President’s dictatorial disregard of the commands of our Constitution: Disquieting worries of Igbo Leaders of Thought



THE executive power of the Federal Government vested in the President of Nigeria by section 5 of the Constitution is a frightfully enormous power. In terms of its extent, it embraces all the eight functions set out in my earlier write-up. They are worth repeating here again for easy understanding, viz taking actions involving execution, including appointment and disciplinary control of executive functionaries of government; execution of the laws – the law of the Constitution and other laws; maintenance of law and order; the determination and conduct of policy; direction and control of the departments of state and their activities; protection or preservation of the properties and instrumentalities of government; co-ordination of the activities of government ministries, departments and agencies (MDAS); and lastly pure administration.

In view of the awesome enormousness of the power, it is not unnatural that Gen. Muhammadu Buhari should passionately covet the office, as attested by the fact that he contested for it in four successive presidential elections in 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015. But what is disquieting is that, while intensely coveting the office because of its enormous powers, he should arrogantly disregard the commands of the Constitution imposing restraints on the way and manner the powers are to be exercised. In fairness to him, the question may be asked whether he knows of the constitutional commands and the restraints they impose on the exercise of his well-known and undoubted powers. It is hard, however, to believe that, after contesting presidential election for four consecutive times, he is, or can be, ignorant of the limitations with respect to the way and manner for exercising the powers. He must be taken to know of them. His disregard of them cannot therefore be other than deliberate and well-calculated.

It is necessary at this point to emphasise that constitutionally prescribed manner or form for the exercise of power is nearly as important as the power itself. Our Supreme Court has held that non-compliance with, or violation of, the former attracts the sanction of nullity equally as the perversion or abuse of the power.

Given that he knows of the restraints which the Constitution of the country he desperately wants to rule, imposes on the way and manner the powers of the presidential office are to be exercised, and that his disregard of them is deliberate and well-calculated, the intriguing question arising from his disregard of the constitutional restraints concerns the reasons or motives for it. The reasons or motives may reasonably be inferred from his statements, and actions/conduct as well as from events generally, and these suggest that the disregard is done in furtherance of a pre-determined Islamisation/ Northernisation agenda. The existence of such agenda is not something conjured up just to discredit him; on the contrary, it is a fact irrefutably attested by his statements, actions/conduct and events generally.

His commitment to the Islamisation agenda was heralded in a speech at a seminar organised by the Supreme Council of Sharia in Nigeria in August 2001 where he (Gen Buhari) publicly declared that he was committed to implementing Sharia law all over the country. The Islamisation agenda was a significant factor in the APC presidential primary for the 2015 election. The voters at the said primary, who were predominantly moslems from the North, wanted a presidential candidate whom they could confidently rely upon to implement the Sharia agenda, and so voted overwhelmingly for Buhari as the man to be relied upon for the job, giving him 3,430 votes, as against 954 votes for Atiku Abubakar, also a Moslem but not a diehard Islamist like Buhari.

His position as a fervent apostle of the Islamisation/Northernisation agenda was re-affirmed in a speech he, as President-elect, delivered before an audience of exclusively prominent Northern Moslem leaders on 2 May, 2015 at Queen Amina Hall, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria. “I charge you”, he said with the ardour of a zealot, “to join me as we build a new Northern Nigeria in a generation ………the best investment we can make in the North is not finding oil in the Chad Basin……..we will start with one local government in each state until we get to every school in all of Northern Nigeria……. To achieve this, I have secured a Northern rehabilitation fund…… rebuild the North after the devastation of Boko Haram insurgency…… Join me my brothers and sisters and let us finish the work our forefather, Ahmadu Bello, started.” Is it not a sweet, beguiling deceit that the same President-elect should, in another speech, say: “I belong to everybody and I belong to nobody”?

