignified and properly remunerated employment; adequate food and drinking water; religious freedom; and, more broadly, spiritual freedom and education.

    “These pillars of integral human development have a common foundation,” said Pope Francis, “which is the right to life and, more generally, what we could call the right to the existence of human nature itself.”

    I believe Pope Francis will also be most remembered as a Pope of hope. He has proclaimed the year 2025 as a Jubilee Year—a special holy year of grace and pilgrimage in the Church—with the theme “Pilgrims of Hope.” This Jubilee is officially titled Spes Non Confundit (Hope Does Not Disappoint). Its theme is a profound reminder that all of us on earth are wayfarers and pilgrims journeying toward a definitive Home.

    Pope Francis passed away in April, during the Octave of Easter, probably the time he wanted to died Yesterday, it was very difficult for him to perform the Urbi et Orbi blessing at St. Peter’s Basilica. I watched him—tired and barely able to lift his hands. It is noteworthy that St. Pope John Paul II also died in April, around the Easter season.

    In the death of Pope Francis, the world has lost not just a peacemaker and a bridge builder, but a spiritual father—a universal shepherd who was always ready to provide his flock with their due of spiritual nourishment at the opportune time.

  • Easter and solidarity against human misery – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Easter and solidarity against human misery – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Today is Easter, the commemoration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Easter, the greatest and most exalted Feast in Christendom, evokes joy and thanksgiving. If Christ had not risen, says St. Paul, Christianity would have been in vain. This is why Easter holds great importance for Christians.

    This Easter, more than anything else, calls for a deeper reflection about the meaning of human existence. Jesus Christ allowed himself to die on the Cross and afterwards resurrected at Easter for the love of mankind and by doing so wrought Salvation for mankind. Like Jesus Christ, let us remember that human life is of no use if it is not used for the service of others. Life is measured by love of neigbour.

    God created us and put us in this world to cherish our fellow human beings not to hate them or hurt them. Pope Francis states,”… in the face of many false securities that have now crumbled, in the face of so many hopes betrayed, in the sense of abandonment that weigh upon our hearts, Jesus says to each of us, courage, open your heart to my love, You will feel the consolation of God who sustains you”

    Therefore let us put love where there is no love. We must erect a framework of human solidarity in order to render assistance to weak, the hungry and the suffering in our midst. If Christ has sacrificed himself for us, we have to reciprocate that sacrifice by sacrificing ourselves for the good of others. With the growing poverty and human misery in Nigeria we cannot shut ourselves up in our cocoons and superficial religiosity oblivious of the sufferings of our neigbours.

    Life is a gift we receive only when we give ourselves to service of our fellow human beings as Jesus did.

    Our world is claiming too many new victims through many man-made disasters and natural disasters. Therefore we must lend a helping hand; we must start giving as music legend Michael Jackson was wont to sing. This is the only way to win the human race.

    Easter is also the celebration of our common humanity. For centuries the great religious texts have taught the essential oneness of the human race. Christ allowed himself to suffer and died on the Cross and afterwards to resurrect at Easter for the salvation of the whole human race. He redeemed all the peoples of the world, not just whites, blacks, coloured or any other race.

    But unfortunately, this transcendent perception of our common humanity has waned. We now live in a world that is increasingly torn apart by deep hatred, suicide bombing, and betrayal of the popular will, lust for power, sit-tight political dictatorship and economic and social strains.

    Therefore this Easter invites us to eschew bitterness and rancour. We should learn to forgive always without habouring grudges. We need to identify some common values from which to build a new international order where justice, service, peace, respect for human dignity and mutual understanding reign. Christ came to serve not to be served. Therefore, world leaders should imitate his self-sacrificing service.

    Regretfully the greatest obstacle to this self-sacrificing service is unbridled individualism. Instead of promoting the Common good, most of our leaders are only interested in promoting their private empires. Shame has disappeared from the public life. It seems as if selfishness, greed and corruption have become the societal norms. Calls for solidarity and reciprocity have diminished.

    Everywhere there is man’s inhumanity to man. Meanwhile many Nigerians are dying of hunger, deprivation and frustration today.

    When will this tragedy come to an end? Therefore this Easter affords our leaders the opportunity of attending to the needs of suffering Nigerians. Christ was not aloof from the people. He lived among the people; spent his whole life with the people; shared their anxieties, hopes and aspirations. He fed the people with the finest wheat when they were hungry; he healed the sick, consoled the sorrowful and wept for the dead. These should be the social concerns of our leaders at Easter.

    On the whole, we need a new humanism in Nigeria based on true dedicated service, unity and love. We must learn to see Christ in our neigbours. We need a country where the citizens are not wolfs unto their fellow citizens. We cannot forget that our singular action has either a positive or negative effect on others.

    If Christ has sacrificed himself for our redemption, we have to reciprocate that sacrifice by sacrificing ourselves for the good of others. We cannot shut up ourselves in prosperous religiousity oblivious of the sufferings of our neigbours. Christianity is not a way of seeking personal comfort or simply acquiring material things, rather it is a way of personal commitment and sacrifice for the noble cause of others.

    May the joy of Easter awaken in you and your family a display of true dedicated service and love for our fellow men and women.

    CONCLUDED

  • Combating madness among Nigerian boys – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Combating madness among Nigerian boys – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Nigerian boys are increasingly becoming mad. Speaking at the 2025 Lagos Boy Child Initiative (LBCI) residential workshop recently held at the Lagos State Model College, Agbowa-Ikosi, in Ikosi-Ejirin Local Council Development Area (LCDA), Lagos State, the wife of the Lagos State Governor, Dr. Ibijoke Sanwo-Olu, and a professor of psychiatry and clinical psychology at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH), Prof. Olurotimi Coker, raised an alarm over the growing mental health crisis among boys in Nigeria.

    Citing statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), which revealed that 14 percent of adolescents worldwide experience mental health issues, with suicide ranking among the leading causes of death for those aged 15 to 29, Prof. Coker called for early interventions to rescue boys from mental health crises. According to Prof. Coker, mental health challenges such as anxiety, depression, and substance abuse are increasingly affecting young boys in Nigeria. Unfortunately, these issues are often overlooked due to societal expectations that boys must always be strong. He lamented that many boys afflicted by mental illness suffer in silence because they fear being judged or discriminated against. He therefore urged parents, teachers, and community leaders to recognize the signs of emotional distress in boys and provide them with the necessary support. He emphasized that it is crucial to teach boys suffering from mental illness that seeking help is not a sign of weakness.

    This is saddening, and it attests to the fact that we live in trying times in Nigeria. While the country suffers from a lack of purposeful leadership, the healthcare system is in shambles. An epidemic of sudden deaths sweeps across the land. A person might be hale and hearty today, but tomorrow they could suddenly slump and die. Now, insanity is taking a heavy toll on our country’s boys.

    According to the World Health Organization (WHO), one in every four Nigerians—about 50 million people—suffers from mental illness. Mental health issues among boys in Nigeria have become a growing concern, with recent studies highlighting a significant increase in psychiatric disorders among Nigerian boys. Nigerian boys, especially those from lower-income households, face various pressures. Poverty, unemployment, and a lack of access to basic services such as education and healthcare contribute to stress and mental health issues. Moreover, the rising insecurity in parts of the country, such as kidnappings and violence, can also affect the mental well-being of children and teenagers.

