Crime Facts

NCAA suspends licences of 10 private jet operators

  The Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority has suspended 10 private jet operations over failure to begin the recertification process. This is contained in a statement signed by the Director of Public Affairs and Consumer Protection, Mr Michael Achimugu, on Friday, in Abuja. The agency said the Nigeria Civil Aviation Regulations 2023 Part 18.3.4 forbids holders of Permit for Non-Commercial Flights from using their aircraft for carriage of passengers, cargo or mail for hire or rewards (commercial operation or charter services). “As a result of flagrant disregard of this rule, the NCAA had earlier directed all holders of PNCF to undergo re-evaluation, which should have been concluded by April 19, 2024. “To this end, the NCAA has suspended the PNCF of Azikel Dredging Nigeria Ltd, Bli-Aviation Safety Services, Ferry Aviation Developments Ltd and Matrix Energy Ltd. “Also, Marrietta Management Services Ltd, Worldwide Skypaths Services, Mattini Airline Services Ltd, Aero Lead Ltd, Sky Bird Air Ltd and Ezuma Jets Ltd. “The public is hereby notified that it is illegal to engage PNCF holders for commercial purposes. The NCAA will not hesitate to initiate enforcement actions against any PNCF holder found guilty of illegal operations,” the agency said. The agency said that its officials had been deployed to General Aviation Terminals and private wings of the airports to monitor the activities of the PNCF holders. NAN

Why Federal High Court And National Industrial Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Determine Chieftaincy Matters

By Femi Falana SAN In the last one week, the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court have separately conferred jurisdiction on themselves to determine chieftaincy matters. Both decisions are highly erroneous as they cannot be justified under sections 251 and 254(C) of the Constitution. As will be demonstrated anon, both courts conveniently overruled the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal on the subject matter. The intervention of the Federal High Court in the dispute arising from the deposition of Emir Ado Bayero & co as well as the restoration of Emir Sanusi Lamido Sanusi is a brazen repudiation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Tukur v Government of Gongola State (1987) 4 NWLR (117) 517 where it was held that “The question raised in this claim is not a fundamental right question. As in the first prayer, the right to be Emir is not guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights provisions of the Constitution and the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction whatever in the matter. The Court of Appeal was therefore not in error of law to hold that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to grant the two reliefs.” Before then the Supreme Court had made it categorically clear in the case of Olaniyi V. Aroyehum (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 194) 652 at 660 that the right to be a traditional ruler is not a fundamental right that can be enforced under the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution. Speaking for his judicial brethren, Karibi-White JSC: “I agree entirely with Mr. Otu for the 8th defendant/Respondent that first, plaintiff did not claim that any right of him under chapter III of the Constitution, 1960 was violated. He also did not seek any redress under the chapter. Secondly, chieftaincy is not a matter of Fundamental Rights and cannot be enforced under the provisions of section 31 of the Constitution. It cannot be seriously argued that there is a fundamental right to be a ‘Chief’. It is not a human right even though it is a privilege claimed by human beings in an organised society to bring order to their mutual relationship. It is not such right which the law can enforce by virtue merely of the claimant being a human being.” Since the apex court has said that the right to be an Emir is not a fundamental right under chapter four of the Constitution, the Federal High Court sitting in Kano ought to have declined jurisdiction to continue to entertain the dispute over the chieftaincy matter in Kano. In any case, the allegation of infringement of the fundamental rights of the Applicants is an ancillary claim to the substantive reliefs emanating from the deposition and reinstatement of the embattled emirs. In FCMB Plc v Nyama (2014) LPELR-23973 AT 19-20, the Court of Appeal held that: “Now it is settled that where an application is made under the fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, a condition precedent to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction is that the enforcement of fundamental rights of the securing of enforcement thereof should be the main claim and not the accessory claim. Where the main or principal claim is not the enforcement of fundament right, the jurisdiction of thecourt cannot be properly exercised under Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.” In the same vein, the National Industrial Court held last week in the case of Jonathan Paragua Zamuna v The Governor of Kaduna State & Anor. (Suit No: NICN/KD/13/2023), that the deposition of the Claimant as a traditional ruler was illegal and ordered his immediate reinstatement. In justifying the jurisdiction of the Court to determine the case, the presiding Judge, Alkali J. held that “the payment of the monthly salary to Jonathan Zamuna upon his appointment as the chief of Piriga Chiefdom or as an officer in the public service of Kaduna State who received salaries from the coffer of the State Government of Kaduna State brings the termination of his appointment to the realm of the jurisdiction of the Court.” I submit, with profound respect, that section 254(C)(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended has not conferred jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court to hear and determine chieftaincy matters. Section 254C (1) (k) of the Constitution provides that the National Industrial Court shall have jurisdiction in matters relating to or connected with dispute arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the federation and matters incidental thereto. The deposition of a traditional ruler cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be connected with a “dispute arising from the entitlement of an employee, worker, political office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the federation and matters incidental thereto.” The payment of stipend to a traditional ruler by a state government cannot turn him into an employee or a public officer. Indeed, the controversy over whether traditional rulers are public officers was laid to rest in the case of Chief John Eze v Okechukwu 2002] 14 SCM 105, where the Supreme Court held that “The definition of ‘public officer’ in section 277(1) of the 1979 Constitution, which was then applicable, was very wide. Even so, it did not include the office of traditional rulers…Therefore, even if the Appellant had been a traditional ruler, there is nothing that could be relied on to regard him as a public officer and accordingly, I hold that he was not entitled to the pre-action notice under the said section 11(2).” Since section 277 of the 1979 Constitution and section 318 of the 1999 Constitution are in pari materia, a traditional ruler cannot be said to be a public officer whose removal from office can be challenged at National Industrial Court. In Efa v Efa (2018) 18 WRN

