Law and Order Africa by Dr Oluwole Kunuji

Questions have been raised as to whether the intervention of the Nigerian President in certain matters connected with the internal politics of Rivers State in the last quarter of 2023 was constitutional? The principal argument of those who reject and decry the said intervention is that Nigeria being a federal country with supposed independence and autonomy of the federating States, the President has no constitutional authority whatsoever to intervene in or interfere with the internal politics of any of the said federating States. In essence, the protagonists of this argument harp on the federal character of the Nigerian State as the main plank of their argument for the exclusion of any presidential intervention in the political debacle in Rivers State. It seems to me that those who argue this way are either unfamiliar with or deliberately ignorant of Nigeria’s recent political history and the nature of her federal democratic system.  A Brief Overview of the Facts  The Rivers S...

  Summary of the Facts On the 26th of February 2022, the Government of Ukraine submitted, to the International Court of Justice, an application instituting proceedings against the Russian Federation. The application pertains to the appropriate “interpretation, application, and fulfilment” of certain provisions of the 1948 Genocide Convention, and was brought pursuant to Articles 36(1) and 40 of the Statute of the International Court and Article 38 of its Rules of Court. According to the application, Ukraine avers that Russia’s recent invasion of its territory is based on spurious allegations of genocide committed by Ukrainian forces in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Ukraine claims that based on these allegations, Russia proceeded to forcefully and illegally launch a “special military operation” in Ukrainian territory to prevent and punish the alleged acts of genocide. Ukraine vehemently denies that it committed acts of ge...

In an earlier article , I argued that sit-tightism remains a major bane of democracy and constitutionalism in Africa. In the said article I defined sit-tightism as “wilful reluctance on the part of political leaders to relinquish power” even when it has become legally, politically and morally repugnant to hold on to power. Sit-tightism, I argued, is usually “facilitated by dictatorship and oiled by brutal repression of dissent and fundamental freedoms.” Strewn all over Africa are glaring examples of this malaise. Indeed, it is often as if Africa and her people are doomed to exist ad nauseam under the climate of sit-tightism. The more Africa strives to extricate herself from the clutches of sit-tightism, the more the continent is drawn into its vortex. Nothing explains this better than the recent political debacle in the northern African country of Algeria where President Abdelaziz Bouteflika refused to willingly relinquish power despite having occupied office for two dec...

It is not yet clear whether the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), described as Africa’s strategic framework for continental socio-economic development, is another white elephant project, the like of which is not in short supply across Africa. The vision behind the NEPAD initiative is great, it’s framework document is loftily worded, and there are initial signs that the NEPAD Agency is determined to actualize the vision of the African Union for economic renaissance across the continent. But we have seen projects like this before. Many of them have since become moribund. What will set NEPAD apart from previous failed ventures is not just the unwavering commitment of the African Union as a body to the goal of Africa’s economic rebirth, but also a determination on the part of the NEPAD Agency- the technical body saddled with the task of implementing the AU’s economic rejuvenation vision- to properly situate its role in Africa’s economic recovery process. The A...

It is no longer news that Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir has been removed from office. However, the approach employed in effecting his removal remains constitutionally problematic. Bashir’s forceful removal was coordinated by the Sudanese military through a coup d’etat that has attracted global condemnation. The military putsch goes against the spirit and letter of the Sudanese constitution and various charters and conventions of the African Union. Section 1(1) of the 2005 Constitution of Sudan categorically asserts that the Republic of Sudan is a “democratic” and “decentralized” State. The democratic and decentralized character of the State is further reinforced by several other provisions of the Constitution, including its preamble which expresses the desire of the Sudanese people to “establish a decentralized multi-party democratic system.” Nowhere in the constitution is provision made for the Sudanese Armed Forces to intervene in the political affairs of the State under any circ...

The vociferous agitation for “Biafra” by some groups in South-Eastern Nigeria and the growing clamour for “restructuring” by individuals and groups in other parts of Nigeria, show quite clearly that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Nigerian federal system as presently structured. Those who choose to play the ostrich and pretend that this is not the case are only living in denial. With time, they will have to confront reality. Nigeria’s federal arrangement, dominated, as it is, by a monolithic and domineering central government, represents the very antithesis of the federal idea. Not only is this federal arrangement fundamentally flawed, it mocks the democratic philosophy that underpins the federal system of government. The above notwithstanding, it must be emphasized that the problem does not admit of precipitate, rash or uncoordinated ameliorative approaches. If anything, the peculiar character of Nigeria as a complex multi-ethnic society makes caution and tact essentia...