    Additionally, a study conducted at a Borstal Institution in North-Central Nigeria found that 82.5% of adolescent male residents had psychiatric disorders. The most prevalent conditions were disruptive behavior disorders (40.8%), followed by substance use disorders (15.8%), anxiety disorders (14.2%), psychosis (6.7%), and mood disorders (5%). There have been increasing reports of youth suicides and attempts, and research suggests that male suicide rates can be higher than female rates, especially among younger males. Many of these incidents go unreported or underreported, but cases in Nigeria have started drawing attention to the need for better mental health interventions.

    The aforementioned findings underscore the urgent need to address mental health challenges among boys in Nigeria. This is because death associated with mental illness confronts us daily. Factors contributing to the rising mental health cases among our boys are complex, influenced by various issues such as societal expectations, limited access to mental health services, youth frustration, lack of awareness, and a lack of resources dedicated to mental health care.

    Addressing these issues is crucial to improving the mental well-being of Nigerian adolescents and ensuring they receive the necessary support to thrive. Many boys face increased stress due to poverty, family instability, unemployment, or a lack of job opportunities. Addressing these root causes through social and economic policies (such as job creation, educational scholarships, etc.) can alleviate some of the pressure leading to mental health challenges.

    We live in a society that pays too much attention to the girl-child, often neglecting the boy-child. Many boys suffer in silence because they believe society will not pay attention to their struggles. There is a general stigma around mental health in Nigeria, and many people, particularly young boys, are often not encouraged to talk about mental health issues. We agree with the First Lady of Lagos State that Nigerian boys should receive an all-round education, including character and moral values, as well as mental and emotional well-being.

    To make this happen, mental health education should be integrated into secondary school and tertiary institution curricula to help young people understand mental health from an early age, reducing stigma and promoting healthy coping strategies. The National Orientation Agency (NOA) should embark on public campaigns aimed at educating both boys and adults about mental health issues. This can help reduce the stigma associated with seeking help. These campaigns should focus on breaking gender norms that discourage boys from expressing emotions or seeking help for mental struggles.

    Parents, schools, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and communities should be taught how to recognize the signs of mental illness and how to approach their children without judgment. They should create opportunities and open spaces where boys can freely talk about their feelings, including offering free counseling and therapy. Mental health services should be tailored to boys’ specific needs, addressing the unique pressures they face. This includes ensuring boys feel safe discussing their mental health without the fear of being labeled as weak.

    It is unfortunate that the Nigerian healthcare system currently lacks sufficient mental health professionals and facilities. There are fewer than 150 psychiatrists in this country of about 200 million people. The WHO estimates that fewer than 10 percent of mentally ill Nigerians have access to the care they need. Additionally, there are only eight federal neuropsychiatric hospitals in Nigeria, and budget and staffing shortfalls often prompt doctors to go on strike, leave the country, or quit the medical profession altogether. Federal Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital Yaba, for example, is overstretched and overworked. At the outpatient clinic, the crowd of people waiting to consult with doctors is so large that it spills into the hallway.

    The prognosis looks grim. Therefore, the federal government should address the mass exodus of medical professionals and psychiatrists from Nigeria by increasing the salaries and well-being of doctors and psychiatrists working in the country. The government should also establish more neuropsychiatric hospitals and train additional mental health professionals, counselors, and psychologists.

    Proper nutrition and a balanced lifestyle are crucial for mental health. Programs that educate people on maintaining a healthy lifestyle, including good sleep and eating habits, could prevent or reduce the onset of mental health problems. Physical health is often linked to mental health, and encouraging boys to engage in sports and other physical activities can help reduce stress and improve overall well-being.

    In short, we urgently need a healthcare system that prioritizes the rising cases of mental health issues among Nigerian boys. The government should act swiftly and implement the necessary measures to protect Nigerian boys from mental illness. The widespread issue of drug abuse among young boys in Nigeria must be addressed immediately. Now is the time to reach a consensus on how to save Nigerian boys from mental health crises. A country that neglects to rescue its young boys from mental health issues is heading for disaster.

    Therefore, in the coming months, the federal government should invest in psychiatric hospitals and mental health care institutions. More funding for training mental health professionals and building accessible treatment centers will help make mental healthcare more readily available. A national mental health policy that outlines comprehensive steps to tackle mental health challenges is crucial. While the Nigerian government passed the Mental Health Act in 2019, effective implementation is still lacking. Our law enforcement agencies should enforce the Mental Health Act 2019.

    Nigerian boys should be given the opportunity to develop properly—physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, and socially—in a healthy environment, under conditions of freedom and dignity. That is the only way we can hope to nurture the future leaders of tomorrow. Our future is built on the triumph of youthful potential. If that potential is destroyed, our future is inevitably at risk.

  • As Donald Trump returns to the White House – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    As Donald Trump returns to the White House – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Donald Trump staged a dramatic and triumphant comeback to the prestigious and powerful office of the White House on January 20, Martin Luther King Day, as the 47th President of the United States. The epochal global presidential inauguration was marked as the 60th inauguration in American political history. This event was unprecedented, as it marked the first time foreign heads of state or government attended a U.S. presidential swearing-in ceremony.

    The inauguration was graced by foreign dignitaries, members of the diplomatic corps, crème de la crème of the global elite, and powerful world leaders such as President Javier Milei of Argentina, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and China’s Vice President Han Zheng, representing President Xi Jinping. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was conspicuously absent, likely due to surgery he underwent earlier in the month. Notable attendees also included tech moguls Elon Musk, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his fiancée Lauren Sánchez, and Mark Zuckerberg with his wife, Priscilla Chan. For reasons that appeared obvious, Bill and Melinda Gates were notably absent.

    As early as 5:30 a.m., I left the house where I was staying, located at Wyoming Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20008, to trudge through the snow-covered streets to Capitol Hill to attend and cover the inauguration. It had snowed the previous night, leaving roads and vehicles blanketed with layers upon layers of snow. Furthermore, Washington, D.C., was reportedly experiencing its coldest weather in three years.

    Despite wearing a coat designed for American winter, I was chilled to the bone. Imagine a Nigerian walking atop snow! I almost started saying my last prayers as I felt death staring me in the face. At one point, I considered returning to the house, but the thought of retracing my steps seemed as daunting as continuing the arduous journey forward.

    Luckily for me, I managed to reach the Metro station, completely frozen. My hands and head were numb and felt paralyzed. Upon entering the station, I saw a middle-aged American walking toward me. I stopped and asked him for directions to Capitol Hill. Smiling at me, he said, “You must be very cold.”

    “Yes,” I answered.

    “Where do you come from?” he asked, a hint of suspicion on his face.

    “I am from Nigeria,” I replied.

    “From what part of Nigeria?” he queried further.

    “I come from the southeast of Nigeria,” I responded. His face immediately lit up.

    “Are you Igbo?” he asked quickly.

    I answered affirmatively. He extended his right hand, shook mine firmly, and asked, “I hope I am safe if I reveal something to you?”

    “Why not? You are perfectly safe,” I assured him.

    Without hesitation, he stepped aside, reached into a small bag he was carrying, and pulled out a miniature Biafran flag, showing it to me with pride. I was stunned to my core. I stared at him, unsure whether to applaud him or react angrily.

    In any case, I decided to remain calm. After all, I needed his help to find my way to Capitol Hill. He graciously assisted, leading me across to the other side of the Metro line. Together, we boarded a train to Union Station. When we disembarked, he gave me detailed directions on how to walk to Capitol Hill. I thanked him profusely for his help and bid him farewell.