EXPLAINER: Why court order stopping Sanusi’s reinstatement can’t stand

Please note that this explainer was first published on 27 May, 2024. By Pascal Ibe The order from a Federal High court to halt the reinstatement of Sanusi Muhammadu Sanusi as Emir of Kano, has continued to generate reactions from the public. On 23 May, 2024, Justice Liman of the Federal High Court in Kano issued an ex-parte order preventing Kano governor from reinstating Sanusi as Emir of Kano. Despite this order, Sanusi Muhammadu Sanusi ll on Friday received appointment letter as the 16th Emir of Kano from Governor Abba Yusuf at a grand event that took place at the Government House in Kano. Kano governor, Abba Yusuf vowed to petition the judge for allegedly delivering a ruling while in the US. In a feature by DailyTrust’s John Chuks Azu, disclosed how the same justice Liman had on July 8, 2023, restrained the Kano Public Complaint and Anti-Corruption Commission and other security agencies from harassing, arresting, inviting or detaining Ganduje. The order followed the move by the state government to investigate the governor following a 2018 video which allegedly captured Ganduje stuffing bundles of dollar notes from a contractor into his B Babanriga. This piece explains why court order halting the reinstatement of Sanusi as Kano Emir, cannot stand. According to city lawyers magazine, an article by Sylvester Udemezue queried whether if the lawsuit not an abuse of the process of Court, considering that the subject matter is a chieftaincy dispute over which the Federal High Court does not, under any circumstances, have jurisdiction. The article stated that the suit is most likely an abuse of the process of Court by the Plaintiff. The Federal High Court does not seem to have jurisdiction in the matter; there is hardly any way one would frame the relief to succeed in bringing the suit within the jurisdictional competence of the Federal High Court of Nigeria. It’s a chieftaincy dispute, pure and simple, over which the Federal High Court is incompetent to adjudicate. On whether it does not amount to professional misconduct for the Plaintiff’s lawyers to have filed this case in the Federal High Court, considering the subject matter and the cause of action as reported, the writer submitted that the lawyers who filed the case may be considered to have committed an act of professional misconduct in view of the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), 2023. What’s the business of the Federal High Court in a chieftaincy dispute in Kano State? The lawyers knew/know or ought to know that under the Constitution the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is both EXCLUSIVE (meaning that it doesn’t share its jurisdiction with any other Court) and LIMITED, meaning that the Federal High Court is competent to hear ONLY disputes arising from or connected to the matters/items expressly listed in SECTION 251(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 1999. Chieftaincy disputes are clearly outside of it, every lawyer ought reasonably to know. Filing the suit at the Federal High Court is a form of disloyalty to the extant law, which is forbidden by *RULE 15(3)(a),* which provides that “a lawyer must not give service to the client which the lawyer knows or ought reasonably to know is capable of causing disloyalty to the law or bringing disrespect to the holder of any public office”. Also, by virtue of *RULE 15(1)(a)&(b),* a lawyer ought to keep strictly within the law notwithstanding any contrary instructions by his client and must use his best endeavours to prevent his client from causing a breach of the law”. Finally, *RULE 15(3)(b)&(c), RPC* provides that “a lawyer shall not file a suit or knowingly advance a Claim that is unwarranted under existing law”. In my opinion, the lawyers who filed the case at the FHC could be caught under the web of Rule 15 (1),(2)&(3) of the RPC, and as such may be qualified as candidates for professional legal disciplinary processes pursuant to Rule 74(1) RPC, 2023 which provides: “A lawyer who acts in contravention of the provisions