Home Politics

No angel can save Nigeria from total collapse unless – Afe Babalola

January 6, 2023

in Politics

VIEWS

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Chief Afe Babalola, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), says the 1999 Constitution will not guarantee the emergence of credible leaders at the February general elections.

“Unless a new Constitution similar to those of 1960 and 1963 Constitutions, with necessary amendments, is put in place, none of the aspirants, and indeed no angel can save Nigeria from total collapse,’’ he said.

The proprietor of Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti, made the declaration on Wednesday at the Ekiti capital at a news conference.

He was reacting to the adoption of Mr Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) by former President Olusegun Obasanjo.

“On April 18, 2022, I urged the Federal Government to suspend the 2023 general elections and to raise an interim government of six months that will fashion out a new Constitution for the country.

“I still stand by my suggestion that any election conducted under the 1999 Constitution cannot, and will not produce new leaders with new ideas.

“Any election conducted under the 1999 Constitution will merely result in recycling the same people who brought Nigeria to grinding poverty, mass unemployment, underfunded education, insecurity and huge external debts,’’ Babalola said.

The elder statesman noted that only a moneybag; and not the best-qualified candidates could win the February presidential election under the present constitutional arrangement.

He explained that the LP presidential candidate’s adoption by former President Obasanjo was his right of expression, and might be a result of the contestant’s acclaimed untainted records of character and sound education.

He stressed that the 1999 Constitution was too lopsided and faulty to produce the type of change agent and developmental leader Obasanjo had in mind.

He added that the 1999 Constitution was not what Nigeria needed at a time like this.

“I am an elder statesman, a SAN, the highest taxpayer in old Ondo State, the highest taxpayer in present Ekiti, owner of the best private university in Nigeria and many more.

“If I contest for political office today, I will fail, not because I am not qualified, but because the system will make me not to win.

“I have no sympathy for any Nigerian aspiring to rule Nigeria in any form, whether as a legislator, governor or president.

“The fact remains that the 1999 Constitution on a large scale is the root cause of economic, social, political and religious problems in the country today.

“Our experience since 1999 has taught us that we are in urgent need of a new Constitution.

“The new Constitution should provide for stringent conditions in respect of age, academic qualifications, character and personality, as well as family background of candidates, especially for the presidency and the National Assembly,’’ Babalola said.

He noted also that Nigeria’s external debt had risen to N42.84 trillion as of June 30, 2022, while domestic debt servicing rose to N5.24 trillion in the same period.

He said that any Nigerian aspiring to lead the country ought to be worried about the country’s debt profile and advocated for urgent measures to defray the huge foreign debts.

“In addition, government should emulate Obasanjo’s example by approaching the country’s creditors, either for total debt forgiveness or for substantial reduction of the debts,’’ the legal luminary stressed.

JCI Aso honours youth development and leadership partners

Wike was right, Atiku has nothing to offer, says Tinubu

Opinion

Suspension of Mike Ozekhome SAN: A Hasty Decision By The LPPC And The Prejudicial Effect Of Same

by Newsdesk Africa

June 26, 2026

By Sheriff. C. ADELE, Esq On June 23, 2026, the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC), at its 173rd General Meeting, approved the suspension of Chief Mike Ozekhome from the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). The suspension, announced pursuant to Paragraph 26(6) of the Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is to remain in force pending the final determination of disciplinary proceedings before the LPPC’s Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee. While the LPPC asserts that the suspension is intended to "safeguard the integrity, dignity and prestige of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria", this decision raises profound concerns about procedural propriety, jurisdictional overreach, and the prejudicial effect it portends for both the legal profession and the administration of justice. This article critically examines the hasty decision of the LPPC, its implications, and why it constitutes a premature verdict that undermines the very principles of natural justice the legal profession is sworn to uphold. Chief Mike Ozekhome, a prominent constitutional lawyer and human rights advocate, is currently facing disciplinary proceedings before the LPPC’s Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee. The proceedings relate to his involvement in a controversial property dispute in the United Kingdom concerning a property located at 79 Randall Avenue, London. Chief Ozekhome is also standing trial before an FCT High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on a 12-count charge, to which he has pleaded not guilty. What is particularly significant and troubling is that the same issues before the LPPC are also pending before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), the body statutorily charged with the responsibility of sanctioning legal practitioners for professional misconduct. The LPDC is yet to make any determination on the substantive allegations against chief Ozekhome. Yet, the LPPC has proceeded to impose a suspension that, in practical effect, constitutes a pre-determinative sanction. The Distinct Jurisdictions of the LPPC and LPDC To appreciate the gravity of the LPPC’s decision, it is essential to understand the distinct and separate roles of the LPPC and the LPDC under Nigerian law. The LPPC is a statutory body established under Section 5 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Its primary function is to consider and determine eligible applicants for the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. Chaired by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the LPPC is also empowered to make rules as to the privileges to be accorded to Senior Advocates of Nigeria. While the LPPC has disciplinary powers over SAN holders, these powers are ancillary to its primary function of conferring and regulating the rank. The LPPC's disciplinary authority is derived from its guidelines, including Paragraph 26(6) of the Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. However, this authority is limited to matters pertaining to the rank itself and the privileges associated with it. The LPDC, by contrast, is a committee of the Body of Benchers established under Section 10 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Its mandate is far broader and more fundamental: it is the primary disciplinary body for all legal practitioners in Nigeria. The LPDC exercises jurisdiction over all lawyers called to the Nigerian Bar and is empowered to investigate allegations of professional misconduct and impose sanctions ranging from admonition to suspension and disbarment. The Critical Distinction The distinction between these two bodies is not merely academic, it is fundamental to the proper administration of justice in the legal profession. The LPPC is primarily a conferring and privilege-regulating body. The LPDC is the disciplinary body par excellence. While the LPPC may have incidental disciplinary powers over SAN holders, these powers cannot supplant or pre-empt the primary disciplinary jurisdiction of the LPDC. When the same issues are pending before both bodies, as they are in chief Ozekhome’s case, the LPDC’s determination on professional misconduct must logically precede any disciplinary sanction from the LPPC. The LPPC cannot independently determine facts of professional misconduct that are the exclusive province of the LPDC. The Hasty Decision: A Premature Verdict The LPPC’s decision to suspend chief Ozekhome from the rank of SAN pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings is, with respect, a hasty and premature verdict that suffers from several fundamental flaws. Procedural Impropriety ...