    Upon arriving at Capitol Hill, I was greeted by a multitude of people, too many to count. Men, women, young and old, short and tall—all adorned in colorful T-shirts, face caps, and weather hats with inscriptions like:

    “Donald Trump’s Inauguration, January 20, 2025”
    “The Return of President Trump”
    “Make America Great Again”

    We walked silently, peacefully, and joyously, lined up in single file for nearly two and a half hours along the esplanade, all hoping to secure a good vantage point to witness the inauguration. Occasionally, the silence was broken by spontaneous, thunderous chants of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”

    Walking beside me was a beautiful young Black lady. Upon learning I was Nigerian, she introduced herself as Chinyere from Imo State, Nigeria. Beside her was a prosperous-looking young American man, whom she introduced as her brother-in-law. She cheerfully explained that her younger sister was married to him.

    In front of me walked an elderly man, who I guessed to be in his 80s. After walking for nearly two and a half hours, he became visibly tired and struggled to catch his breath. At one point, he could barely walk. I feared he might collapse. A lady, whom I presumed to be his daughter, supported him with her elbow. Eventually, she was almost dragging him along the esplanade.

    I could sense that the old man had resolved to attend the inauguration no matter the cost—dead or alive.

    Due to dangerous cold and high winds (and, in my view, for security reasons), the inauguration, initially scheduled to take place in the open air of the National Mall, was moved indoors to the U.S. Capitol Rotunda in Washington, D.C., which can only accommodate about 700 attendees. This marked the first time since Ronald Reagan’s 1985 inauguration that a U.S. presidential swearing-in ceremony was held indoors.

    To accommodate the surge of attendees and supporters, the Capital One Arena in downtown Washington, D.C., hosted a live viewing of the swearing-in ceremony and the presidential parade. Numerous streets leading to the inauguration area were blocked off to vehicular access, ostensibly to enhance security. The Metro Center entrances at 13th and G Street NW and 12th and F Street NW were completely closed to both motorists and pedestrians. The United States Secret Service was omnipresent, screening all guests entering the National Mall. Items deemed potential security risks, such as alcoholic beverages, balloons, firearms, explosives of any kind, chairs, balls, banners, signs, placards, and umbrellas, were strictly prohibited.

    The Secret Service also imposed rigorous security checks and surveillance at the gates. No one was allowed to enter with a large bag. Those who brought bags had to leave them outside the gates, resulting in mountains of abandoned bags at the entrances. Interestingly, after the swearing-in ceremony, the owners of these bags did not return to claim them.

    The inaugural program began with a church service at St. John’s Church, Lafayette Square, followed by tea at the White House. After the swearing-in ceremony, President Trump addressed his teeming supporters who had gathered at the Capital One Arena to hear him speak.

    Interestingly, nearly all the open drinking bars, coffee shops, and restaurants around 13th and G Street NW, 12th and F Street NW, and the Capital One Arena were bustling with inauguration attendees who were partying, eating, and drinking.

    In keeping with his campaign promises, President Trump had, at the time of this writing, signed 42 executive orders, including:

    Reinstating service members dismissed for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine: This order reinstates military personnel discharged for vaccine refusal and provides them with back pay.
    Declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border: This declaration aims to address illegal immigration and criminal activities by directing the military to be deployed to the border.

    Withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Paris Climate Agreement: President Trump criticized the WHO for promoting an ideology that he argued undermines life, health, and family values.
    Halting federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs.
    Restricting federal recognition to two sexes, male and female: This order defines sex based on biological anatomy and halts federal recognition of gender identities beyond male and female.

    Prohibiting transgender women from participating in women’s sports.
    Halting federal funding for abortion services.
    Declaring a national energy emergency.
    Reinstating the “Remain in Mexico” policy.

    You may recall that former President Joe Biden, in his first few hours in office, issued an executive order without congressional approval allowing male students in the United States who identify as female to compete in sports with female students, regardless of their biological sex. Transgenderism also influenced Biden’s foreign policy in Africa. Under the guise of “redefining all policies and regulations regarding discrimination based on sex to include ‘gender identity’ or ‘transgenderism,’” Biden implemented measures that made President Obama appear conservative by comparison.

    It’s worth noting that, apart from the commonly discussed gender identities like transgender, New York City and other cities recognize over 112 additional gender identities. These include: Gender Neutral: Individuals who identify as neither male nor female.Aero Gender: Those who claim their gender fluctuates with their surroundings; .Gender Fluid or Gender Flux: Individuals whose gender identity is in a state of constant change.

    Happily shortly after his inauguration, President Trump issued an Executive Order banning the above-mentioned social constructs, affirming that gender is biologically determined as either male or female. In contrast, during his administration, President Biden lifted the ban on using American taxpayers’ money to fund abortions in African countries, including Nigeria. During his first term as president, Donald Trump had stopped this funding, and he has now reinstated the ban through another Executive Order.

    While President Trump is focused on making America great again, the repercussions of his actions may usher in a new international order aimed at restoring peace and unity in war-torn regions, such as the Middle East. Trump envisions establishing an international order where peace, justice, service, respect for human dignity, the intrinsic worth of every individual, and mutual understanding can thrive. Trump has proudly stated that his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.”

    Signs of this paradigm shift are already evident. Both the Biden group and the Trump group are claiming credit for the recent agreement on an imminent ceasefire in Gaza. However, many believe President Trump has been instrumental in pushing for the ceasefire and in facilitating the recent hostage deal. Similarly, the end of the Russia-Ukraine war seems within reach, with President Trump vowing to broker a peace deal in the conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed openness to holding talks with Trump to bring an end to the war.

    As President Trump inaugurates America’s “Golden Age,” his priority during his first 100 days in office, in my view, should be the restoration of fundamental principles—the truth claims, practical wisdom, and constitutional insights of America’s founding fathers. These principles serve as the bulwark of American democracy and, given America’s global influence, as the superstructure of democracies worldwide.

  • Awaiting the dawn of 2025 – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Awaiting the dawn of 2025 – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    We await the dawn of the New Year 2025 with bated breath. Very soon, the exchange of New Year messages will fill the air across the globe. Tonight, multi-colored fireworks and firecrackers will light up the skies in Tokyo, France, China, Japan, Washington D.C., London, Spain, and Abuja as we usher in the New Year. Tonight is a sleepless night—a vigil night. We keep vigil as we transition into a brand-new year.

    In Nigeria, our ingenuity in crafting sanctimonious New Year messages is unmatched and unparalleled. “I wish you prosperity in 2025.” “2025, my year of financial breakthrough.” “Favor, promotion, good health, breakthrough, victory, anointing for excellence in 2025.”

    These are some of the New Year messages reverberating on WhatsApp and other social media platforms tonight. If you listen carefully, you’ll hear people shouting: “Crossover! Come to our church and cross over!”

    Our revelry in all sorts of superstitious beliefs about the goodness or badness of the New Year knows no bounds. Many Christian worshippers are currently sleeping in churches, determined to cross over to the New Year in worship. They believe it’s wrong to cross over in a beer parlor or in drunken stupor. But cross over to where, you may ask? From frying pan to fire? If you didn’t sow anything in 2024, why are you expecting to reap a huge harvest in 2025?

    Please, don’t misunderstand me. I have nothing against the exchange of New Year messages. In principle, there’s nothing wrong with sending good wishes and messages like these. In fact, we should maintain an optimistic and cheerful attitude toward life. We must focus on the brighter side of things—no defeatist attitudes, no surrender to failure. We are not melancholies or sadists who see only the dark side of life. We are full of faith, hope, and love. Therefore, it’s proper and fitting to wish ourselves all the goodness that 2025 might bring.