of Chapter 1 of these Rules or fails to perform any of the duties imposed by that Chapter, commits professional misconduct and is liable to punishment as provided in the Legal Practitioners Act”. Types of professional misconduct in the legal profession and punishment for professional misconduct are provided for under SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT, CAP L11, LDN, 2004 On whether the presiding judge was not equally guilty of unprofessionalism in having granted this application after having raised issues of jurisdiction, and without resolving the jurisdictional issues raised, the writer noted that the action of the presiding judge who reportedly made this order (that is, if the order was really made), may be viewed as a display of unprofessionalism and may also be seen to amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers. Rule 1(1.2) &(1.3) of the REVISED CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA provides that “1.2. A Judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the Judge’s activities both in his professional and private life. 1.3 A Judicial Officer should respect and comply with the laws of the land and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary”. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Code dealing with APPLICATION OF THE CODE provides that “The Code applies to all categories of Judicial Officers throughout the Federation as defined in this Code. 2. Violation of any of the Rules contained in this Code shall constitute judicial misconduct and or, misbehavior and shall attract disciplinary action” When contacted a lawyer at Equity Chambers in Owerri, Barr. Destiny Alozie simply noted that no Federal high court has jurisdiction over Chieftaincy Disputes. Listen to the audio here 👇

Train attack: Buhari meets security chiefs

  President Muhammadu Buhari has met behind closed doors with security chiefs a few hours after Monday night’s terrorist attacks on Abuja-Kaduna bound train by bandits. The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the train was conveying about 970 passengers from Abuja to Kaduna at about 7.45 p.m. on a fateful day. NAN reports that the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Lt.-Gen. Faruk Yahaya had on Tuesday visited the scene of the attack, where he ordered troops to intensify search and rescue operations as well as hunt down the terrorists. NAN also reports that Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo also visited hospitals in Kaduna on Tuesday where injured victims are being treated. Those at the meeting with the President included all service chiefs, Inspector-General of Police, Usman Baba and Director-General of the Department of State Services, Yusuf Bichi. NAN reports that the Kaduna-bound train, which left Abuja 6pm on Monday, was attacked by suspected terrorists around 7.45 pm, with just 15 minutes drive before arriving at Kaduna. Kaduna State Commissioner for Home Affairs and Internal Security, Mr Samuel Aruwan, on Tuesday, said the train had been secured by military personnel, and that government had evacuated passengers on board. He said the staff of Kaduna State Emergency Management Agency (KADSEMA) and Nigeria Red Cross, Kaduna chapter, conducted the evacuation.(NAN) Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo also visited hospitals in Kaduna on Tuesday where injured victims are being treated. Those at the meeting with the President included all service chiefs, Inspector-General of Police, Usman Baba and Director-General of the Department of State Services, Yusuf Bichi. NAN reports that the Kaduna-bound train, which left Abuja 6pm on Monday, was attacked by suspected terrorists around 7.45 pm, with just 15 minutes drive before arriving at Kaduna. Kaduna State Commissioner for Home Affairs and Internal Security, Mr Samuel Aruwan, on Tuesday, said the train had been secured by military personnel, and that government had evacuated passengers on board. He said staff of Kaduna State Emergency Management Agency (KADSEMA) and Nigeria Red Cross, Kaduna chapter, conducted the evacuation.(NAN)

