Home Backpage

The collapse of the Nigerian tripod

January 11, 2023

in Backpage

VIEWS

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

By Uzor Maxim Uzoatu

Nigeria today stands on wobbly legs, and what needs to be done to make the country to stand steady and strong is to go back to where the rain started beating the country in the modern day.

At independence in 1960, Nigeria was said to stand on a pivotal tripod of East, West and North.

The 1967-70 Nigeria-Biafra war ensured that the North in alliance with the West defeated the East.

The oppressed minorities of course took sides with the victors because nobody would ever want to be in the corner of losers.

That is a simple historical fact, and any other embellishments only exist to serve expedience.

According to Michael Crowder in The Story of Nigeria, “When the British occupied Nigeria they had almost no contact with the large Ibo (sic) and Ibibio population of the East, whilst already many Yoruba had received English education and provided a small intellectual elite in Lagos. Population pressures and land hunger in the East forced many Ibo and Ibibio to migrate to the cities of the West and North, where they proved remarkably successful as clerks, railway workers and storekeepers.”

In The Trouble with Nigeria, Chinua Achebe writes: “Nigerians of all other ethnic groups will probably achieve consensus on no other matter than their common resentment of the Igbo.”

Achebe continues thusly: “The origin of the national resentment of the Igbo is as old as Nigeria and quite as complicated. But it can be summarized thus: The Igbo culture being receptive to change, individualistic and highly competitive, gave the Igbo man an unquestioned advantage over his compatriots in securing credentials for advancement in Nigerian colonial society. Unlike the Hausa/Fulani, he was unhindered by a wary religion and unlike the Yoruba unhampered by traditional hierarchies. This kind of creature, fearing neither god nor man, was custom-made to grasp the opportunities, such as they were, of the white man’s dispensation. And the Igbo did so with both hands. Although the Yoruba had a huge historical and geographical head-start the Igbo wiped out their handicap in one fantastic burst of energy in the twenty years between 1930 and 1950.”

The fear of the other tribes could not have been assuaged by Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe’s statement, to wit: “It would appear that the God of Africa has created the Ibo nation to lead the children of Africa from the bondage of the ages…”

When Majors Emmanuel Ifeajuna and Patrick Nzeogwu struck to end the wobbling First Republic, the coup was tagged an “Igbo Coup” even though the plotters had planned, according to them, to release Chief Obafemi Awolowo from prison and compel him to rule the country.

On why the coup-makers wanted Awolowo as the leader of the country, Major Ifeajuna wrote in his unpublished manuscript: “Chief Awolowo launched forth his party on a platform of tribalism, and for his parochial and partisan approach to national issues, he got deserving blame. But probably in the later Awolowo of after the 1959 Federal election that began the fiasco, our people saw for a second time an image of honesty, courage and discipline… In time he came to win the respect and admiration of even his greatest detractors, and what was more, he came to represent a rallying point for the young and the intellectual, for all that sought progress and nationhood for our country.”

Major-General Aguiyi-Ironsi who took over after the failed coup announced the Unification Decree, which took the fear of Igbo domination to a fever pitch. Thousands of hapless Igbo were massacred in the North during the pogroms of 1966 until Ironsi himself was killed and toppled in the revenge coup of the Northern officers.

After taking over power, Gowon had prepared a speech to announce the dissolution of the Nigerian Federation on August 1, 1966 and the secession (araba) of the North until he was prevailed upon to change his mind by the British High Commissioner in Lagos, Sir Francis Cumming-Bruce.

As the British did not want Nigeria dissolved, enormous support was given to the Federal forces, with the help of then Soviet Union, to defeat secessionist Biafra led by Odumegwu-Ojukwu.

Historically, the British had faith in the government of the feudal emirs of the North and the highly organized if decadent kings of the West as opposed to the rebellious and almost ungovernable Igbo and minority republics of the East.

There was talk after the war by Gowon of reconstruction, rehabilitation and reconciliation, but progress on all fronts is neither here nor there.

The contradictions of Nigeria are staring back at the nation, and the truth that cannot be dodged remains that unless the other leg of the tripod is fully reintegrated into the country, Nigeria can only at best be living on wobbly legs and borrowed time.

Atiku indicted over corruption, says ex-aide, Achumugu

Two men impregnates 10 ladies in marathon sexual escapades

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 ...