    But don’t be naive. I know you have faith, but be sensible too. How is it said again? “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” If wishes alone could transform reality, Nigeria would already be the most politically stable and economically prosperous country in the world. One does not reap where one has not sown. If we sowed chaos in 2024, why should we expect to reap a bountiful harvest in 2025? If the Tinubu government was a failure in 2024, why would we suddenly expect instant economic prosperity in 2025?

    You see, no New Year comes with intrinsic economic prosperity. No New Year arrives with prepackaged blessings. The New Year will be good or bad only to the extent that we—the living—work hard to make it so. God has created us and endowed us with intelligence and free will. We shouldn’t expect God to perform miracles to solve problems that are well within our human capacity to address. For example, don’t expect God to feed you when He has already given you hands with which to work.

    Our miracle and prosperity mongers often forget that happiness and sorrow are inseparable in this life. Nothing good here lasts forever. Hardly has any pleasure begun before it ends. We are mere wayfarers on earth, and our path is intertwined with both joy and suffering. No cross, no crown.

    As St. Josemaria Escriva aptly puts it: “On this earth, love and suffering are inseparable; in this life, we have to expect the Cross. Whoever does not expect the Cross is not a Christian. Whoever does not look for the Cross will encounter it anyway and will find that it brings despair. If you look for the Cross with Jesus on the Cross, you can be sure that at the hardest moments, if they come, you will be in the best company—happy, strong, and secure.”

    So, stop wishing away the difficulties of life, for they are inevitable whether you like them or not. God has no reason to work to a miracle to solve ordinary human problem which has not surpassed your human intelligence.  If you ask me, I would say the miracle we urgently need in Nigeria at the moment is the miracle of putting our human intelligence to work to improve the well-being of our fellow human beings. Let us use our God-given intelligence to positively transform Nigeria in 2025.

    As I mentioned earlier, no New Year is intrinsically good or bad. You must work to make the New Year what you want it to be. If you are hard-working, the New Year will likely be good for you. If you are lazy, it will likely be bad for you.

    We must stop deluding ourselves into believing that simply denouncing Satan and his works with an air of hubristic self-righteousness inside a church on New Year’s Eve will magically erase all troubles and suffering in 2025. That is not how life works. Troubles and challenges will not vanish overnight. It is not enough to renounce the evils plaguing our society as if that alone would negate their powers. Instead, we must work diligently for the good of our families and society.

    As I’ve said before, God has given us intelligence, and He expects us to use it to improve the well-being of our fellow men and women. God has no reason to work miracles to solve problems in Nigeria that we can solve ourselves with effort and creativity.

    As we enter yet another New Year, let us remind ourselves that no New Year comes with prepackaged blessings or miracles. You have to work for the success of your New Year. Resolve to do your ordinary work with a sense of responsibility. The Presidency must demonstrate greater responsibility in 2025—no more wasteful expenditures. The same goes for the National Assembly.

    Likewise, the judiciary, that vital third arm of government entrusted with the sacred duty of dispensing justice, must restore its credibility. 2024 was a disastrous year for the Nigerian judiciary. It has become an object of ridicule, tainted by the very people who are supposed to uphold its integrity. The alarming levels of official corruption and moral decay in both the Bar and the Bench must end. Judges must adorn the breastplate of integrity, transparency, discipline, impartiality, and honor in discharging their sacred duties. Similarly, practicing lawyers, as officers of the temple of justice, must cease tempting judges with bribes.

    Lyman Bryson once said, “Great citizens are built upon greatness when their leaders dare to let them use their minds, when the state helps them to know the competing choices open to them, preserving for them the essential democratic spirit which seeks truths by its own efforts.” Unfortunately, the opposite of Bryson’s vision is happening in Nigeria today. This cannot continue. This is not life.

    While we sing redemption songs at the dawn of the New Year, let us remain focused on solving the small but significant problems that improve the lives of our families and the ordinary man on the street. We should not expect God to solve these problems for us. Instead, we must use our God-given intelligence and resolve to work out our collective salvation in Nigeria.

  • Isi-Ewu for Christmas – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Isi-Ewu for Christmas – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Despite the excruciating economic hardship, grinding poverty, and strangulating hunger in the land, the hearts of men and women are still encumbered by the spirit and allure of Christmas. As we speak, country roads are trodden by anxious Christmas travelers eager to arrive in their villages and countryside to celebrate the season. If you listen carefully, you might hear the angels, the Magi, the shepherds, and men and women of our time inhabiting the four corners of the earth chanting in the horizon: “Jingle bell, jingle bell, jingle all the way…” in celebration of Christmas.

    From Washington, D.C., London, Paris, Montreal, Madrid, and Rome down to Abuja, houses, streets, offices, and shops are decorated with special festoons and rosettes to mark the dawn of dies natalis, the birthday of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer and Savior of the world.

    At Christmas, we are invited to relive that profound mystery that occurred more than 2,000 years ago when the second person of the Blessed Trinity took flesh in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary to be born among us. As the Psalmist puts it: “A child shall be born for us, and he will be called God, the Almighty; every tribe of the earth shall be blessed by him” (Isaiah 9:6). The prophet Malachi also re-echoes the urgency, immediacy, and eschatological underpinning of His coming: “But who will endure the day of his coming? And who can stand when he appears?” (Mal. 3:1-4).

    When peaceful silence enveloped the earth, and the night had run half of its swift course, God, who had taken flesh in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, chose to be born in the relatively humble city of David called Bethlehem. St. Josemaria Escriva recaptured it in his words: “When the fullness of time came, no philosophical genius, no Plato or Socrates, appeared to fulfill the mission of redemption. Nor did a powerful conqueror, another Alexander, take over the earth. Instead, a child is born in Bethlehem.”

    I don’t know about you, but I am celebrating this Christmas with *isi-ewu* (cooked or roasted goat head, carefully chopped into tiny pieces, spiced with *utazi* leaves and alligator pepper, and served in a small wooden mortar). An accountant friend of ours is inviting us—his professional friends: lawyers, accountants, medical doctors, architects, and civil engineers—to an Igbo cuisine joint hidden away to tantalize our taste buds with *isi-ewu*. Of course, we will wash down the isi-ewu with palm wine and assorted beer.

    There is a time for everything under the sun. Throughout the year, we have been weeping and gnashing our teeth over complaints that Nigeria is not good. Must we continue to complain and gnash our teeth forever? No. Christmastime is a time to regain our cheerfulness. Agreed, the light has dimmed in Nigeria. Grinding poverty a-plenty. Prices of foodstuffs have soared beyond imagination. Dreams have become empty. Deaths plague the land. Agony and misery loom on the horizon. Heaven threatens to collapse on us, and the ground trembles as if ready to swallow us alive. But should we die in our melancholy? No. Amid hardships the spirit of Christmas endures.

    While the essence of Christmas is not about reveling in an orgy of self-deification, capricious expenditure, and militant consumerism, Christmas is a special time to relax, unwind, and enjoy the company of loved ones. After a year of hard work and challenges, it is important to take a moment to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, appreciate relationships, and create beautiful memories. Sharing a mortar of *isi-ewu* is more than just a meal—it’s a chance to reconnect, laugh, and recharge in the warm spirit of Christmas.

    I can’t wait to savor every moment of being with my friends at the isi-ewu joint. There’s something magical about the experience—the aroma of the spices wafting in the air, the taste of authentic palm wine from *Obeleagu* village, and chilled beer amid the joy of sharing with bosom friends. Isn’t that marvelous?

    Mind you, it’s not just about the *isi-ewu* the palm wine, or the beer, but the warmth, fellowship, solidarity, laughter, and memories created around the table. Whether it’s a perfectly spiced *isi-ewu*  or not, every bite feels like a celebration of hope and optimism.