FG’s Move To Borrow From Unclaimed Dividends, Dormant Accounts

By Abba Dukawa President Muhammadu Buhari signed the 2020 Finance Act on December 31, 2020. The administration has perfected ways to borrow funds from unclaimed dividends and dormant bank account balances unattended for at least six years. The idea of converting such private wealth to federal wealth negates the relevant provisions of the rights to own property as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution. This move is unnecessary because capital market regulators and operators had leveraged technology to put in place initiatives that are already addressing the issue. Indeed many shareholders have opposed the provisions of the law, saying the government lacks powers to manage funds belonging to private sector investors. Nigeria, since 2015 had perpetually grappled with the twin problems of heavy budget deficits and weak balance of payments position. What is the guarantee that the incoming administration and the subsequent ones will have the capacity to repay Nigeria’s debt that has reached a scary level. I however, welcome some amendments of the financial act that will help small companies (businesses with gross turnover of N25 million or less) who have been exempted from payment of tertiary education tax. There is also a tax holiday for small and medium-sized companies engaged in primary agricultural production (crop, livestock, forestry and fisheries). This will help to boost small business. There is also a provision which says individuals earning minimum wage or less will no longer pay personal income tax. Similarly, it has scrapped stamp duty on bank transfers. It however imposed an electronic money transfer levy of N50 on electronic receipts or transfer of money in the sum of N10,000 and above deposited in any bank or financial institution. The levy is to be paid by the receiver. Section 38 has reduced levy to be paid on imported cars from 35 per cent to 5 per cent while import duty of tractors has been slashed. Abba Dukawa writes from Kano State

Life and times of Maradona

The whole world was thrown into mourning following the demise of football legend and Argentine hero, Diego Armando Maradona. Maradona spearheaded Argentina’s exploit in the 1986 World Cup in Mexico where the South American nation lifted the coveted trophy. All through his playing career, Maradona shone like million of stars and till his death there has been a dispute between him and another legend, Brazilian hero, Pele, who won three world cups with Brazil, who really is the greatest footballer ever. Born on 30 October, 1960, at the Policlínico (Polyclinic) Evita Hospital in Lanús, Buenos Aires Province, Maradona was raised in Villa Fiorito, a shanty town on the southern outskirts of Buenos Aires, Argentina, to a poor family that had moved from Corrientes Province. The Argentine legend is widely regarded as one of the greatest football players of all time, and by many as the greatest ever. He was one of the two joint winners of the FIFA Player of the 20th Century award. Maradona’s vision, passing, ball control and dribbling skills were combined with his small stature (1.65 m or 5 ft 5 in), which gave him a low centre of gravity allowing him to manoeuvre better than most other football players; he would often dribble past multiple opposing players on a run. On the field of play, Maradona was a leader as captain of the Argentine national team, His presence of the pitch always sent shivers in the spine of opponents. He was a bundle of talent with a knack for goals. Wearing the jersey number 10, Maradona always carried the burden of his country and the clubs he played during his days. Because of his talent, he was was given the nickname “El Pibe de Oro” (“The Golden Boy”), a name that stuck with him throughout his career. According to Wikipedia, Maradona was the first player in football history to set the world record transfer fee twice, first when he transferred to Barcelona for a then-world record £5 million, and second, when he transferred to Napoli for another record fee £6.9 million. He played for Argentinos Juniors, Boca Juniors, Barcelona, Napoli, Sevilla and Newell’s Old Boys during his club career, and was most famous for his time at Napoli and Barcelona where he won numerous accolades. At the international level, Maradona had 91 caps and scored 34 goals for Argentina. He played in four World Cup for Argentina-1982, 1986, 1990 and 1994. In 1994, he was expelled from the tournament by FIFA for drug-related offence after two games for Argentina, one of which he spearheaded Argentina to beat Nigeria 2-1. Of all the World Cups he took part, the 1986 tournament in Mexico was where he shone as stars. Maradona single-handedly deliver the trophy to Argentina, scoring five goals in the tournament and unlocking the defence of opposing teams. Maradona’s first goal against England which he scored with his hand, is still being regarded as the ‘Hand of God’ till this day. He scored a second goal that won the quarter-final for Argentina against England. The second goal followed a 60 metres dribble past five England players. That goal was voted “Goal of the Century” by FIFA.com voters in 2002. In all, Maradona made 694 appearances and scored 354 goals for club and country combined, with a goal-scoring average of 0.51. Maradona’s career as a coach was not successful. He was made the coach of Argentina in 2008 and took the country to the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, with a dismal showing for Argentina. Argentina crashed to 4-0 defeat against Germany in the quarter-final of the tournament. He was later sacked by his country. Maradona also coached several clubs sides which are Textil Mandiyú (1994) Racing Club (1995), Al-Wasl (2011–2012) of Dubai; Deportivo Riestra (assistant), 2013–2017; Fujairah (2017–2018), Dorados de Sinaloa (2018–2019) and Gimnasia de La Plata (2019–2020). Gimnasia de La Plata was the last club he coached before his demise. The former Argentine star, until his death had serious issues with drugs. He was addicted to cocaine. He was sent expelled from the 1994 World Cup due to drug issues. This has been his undoing till he died. He had been in and out of hospital, aftermath of decades of doing drugs. On 2 November 2020, Maradona was admitted to a hospital in La Plata, supposedly due to psychological reasons. A day later, he underwent emergency brain surgery to treat a subdural hematoma, a blood clot on the brain. He was released on 12 November after successful surgery and was supervised by doctors as an outpatient. On 25 November 2020, Maradona died of cardiac arrest at his home in Tigre, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

TIMELINE: 4 years and still counting… how ASUU strike has affected students since 1999