    So, be hopeful. Everything may seem to be collapsing in Nigeria—politics may have become synonymous with thievery and hypocrisy, and human life may appear to have lost value—but nothing is gained by succumbing to despair, suicide, or melancholy. Be calm. Be patient. Be peaceful. Do not seek to flee from the world. Stop living as if God doesn’t exist.

    Agreed, this is not the life we envisioned. Life may have lost its meaning in Nigeria. Nigeria may feel like an accursed land. Can you imagine that, on the threshold of Christmas, thirty hunger-stricken people, mostly children, lost their lives in a stampede at a Christmas funfair in Ibadan? Meanwhile, the country’s political officeholders continued gallivanting as if nothing had happened.

    Can you imagine that, shortly after the Ibadan tragedy, another ten persons lost their lives while scrambling for palliatives in Abuja? And shortly after these tragedies, about nineteen Nigerians—mostly women—lost their lives in yet another stampede while scrambling for Christmas goodies in Okija, Anambra State.

    But, as I earlier stated, nothing is gained by losing hope. Permit me to share a small but significant thought: we must not lose hope amid these storms. Hope is our greatest asset. When we cease to hope, we cease to live. When we cease to live, we cease to hope.

    Yes, it is true that we live in a sad world, a world bereft of peace. But with our laughter and optimism, we can challenge this sadness and inspire hope. Writing to the Philippians, St. Paul states: “Rejoice in the Lord always. I say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”

    It is worth noting that St. Paul wrote these words while he was in prison. He did not allow melancholy to overcome him. He remained joyful and optimistic. The lesson for us here is that no matter how tragic the situation, we should not allow hopelessness to overcome us. Like St. Paul, let us remain hopeful, for the victorious warrior is in our midst.

    As we celebrate Christmas, let us remind ourselves that Nigeria needs a new humanism. We must learn to see our neighbors as human beings, not as mere instruments to satisfy selfish interests. Man is a social being. Nobody is an island. We are members of the same human family.

    Following the selfless example of Jesus, our political officeholders should bring light to this dark land, hope to the hopeless, justice to the oppressed, and integrity to the wasteland. On the other hand, the people must eschew greed, avarice, laziness, and corruption. It is hypocritical to blame corrupt leaders when the people themselves are guilty of the same vices. The self-sacrificing service of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph during the first Christmas is a call for us to be less self-centered and to attend to the needs of our fellow men and women.

    Finally, Christmas highlights the importance of the family in nation-building. Jesus was born into the family of Joseph and Mary. Everything in the Holy Family exemplifies values of concern, service, dedication, and altruism.

    The family is the nucleus of society. It plays a vital role in shaping individuals. The values imparted by the family in childhood form the foundation for an individual’s future behavior. No wonder the family has been dubbed the “cradle of values.” In Africa and Nigeria, the family, viewed from both historical and cultural perspectives, often serves as a provider of “social safety nets” that nurture individuals into responsible members of society. Therefore let us rejoin our families in this Christmas to savor with them the affection and warmth of family life.

    Wishing you and your family a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

  • Trumpeting triumphant Trump – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Trumpeting triumphant Trump – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Unable to withstand his rhetoric, resilience, indomitable political drive, and dominance, they tried to kill him—twice. Twice they failed. After God saved him from an assassin’s bullet in one of these failed attempts, he returned to the venue where his would-be killer had plotted against him and fearlessly continued his campaign. They mocked him. They slapped him. They leveled trumped-up charges and secured convictions against him, but he overcame them. They paraded him and presented him before the powers of this world with the inscription: “We don’t want this man to return as our leader,” yet he mesmerized them. They hurled unprintable insults to dampen his spirit, but he remained unshaken. Contrary to popular predictions and sentiments, he triumphed over the media-hyped Kamala Harris. In fact, he outperformed her in most American counties and communities, evidence that his popularity spans the broad spectrum of American society—white, non-white, Latino, college-educated, young adults, Black Americans, and even women all voted for him.

    The rejected stone has become the cornerstone. It is difficult for the world to understand the ways of God. Look: God can write with the leg of a table. As seen in the lives of Moses, David, Saul (Paul), and others, God often chooses unlikely instruments to carry out mighty works. Trump may not have the most likable character. Like all mortals, his flaws are visible. He is brash, uncouth, arrogant, and unrefined. He insults people freely. And so what? Name one person without human defects—there is none. Trump, too, has his imperfections. But despite them, he is the instrument God is using to return America to its founding values, the path inscribed on the American dollar and coin: “In God We Trust.” A student of American history will know that this country was built on strong moral principles.

    America is not the caricature often portrayed by CNN, BBC, and other left-leaning media. In my travels across different American states, I have always been struck by the high level of moral and family values cherished by the American people. In contrast, leftist liberal media misleads undiscerning viewers and readers, painting America as a land of immorality, LGBTQ issues, wokism, and a post-Christian or post-truth culture.

    You may be aware that in the beginning, concepts like LGBT rights, abortion, transgenderism, and gender theory—promised by Kamala Harris to Americans—were virtually unknown in the United States. Under common law, marriage was recognized as a contract between a man and a woman. In fact, at the dawn of the American Revolution, this concept was adopted and became part of American law. Several states later enacted laws prohibiting sodomy, with penalties including long sentences and steep fines. At the dawn of the 19th century, and even into the early 20th century, many states in the United States imposed laws against what was deemed deviant sexual behavior, including homosexuality. For instance, in 1970, Connecticut authorities denied a driver’s license to a man who identified as homosexual.

    However, the first organized homosexual rights movement in the United States emerged in the 1950s, seeking to change criminal laws to benefit homosexuals. The sexual revolution of the 1960s gave momentum to the American gay rights movement. Inspired by the American Law Institute’s Penal Code campaigns in the 1960s, some homosexuals began advocating for what they saw as their right to privacy and the freedom to engage in homosexual acts. The first Supreme Court decision to recognize the so-called right to privacy was Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Later, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court—despite dissents from Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justice Clarence Thomas—overruled Bowers v. Hardwick and held that consensual sexual conduct, including homosexuality, was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, subsequent federal and state laws have varied in response, with some endorsing traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

    If you still doubt this perspective, re-read the words of the American Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” Reflect on the works of America’s Founding Fathers, such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. You may come to understand that America was founded on strong moral principles. Unfortunately, Barack Obama, some argue, attempted to dismantle these principles. For example, Obama made LGBT rights a centerpiece of American foreign policy. On May 28, 2010, in an unprecedented Presidential Proclamation, he declared June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, calling on Americans to combat prejudice and discrimination. As U.S. President, Obama directed that male and female students in schools should be allowed to shower together, and he legalized same-sex relationships among American soldiers. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights even ordered an all-female school to allow a male student who identified as female to shower with female students. However, the Trump-Pence administration revoked this policy, arguing that Title IX protections covered biological sex, not gender identity. On his first day in office, President Biden reinstated the Obama-era policy.

    Furthermore, Biden appointed Ambassador Samantha Power, a prominent LGBTQI+ advocate, to lead the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) with a focus on promoting LGBT rights and abortion in African countries, including Nigeria. Biden also warned that countries like Nigeria must legalize LGBTQI+ rights or risk U.S. financial sanctions, visa restrictions, and loss of U.S. diplomatic and financial assistance.