Incessant strike actions by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) have become the new normal in Nigeria’s educational system since 1999. It won’t be an exaggeration to say that most students of public universities have experienced the anomaly — which disrupts academic activities and elongates years of study. Over 20 years after Nigeria’s return to democracy, the narrative still remains the same as ASUU’s face-off with the federal government over the comatose state of Nigerian tertiary institutions drags on with no end in sight. Checks by TheCable Lifestyle showed that ASUU has gone on strike for more than 49 months — which is over four years — since 1999. With the ongoing industrial action embarked upon by the union this year already spanning over eight months, TheCable Lifestyle examines the timeline of ASUU strikes since 1999. 1999 For many Nigerians who endured the military junta, the country’s switch to democratic rule in 1999 was expected to signal a new dawn across all sectors. But not so for the education sector. Few months after Olusegun Obasanjo, the then president, was sworn in, ASUU embarked on a five-month strike that disrupted academic activities in public institutions. 2001 While the educational sector was yet to completely heal from the previous industrial action, ASUU once again embarked on another strike in 2001. But this time, it was to protest the “unjust” sacking of 49 lecturers by the University of Ilorin (UNILORIN). The strike lasted for three months and ended following the government’s promise to address the union’s concerns. 2002 Citing Obasanjo’s failure to implement his previous agreement with the union, ASUU declared another strike on December 29, 2002. The union had demanded proper funding of universities and the reinstatement of the 49 lecturers of the University of Ilorin that were sacked. The strike, however, ended after two weeks. 2003 In what was fast-becoming a recurring trend then, ASUU embarked on another six-month strike in 2003. The strike was over the federal government’s failure to implement its agreement bordering on poor funding of universities as well as the discrepancy in salary and retirement age of teachers. The union ended the industrial action in 2004. 2005 ASUU yet again declared another strike which lasted for three days. Some reports, however, claimed that the industrial action ended after two weeks. 2006 In 2006, the union announced another industrial action. ASUU had initially declared a three-day warning strike but the exercise lasted for one week before it was suspended. 2007 ASUU strike resumed again over unresolved issues in its previous agreements with the federal government. This time, the strike lasted for three months. 2008 The academic body again announced a one-week strike over the University of Ilorin’s refusal to reinstate the 49 lecturers it sacked despite a court ruling. Part of the issues that led to the strike includes ASUU’s demand for an improvement in the salary scheme for its members. 2009 The federal government’s failure to implement agreements reached with the union in previous years led to another fresh strike in 2009 which lasted for four months. The strike, which started in June, was called off in October after both parties entered the now popular 2009 ASUU/FG agreement. 2010 In spite of the expectations that greeted the 2009 agreement between ASUU and the federal government, it proved insufficient in resolving the lingering crisis. The union would embark on yet another strike in 2010 which lasted for over five months — 157 days. 2011 In 2011, the 2009 agreement again surfaced as the bone of contention. ASUU had accused the federal government of reneging on its promises which include adequate funding of universities and implementation of the 70-year retirement age limit for professors. The union then declared a three-month strike, which commenced in December 2011 and ended in 2012. 2013 In 2013, ASUU — citing poor budgetary allocation to the education sector, the government’s refusal to raise professors’ retirement age from 65 to 70 years, among other issues — again declared another strike. The strike lasted for over five months –167 days. It started on July 1 and ended on December 17, 2013. 2016 ASUU also had a brief strike which lasted for one week in 2016. 2017 By August 2017, ASUU declared another indefinite strike over lingering issues between the union and the federal government. In a memo dated August 12, 2017, Biodun Ogunyemi, the union’s president, said they resolved to go on strike because the federal government failed to implement its 2009 agreement and 2013 memorandum of understanding (MoU). The strike lasted for 35 days. 2018 In the same vein, issues bordering on the federal government’s failure to implement previous agreements with the union fueled another indefinite nationwide strike on November 4. The union’s decision had come after its national executive council meeting, which took place at the Federal University of Technology (FUTA) in Akure, Ondo state. The strike lasted for three months and six days before it was suspended on February 7, 2019. 2020 The latest strike by the union started with a warning from Ogunyemi who had said: “We hope reason will prevail and our salaries wouldn’t be stopped. But if FG stops salaries, then our union will respond. We have a long-standing resolution and we have been saying it: ‘no pay, no work.” It was just January, the dawn of a new year. Hopes blossomed among parents and students of government-owned universities that academic activities would resume again. But by March, students were faced with the usual nightmare: ASUU strike! On March 9, the union had declared a two-week warning strike over the non-implementation of the 2019 agreement as well as its 2013 and 2017 memoranda of understanding (MOU) with the federal government. The strike was also informed by ASUU’s opposition to the federal government’s Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS) initiative. The union had presented its University Transparency and Accountability Solution (UTAS) as an alternative. When the two-week warning strike elapsed, ASUU declared an indefinite industrial action on March

EXPLAINER: What is this ‘Arabic sign’ on the naira all about?