    Had our accomplished sister Kamala won the presidential election, she would likely have followed Biden’s legacy. But, unfortunately for her, discerning American voters gave her a well-deserved red card. Many Nigerians who applaud Obama and Kamala may be swayed by their shared Black heritage, forgetting that beneath the surface lies a betrayal of cherished African values. For instance, throughout his time as U.S. President, Obama never visited Nigeria. Why? Because of former President Goodluck Jonathan’s anti-gay law. Obama vowed that as long as that law remained, he would not set foot on Nigerian soil, even expressing his intent to weaken Jonathan’s government over it. Similarly, Kamala does not speak well of Black people. (And you know she is not Black American; she has Indian heritage.) Kamala has traveled widely, but she has never deemed it fit to visit Nigeria. So why the hype around Kamala in Nigeria?

    Trump’s decisive victory over Kamala resembles President Harry Truman’s upset over Governor E. Dewey in 1948. Before Truman’s re-election, few believed he could win. Public opinion and media hype projected Dewey as the winner. For example, the Chicago Tribune was so confident in a Dewey victory that it published the headline “Dewey Defeats Truman” before all votes were counted. Yet, once the votes were tallied, underdog Truman won re-election. A similar phenomenon played out in last November’s election, with Trump, the underdog, emerging victorious. His second term underscores that, despite the rise of liberalism, libertinism, and “wokeism,” the American people have not abandoned their core values, and in certain circumstances, they reassert their commitment to the principles established by the Founding Fathers.

    As Trump returns to the White House in January 2025, eight years after his first term, the key questions are: What will a second Trump presidency entail? What is at stake in the Middle East under his leadership? What does Trump’s victory mean for Ukraine, the Middle East, China, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Trump has promised to end “wars.” He specifically pledged to resolve the Ukraine conflict and bring lasting peace to the tumultuous Middle East. Despite skepticism from some Palestinians, Trump may intervene in the Middle East to stop the conflicts there and in Gaza. He has already warned Hamas to release American hostages in their custody before his inauguration, threatening consequences if they do not comply. This is Trump: loud, blunt, and unfiltered. He is a “trumpeting trumpeter,” unafraid to challenge political correctness and direct in his words.

    In my view, Trump’s priority in his first 100 days should be the restoration of America’s founding principles—the truth claims, practical wisdom, and constitutional insights that underpin American democracy. Given America’s influence, these principles also serve as pillars for democracies worldwide. During his campaigns in both 2016 and 2024, Trump adopted Ronald Reagan’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.” But if Trump truly wants to achieve this, if he is dedicated to restoring America’s foundational truths and fostering a global order where justice, service, peace, respect for human dignity, and mutual understanding prevail, he must work diligently to restore the universally acknowledged values that were eroded during the Obama and Biden administrations.

    On the global scale, Trump should establish a new international order where peace, justice, service, respect for human dignity, the intrinsic worth of each individual, and mutual understanding can thrive. A world ruled by terrorism, armed conflict, suicide bombings, bloodshed, wars, and rumors of wars is no life at all.

    Finally, what will be the thrust of Trump’s African policies? How will Nigeria fare under a potential second Trump presidency? Trump should help Nigeria resist the negative influence of certain U.S. and United Nations agencies, as well as NGOs operating in the country. Some of these agencies and NGOs, in collaboration with certain Nigerians and the Federal Ministry of Health in Abuja, are promoting programs that harm the character of Nigeria’s youth. A few years ago, Nigerian media widely reported that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, in partnership with Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Inc. and others, introduced in Nigeria and other African countries a one-dollar injectable contraceptive called Sayana Press. The target was secondary school girls, who could privately inject themselves with Sayana Press and face potential sterilization. Influenced by certain U.S. NGOs and agencies, harmful Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) topics have been subtly incorporated into Social Science and other subjects taught in Nigerian public secondary schools. These topics aim to teach students about masturbation, sterilization, breast enlargement, penis enlargement, condom usage, abortion, and other sensitive subjects.

    But with the return of Trump to power we hope that the aforesaid evils will be averted. Many are unaware that the Trump administration (2017-2021) opposed CSE and sexual education initiatives that included discussions on LGBTQ+ issues, sexual rights, and reproductive health (including abortion), particularly in Nigeria and other African countries. This stance was part of broader policies and funding restrictions impacting global health initiatives during Trump’s presidency. For example, the Trump administration expanded the ‘Mexico City Policy’ (also known as the ‘global gag rule’), which restricted foreign NGOs from using U.S. funds if they provided or promoted abortion-related services. These restrictions affected organizations that might have included CSE as part of their broader health and education efforts. Trump’s policies redirected U.S. foreign aid priorities away from population control and the sterilization of African girls. Instead, his foreign aid approach emphasized family values, which align more closely with African cultural heritage.

  • Urgent call for the removal of Professor Yakubu and comprehensive reform of INEC – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Urgent call for the removal of Professor Yakubu and comprehensive reform of INEC – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Following the alleged stealing of the Edo State Governorship election by the All Progressives Congress (APC), tongues have once again started wagging and pens dripping about the meaning of human existence and the deteriorating state of kakistocracy in Nigeria. As long as Prof. Mahmood Yakubu remains the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), thieves, imbeciles, and nincompoops will continue to seize power in Nigeria to misrule and destroy the country. The APC boasts of ruling Nigeria for an outrageous 32 years. This is no joke. They are serious about establishing a one-party totalitarian regime in Nigeria. Under this envisioned dictatorship, President Tinubu would evolve into an emperor, ruling his fiefdom.

    If Prof. Yakubu is retained as INEC chairman or if someone else appointed solely by President Tinubu or his associates assumes the role, there is no doubt that Tinubu and the APC will be declared the “winners” of the 2027 Presidential election.

    Therefore, Nigerians must act now. Tomorrow might be too late. Silence is the devil’s playground. The people must speak up immediately. Our lives, and the lives of our children, are at stake. We must pressure the Tinubu administration to overhaul INEC immediately, starting with the dismissal of the incompetent and compromised INEC chair, Prof. Yakubu, and replace him with a chairman nominated and chosen by the Nigerian people.

    Currently, INEC is in a dire state. INEC reeks of corruption. Can you imagine that INEC is claiming the funds approved for the 2023 General Election were insufficient? The electoral body argues that out of the N355.2 billion approved and appropriated for the 2023 General Election, only N313.4 billion was released as of September 2023. Initially, the National Assembly approved and appropriated N303.1 billion for the election. However, due to rising inflation and fluctuations in the foreign exchange rate by January 2023, it became clear that the allocated funds would not be enough to conduct the election. As a result, the Commission was forced to request an additional N52 billion from the presidency, which was approved by the National Assembly, bringing the total funds for the election to N355.2 billion.

    It is absurd that after conducting a highly controversial 2023 General Election marred by extensive gerrymandering and gross irregularities, INEC still has the audacity to complain that the funds were insufficient. The truth is that the 2023 General Election was adequately funded. In fact, INEC received a 62% increase in funding compared to the 2019 General Election. This increase was intended not only to enhance the electoral process but also to ensure greater credibility through the introduction of new technologies like the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Result Viewing (IREV) portal.

    These technologies were expected to provide foolproof voter authentication and near-real-time result uploads, allowing the public to calculate votes before the official results were declared at the INEC collation center in Abuja. The BVAS is a device used for fingerprint and facial recognition to identify and accredit voters before voting, while the IREV is an online portal where polling unit results are uploaded, transmitted, and made available to the public.

    Despite the increase in funding to enable INEC to improve the electoral process, the electoral body still failed to deliver on many of its promises. For example, three days before the 25th February Presidential election, INEC Chairman, Prof. Yakubu, insisted that there was no going back on the use of BVAS and IReV in the conduct of the election. Sadly, despite INEC’s repeated assurances that there would be no reversal on the use of BVAS and IReV, the commission failed to meet its promises and expectations. This is why most local and international observers and monitoring groups reported that the election was marred by widespread gerrymandering, falsification of votes at polling units, logistical problems caused by the late deployment of INEC officers to different polling units, falsification of the number of accredited voters, ballot box snatching, collation of false results, mutilation of results and computational errors, swapping of result sheets, forging of result sheets, snatching, and destruction of result sheets.

    Despite having adequate time and funds for the preparation of the 2023 General Election, INEC failed to evenly distribute registered voters across the different polling units in the various geopolitical zones in the country.

    Another clear indication of INEC’s failure in the 2023 General Election is that almost everything INEC was supposed to handle during the election has become the subject of long-lasting court litigations. For example, as the electoral body in charge of the 2023 Election, INEC, acting on the mandate of the people, ought to be enthroning State Governors and State and Federal legislators. However, the reality in Nigeria today is that State Governors and legislators are being installed by the law courts. So far, our courts have installed no fewer than eight State Governors. It is not the function of the judiciary to subvert the power of the electorate and put people in power as State Governors and legislators. However, because INEC has failed as a credible electoral body, the judiciary is now performing that function.

    Though not perfect, the Electoral Act provides INEC with a framework for conducting a credible election. However, INEC remains ineffective.

    Now, reflect on the stealing of the Edo State Governorship election by the APC last Saturday. Some are rationalizing the theft, reporting that the APC “won” the Edo State Governorship election. How can APC “win” a governorship election in Edo State when the pump price of fuel has soared above N1,000 per litre? Are the people of Edo State so ignorant as to vote for APC at a time when APC has made their lives miserable?. So, how can any reasonable person or group spread the lie that APC “won” the Edo State governorship election?

    The unassailable conclusion from the foregoing is that INEC is overdue for fundamental reforms. The late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, on August 28, 2007, instituted a 22-member Electoral Review Committee, headed by Justice Uwais, to critically examine the electoral process in the country and advise on areas that require reform. Unfortunately, since the Justice Uwais Committee submitted its report in 2007, it has yet to be implemented.

    It is disheartening that despite several calls for the implementation of the Uwais Report over the years, successive governments have failed to heed these calls. It is believed that if the Uwais Report is implemented, it will curtail most of the overbearing powers the executive arm, led by the President, wields over other arms of government in the conduct of elections in Nigeria.

    According to the Uwais Committee, if Nigeria intends to conduct credible elections, it must establish a truly neutral and independent electoral commission with administrative and financial autonomy. The Committee believes that Nigeria needs an electoral process that enables elections to meet acceptable international standards, legal procedures that ensure election disputes are resolved before the inauguration of newly elected officials, and mechanisms to reduce post-election tensions. This includes the possibility of introducing the concept of proportional representation in the structure of government. To this end, the Committee stated that the INEC chairman and members of the electoral body cannot be appointed by the President because such appointments deprive the INEC of the autonomy and independence necessary to function as impartial arbiters in the electoral process.

    The Committee attributed the lack of INEC’s independence to five major factors, including the partisanship and partiality of its chairman, members, and Resident Electoral Commissioners (RECs). According to the Committee, “The classification of the commission as a federal executive body in section 153 of the 1999 Constitution also brings it under the oversight of the executive branch of government. Similarly, its funding through the executive renders it vulnerable to manipulation and undue influence by that branch. Furthermore, the absence of effective democratic oversight of the commission, for example, by parliamentary committees, is another factor.” The Committee, therefore, recommended that “In terms of qualifications, the chairman, deputy chairman, and members of INEC should be persons of integrity, non-partisan, with vast professional, administrative, or academic experience, and be at least 50 years of age for the chairman and deputy chairman, and at least 40 years of age for the other members. Additionally, the chairman and deputy chairman should not be of the same gender.”

    The Committee also recommended that the composition of INEC’s membership be reviewed periodically to ensure that the chairman, deputy chairman, and other members are non-partisan and have not been registered members of any political party in the preceding five years. It recommended that section 153 of the 1999 Constitution, which classifies INEC as a federal executive body, should be amended, and that INEC’s funding should come directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation rather than from the Presidency or National Assembly.

    To ensure that Nigeria’s electoral process meets international standards, the Committee recommended that the federal government ratify the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance, which mandates member states to establish and strengthen independent and impartial national electoral bodies responsible for managing elections, and to create mechanisms that resolve election-related disputes in a timely manner, ensuring fair and equitable access for all contesting parties. The Uwais Committee also recommended that the 2002 OAU/AU Declaration on Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa be incorporated into Nigeria’s Code of Conduct for political parties.

    Considering the merits of the Uwais Committee Report, the Tinubu government is respectfully urged to implement its recommendations. An electoral body solely appointed by the President or the Federal executive cannot possess the necessary independence and impartiality to conduct credible elections. Therefore, instead of President Tinubu appointing the next INEC chairman and members, including INEC Commissioners and Returning Officers, their appointments should be managed by a transparent, independent body chosen by the Nigerian people through a referendum or plebiscite. For the electoral process to be perceived as fair, the body responsible for conducting elections must be seen as independent and free from political interference. Appointment by the President or the Federal executive could undermine this perception. Many international organizations advocate for the appointment of electoral bodies through a transparent and inclusive process involving multiple stakeholders. This is seen as a way to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of the electoral process.

    Finally, it beats the imagination that INEC is funded directly by the Federal government. Such a funding arrangement compromises INEC’s independence. “He who pays the piper dictates the tune.” If INEC relies heavily on federal funding, it cannot serve as an unbiased arbiter in the electoral process. Public perception is crucial in an electoral process. If INEC continues to be funded by the federal government, the perception of bias in favor of APC the ruling party will persist. This perception could erode public trust in INEC and the legitimacy of election outcomes.

  • Ceding our sovereignty to the UN and WHO – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Ceding our sovereignty to the UN and WHO – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Formally founded on April 7, 1948, under the United Nations to promote international healthcare and improve access to essential medicines and health products worldwide, the World Health Organization (WHO) has enjoyed decades of success and global recognition. As an arm of the United Nations, the WHO is tasked with educating, advising, and establishing health and disease prevention programs worldwide.

    Unfortunately, the WHO has faced criticism for being influenced by a narrow Western ideological perspective, prioritizing the funding and promotion of controversial issues such as vaccines causing infertility, LGBT rights, abortion, population control, teen sexual rights, teen masturbation, and transgender rights in Nigeria and other African countries. To achieve these objectives, the WHO receives significant funding from pro-LGBT and pro-abortion organizations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, Marie Stopes International, Rutgers, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. These organizations provide the WHO with specific funding, directing its work toward their intended purposes. Consequently, the views of the vast majority of countries have very little impact on the actual operations of the WHO, leading to a clear erosion of national sovereignty.

    Shockingly, the WHO has funded the Federal Ministry of Health in Abuja, Nigeria, to issue and enforce the Guidelines on Self-Care for Sexual Reproductive and Maternal Health 2020 and the National Guidelines on Safe Termination of Pregnancy, in violation of sections 17(3)(f)(g), 21(a), 23, 33(1), 37, 38, and 45(1) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution; Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 17, 18, 28, and 29 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification Enforcement) Act, CAP 10; the Preamble to the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (ratified and adopted by Nigeria); sections 228, 229, 230, 297, 309, and 328 of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C38 (and their equivalent provisions in the Penal Code); and sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 17 of the Child Rights Act 2003 (as amended). It beats the imagination that the WHO could conspire with the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja to violate Nigerian laws?. What this has shown is that the WHO and most of these foreign NGOs and organizations working in Nigeria care no hoot about respecting our laws. What many of them are after is to conspire with some Nigerians to decapitate our human capital.