The federal government, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and attorney-general of the federation (AGF) are battling with a suit filed by Malcolm Omirhobo, a Lagos-based lawyer, seeking the removal of Arabic inscriptions from naira notes because they “represent Islam”. Why is this such a big issue? What exactly is this ‘Arabic sign’? TheCable does a little bit of research and comes up with some interesting facts. Is it Arabic or Hausa? Long before the British colonial government thought of amalgamation — or brought Western education to Nigeria — Arabic script had been introduced to Hausaland (in modern-day northern Nigeria) by traders and scholars from across the Sahara. The proper term for this ‘Arabic sign’ is Ajami. It is an Arabic-derived African writing system. The Hausa people used the Ajami script to write in Hausa language — hence the confusion that it is ‘Arabic’. In much of Eastern Africa, Arabic-derived script is used to write Swahili, although the language itself is Bantu-based. Since African languages involve phonetic sounds and systems different from the Arabic language, there were adaptations of the Arabic script to transcribe them. This is similar to what has been done with the Arabic script in non-Arab countries of the Middle East and South Asia, with the Latin script in Africa or with the Latin-based Vietnamese alphabet. “Utend̠i wa Tambuka” is an epic poem dated 1728. The language is Swahili but the script is Arabic-based. This is confusing. What we see on the naira is clearly Arabic but you are saying it is Hausa. The ‘Arabic sign’ on the naira is actually Hausa language written in Arabic script. As explained earlier, in the pre-colonial era, the Hausa people took the Arabic script and made it their own. A typical northerner can read Ajami even if they do not understand the Latin script that is used for English. The northern part of Nigeria did not embrace Western education early, and there is a strong resistance to it in many parts till today. But most northerners are versed in Ajami, having undergone Arabic-based Quranic education as children. Okay then. Should Arabic script still be on naira notes? Why not the common Latin? The argument against the Arabic inscription on the naira notes is that it is a violation of sections 10 and 55 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Section 10 of 1999 Constitution reads: “The Government of the federation or of a state shall not adopt any religion as state religion.” The notion is that Arabic and Islam are the same, and this has led to accusations that the Arabic “symbol” on the naira connotes religion and promotes Islamisation. However, section 55 specifies that the country’s affairs must be conducted in English, Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa. Since Ajami script is in Hausa language and is not a symbol of Islam or any religion, many will argue that no law has been violated. Nigerian laws are silent on the script for writing, although the most common is Latin. I am holding a N10 bill right now. I can’t find any Arabic script on it. Are you sure of all you have been saying? In February 2007, the government removed Arabic script from some lower-denomination notes. It said that Ajami was no longer necessary because most Nigerians could now read and write in English. The government also said it removed Ajami in order to conform to Nigeria’s 1999 constitution. In 2014, the Goodluck Jonathan administration issued a new N100 note to commemorate the 1914 amalgamation. Naira Goma (N10) was written in Hausa with Ajami script until 2007 In 2007, Naira Goma was changed from Ajami to Latin script On previous the banknote, the words “Naira Dari” — Hausa for “one hundred naira” — appeared in Ajami. Now, the Hausa was printed, like the Yoruba and Igbo, in Latin letters (English). This was highly controversial and was viewed in religious and political contexts. Currently, there is Ajami script on N1,000, N500 and N200 notes. Culled From TheCable

The fat pension of ex-Lagos governors Tinubu, Fashola, Ambode [Details]

Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu struck the right chord today when he announced he would submit a law very soon abolishing what critics have called the obscene pension package of former Lagos governors. He said the move was necessary as state resources are dwindling. The governor may also be doing so as the destruction of state assets by hoodlums in October will take many billions of naira to replace. The pension law was passed by rubber stamp state assembly in 2007 as former Governor Bola Tinubu was ending his second term tenure. Titled: The Public Office Holder (Payment of Pension) Law No 11 Official Gazette of Lagos State, 2007, the law has been copied by other states. But states such as Zamfara and Bauchi have cancelled their own versions of the law. And a court of law had ruled that that the law was illegal, as it is not in the constitution. Beside, the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission, RMAFC said the governors are only entitled to 300 percent severance pay, as provided in Certain Political Office Holders and Judicial Officers Remuneration Act. Under that act, former governors,, like lawmakers are entitled to 300% of their basic salary of N2, 223,705 amounting to N6,671,115 as severance pay. The Lagos pension law for ex-governors states that former governors of the state are entitled to a house each in any location of their choice in Lagos and Abuja. Section 2 of the law states that, “One residential house each for the governor and the deputy governor at any location of their choice in Lagos State and one residential house in the Federal Capital Territory for the governor on two consecutive terms.” This means Akinwunmi Ambode, a one-termer is not entitled to a house in Abuja, but he is entitled to one in Lagos. Only Tinubu and Fashola qualify for two houses, one in Lagos and the other in Abuja. The law also provides for six new cars every three years, 100 per cent of the basic salary of the serving governor (N7.7m per annum), as well as free health care for himself and members of his family. The law also says former governors will be entitled to: *Furniture allowance, which is 300 per cent of their annual basic salary (N23.3m); *House maintenance allowance, which is 10 per cent of basic salary (N778, 296); Utility allowance, which is 20 per cent of the salary (N1.5m) *Car maintenance allowance, which is 30 per cent of the annual basic salary (N2.3m). *Entertainment allowance, which is 10 per cent of the basic salary (N778, 296) *A personal assistant, who will earn 25 per cent of the governor’s annual basic salary (N1.9m). According to the law, the former governor will also be entitled eight policemen and two officials of the Department of State Services for life. The state will bear the expenses.

Hike: Electricity consumers to pay N417.09bn in four months

Following the recent increase in electricity tariffs , the 11 distribution companies in the country are allowed to collect a total of N 417. 09bn from their customers from September to December . The Discos had early this month announced what they called ‘ new service reflective tariff’ , which took effect from September 1, with the tariffs being charged residential consumers receiving a minimum of 12 hours of power supply rising by over 70 per cent. The amounts recoverable by the Discos through the allowed end -user tariffs range from 61 per cent to 90 per cent of the total revenue required , according to the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission. The tariff shortfall , which is the difference between the Discos ’ revenue requirement and the amounts they are allowed to recover from their customers by the regulator , will be funded by the Federal Government . The PUNCH had reported that the Federal Government would fund a tariff shortfall of N 104. 5bn that will be recorded by the Discos in the four – month period , according to the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission. Ikeja Disco is allowed to recover N 66. 52bn ( 90 per cent of its total revenue requirement) from September to December , a NERC document showed . Eko Disco is allowed to recover N 48. 46bn ( 86 per cent); Kano Disco, N 34. 13bn ( 84 per cent); Abuja Disco, N 49. 16bn ( 83 per cent); and Enugu Disco, N 38. 81bn ( 82 per cent) . The amounts recoverable by Kaduna Disco is N 35. 22bn ( 82 per cent : Ibadan Disco, N 54. 61bn ( 78 per cent ); Benin Disco, N 34. 94bn ( 74 per cent); and Yola Disco, N 13. 34bn ( 71 per cent ) . Port Harcourt and Jos Discos are allowed to recover N 23. 63bn ( 68 per cent) and N 18. 27bn ( 61 per cent) respectively . NERC said the Power Sector Recovery Plan provided for a gradual transition to cost -reflective tariffs with safeguards for the less privileged in the society , adding that full cost -reflective tariffs would be charged by July 2021. “ The Federal Government , under the PSRP Financing Plan , has committed to fund the revenue gap arising from the difference between cost -reflective tariffs determined by the commission and the actual end -user tariffs during the transition to cost -reflective tariffs, ” it added . According to the commission, all the Discos are obligated to settle their market invoices in full as adjusted and netted off by applicable tariff shortfall approved by the commission. It said the Discos would be liable to relevant penalties /sanctions for failure to meet the minimum remittance requirement in any payment cycle in accordance with the terms of its respective contracts with the Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading and the Market Operator, an arm of the Transmission Company of Nigeria . The Discos only collect an estimated 24 per cent of the tariff revenue, while the balance goes to the TCN, generation companies and other industry stakeholders , according to the Association of Nigerian Electricity Distributors.