    The WHO in particular has shown itself to be a big nuisance on Nigerian soil. It is on record that the WHO’s vaccination in Nigeria is unsafe and deadly. A couple of months ago, the Global Prolife Alliance (GPA) petitioned the Senate President, Dr. Godswill Akpabio, concerning the recent introduction by WHO of routine malaria vaccination in Nigeria and other African countries. The group noted that the WHO endorsed the first vaccine based on the initial two years of a four-year pilot study, raising concerns about the transparency of the WHO regarding the vaccine’s safety. According to the group, “recent data from clinical trials associated the vaccine with increased risks, including an elevated risk of clinical malaria after four years, a tenfold increased risk of cerebral meningitis, an increased risk of cerebral malaria, and a higher risk of death, especially among female children.” Consequently, the group warns that a precautionary approach should be taken to ensure safety and the strict observance of ethical standards related to parental informed consent in accordance with the 2014 WHO Policy Document.

    It should be recalled that at the height of the ravaging COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO endorsed policies such as lockdowns that had been previously acknowledged by the WHO itself to cause significant collateral harm, disproportionately affecting low-income populations and countries in Africa. The lockdown regulations were a class-based and unscientific instrument, disproportionately harmful to lower-income people and useless for crowded informal settings, such as in urban parts of Africa. At the same time, African governments were subjected to intense pressure to merely adhere to protocols formulated outside the continent, disregarding their demographic, economic, and climatic contexts. This rendered them powerless on public health matters in their own jurisdictions, which was tantamount to eroding their health sovereignty with predictable and harmful consequences. The same WHO discouraged the use of affordable repurposed drugs while promoting new drugs under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The WHO also promoted mass and often mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 for African populations, known to be at very low risk due to their young age and existing immunity, thereby diverting resources from malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and other urgent health problems on the continent, and violating the right to informed consent.

    The WHO funds the radical sexualization of Nigerian school pupils. For example, in 2016, the WHO’s European office issued standards for Comprehensive Sexuality Education that deemed “the right to explore gender identities” appropriate for children aged 0-4 years and the right of children to have sex. School pupils in open classrooms are required to touch each other’s genitals, saying, “I like you.” The pupils are also expected to touch each other’s private parts and find out the differences in their respective private parts. Under the Youth Peer Sexuality Education Training Guide/Toolkit, funded by the WHO and used in many public secondary schools in Nigeria, the students are told to share with other students with whom they feel more comfortable things like: “Your sexual fantasies (fantasies),” “Your feelings about oral sex (oral),” “Whether you enjoy erotic material (X),” “Whether you have fantasized about a homosexual relationship (gay-fan),” “Whether you have had a homosexual relationship (gay-exp).”

    But the most feared and worrisome issue is the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. At the moment, widespread opposition is being fueled by growing suspicion that the proposed Pandemic Treaty and the modification of International Health Regulations, which would be deliberated on at the ongoing 79th United Nations General Assembly  would give the WHO unnecessary powers to dictate and impose obnoxious health policies on nations. Under the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, the WHO would be empowered to tell countries to lock down and close businesses, schools, pubs, churches, and mosques. We would be forced to take injections, whether we want to or not. We would be forced to wear masks again. We would be forced to do whatever the WHO tells us to do, including restricting our personal liberties. This is why some countries opposed to the proposed Pandemic Treaty are rebelling at the moment. For example, massive rallies are occurring in Japan, with tens of thousands of citizens taking to the streets protesting Japanese ratification of the upcoming WHO’s Pandemic Agreement and the proposed modifications to International Health Regulations.

    It is gladdening that Africa is opposed to the proposed Pandemic Treaty. For example, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group, a network of senior African academics from a variety of disciplines committed to advocating for sound public health policies at the national, regional, and global levels, has recently alerted the African Union to table a motion to postpone the votes for the draft WHO Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). According to this group, these instruments are designed to provide the WHO with new and greater powers. More specifically, they would give the WHO Director-General the authority to personally declare a public health emergency of international concern and thereafter exercise unprecedented sweeping powers over all state parties to the proposed instruments. The Pandemic amendment will pave the way for the WHO to take over jurisdiction of everything in the world under the pretext that climate change, animals, plants, water systems, and ecosystems are all central to health. In addition to that, it will remove human rights protections, enforce censorship and digital passports, require governments to push a single ‘official’ narrative, and enable the WHO to declare ‘pandemics’ on its whims and caprices.

    As the 79th United Nations General Assembly trudges on at the United Nations Headquarters in New York,  we urge Nigeria and other African countries to ensure that they do not by any stretch of imagination cede their sovereignty to the United Nations and the WHO. They should desist from assenting to the proposed WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. African countries must not sell their sovereignties to the globalists who are bent on erecting a global one-world government which should be controlling all the countries in the world. Before the leaders begin addressing the General Assembly on Tuesday next week, a two-day Summit of the Future will be held this weekend, that is, from  September. 22-23. Already, the  U.N. member states are currently negotiating three documents they hope to adopt on September 22 – a pact for the future, a declaration on future generations and a global digital compact. The U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said it was “absolutely essential” to ambitiously use the summit to come up with “adequate governance for the world of today.”

    What sort of “governance” was Guterres alluding to? A “one-world governance”, of course. Therefore Nigeria and other African countries must ensure that the rights of African countries are affirmed and respected so that African countries will freely participate at the General Assembly without any subtle coercion to compromise their identity and cultural heritage.  Certainly, the sexualization of school pupils is antithetical to African cultural heritage and philosophical convictions. LGBT is illegal in Nigeria and many African countries. LGBT has no respect for the religious and philosophical convictions of the African people and therefore cannot be imported into Africa. Laws are made in consonance with the values of a people. Every country is interested in protecting what it holds dear or its cherished values. LGBT is a complete break with African civilization.

    African leaders  should table a motion at the General Assembly to halt the process of enacting the draft Pandemic Treaty and the Amendments to the International Health Regulations by the WHO. African leaders should  facilitate a transparent and accountable review of the role of Western-based international governmental and non-governmental health entities in the WHO’s operations and policies. Such a review must ensure the full participation of African countries. The WHO, which is heavily-funded  and masterminded by organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Marie Stopes International, Rutgers, and International Planned Parenthood Federation,  boasts that it would dismantle all legal, religious and cultural and philosophical principles in Nigeria to pave way for its totalitarian onslaught in Nigeria.

    It is obvious  that the  WHO Pandemic Agreement and Amendments to the IHR, if signed in their current form by the requisite  WHO member states will pave the way for the withdrawal of health sovereignty and economic sovereignty from African state

    This is completely unacceptable. Nigeria is a sovereign country. So, we have a right as a sovereign nation to decide for ourselves what is good for us.  We have  a right to reject anything which compromises our territorial sovereignty. Neither the UN nor WHO  has a right to interfere in the way we run our country or enact our laws.  Only our National Assembly is empowered by virtue of section 4(1) (2) of the 1999 Constitution to make laws that conform to the aspiration of the Nigerian people.

    Certainly the UN or WHO lacks the locus standi to dictate to Nigeria and other African countries the way and manner they should run their countries. A people without identity are a people without existence. We have our identity. The UN and WHO cannot redefine who we are as a people. We cannot be copying hook line and sinker abrasive foreign lifestyles and imposing them on our people. To hell with a “one-world government” concocted by the United Nations and the WHO that would result in annulling the territorial sovereignty of independent countries especially Nigeria and other African countries.