In the ABU Zaria speech, I venture to say, lies the answer to what some regard as the “puzzle” of his appointments since assuming office as President on 29 May, 2015. Of the altogether 31 such appointments, 24 (or nearly 80%) go to the North, 7 to the South, distributed 4 to the South-West, 3 to the South-South and nil to the South-East.

The Isamisation/Northernisation agenda has a link with the President not announcing his ministerial nominees more than three months after his inauguration. The disdainful delay was not, as is naively thought in some quarters, because of his concern to make sure that only the right persons, the Buhari “saints”, would make the list. Far from that; he simply did not want interference by ministers by way of advice in the vital appointments he has made and in the other crucial actions or decisions he has taken. Ministers are an unwanted incumbrance on the regime of personal rule to which his disposition and his antecedents as army commander and head of the military government have accustomed him. He will eventually announce his ministerial nominees but he will be doing so reluctantly and grudgingly. He neither wants nor needs them.

What is said above is largely by way of introduction. The main aim of this write-up is to examine the constitutional commands respecting the way and manner for the exercise of presidential powers, with particular reference to the obligation laid on the President to (i) submit himself to the restraining influence of the advice of ministers both as individuals and collectively at regular meetings with them. (This has been examined in my previous write-up); (ii) to observe and conform to the principles of justice, social justice and equality in the administration of government – both legal equality (or equality before the law) and social equality (embraced in the term social justice); (iii) to treat citizens equally without unfair discrimination based on ethnicity, place of origin, religion, political opinion or sex. The restraints of these obligations are not imposed without compelling reasons. The write-up examines the underlying reasons for them.

Our Constitution enshrines in its chapter 2, Directive Principles of State Policy which “all organs of government, and all authorities and persons exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers” must, as a matter of constitutional “duty”, “conform to, observe and apply” in governance (section 13). Among the principles so enshrined are those of justice, social justice and equality. Thus, it is declared as follows:
“The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a state based on the principles of democracy and social justice” (section 14(1)).
“The state social order is founded on the ideals of Freedom, Equality and Justice” (section 17(1)).
“The national ethic shall be …….Social Justice……..” (section 23)
There is another remarkable directive of great significance in this connection. It is commonly referred to as the “federal character” principle. It is contained in section 14(3), and says:
(3) The composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few States or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that Government or in any of its agencies.

A similar provision is made in subsection (4) as regards a State Government and a local government council. The concentration of 24 out of the 31 (or nearly 80%) appointments so far made by President Buhari is clearly a flagrant violation of the federal character directive.

In furtherance of the principles of justice, social justice and equality declared in sections 14(1), 17(1) and 23, chapter 2 goes on to lay on the state specifically a positive duty to direct its policy towards ensuring equality in the general condition of society, i.e. social equality. In view of the natural inequality among individuals owing to differences between them in physical, intellectual and will power, social equality can only mean equality in the general condition of society secured by the actions of the state. The actions which this requires of the state are set out in some detail in chapter2, but it will over-burden this write-up to examine them here.

More pertinently for present purposes, chapter 2 further directs that “every citizen shall have equality of rights, obligations and opportunities before the law”; that “every citizen shall have equality of rights, obligations and opportunity for securing adequate means of livelihood as well as adequate opportunities to secure suitable employment” (s.17(3)); that there shall be “equal pay for equal work without discrimination on account of sex, or on any other grounds whatsoever (s.17(3)(e)), as well as equal educational opportunities at all levels (s. 18(1)).

While, as stated below, the prohibition in the Bill of Rights is limited to discrimination based on the grounds of ethnicity, place of origin, membership of a particular community, sex, religion or political opinion, the directives in Chapter 2 of the Constitution are not so qualified. But the combined effect of the two sets of provisions is that all unfair discriminations, that is to say, discrimination without rational or objective justification, are constitutionally prohibited. It is universally accepted that discrimination based solely on the grounds specified in the Bill of Rights (s. 42) is altogether irrational and is, therefore, not reasonably justifiable in a constitutional democracy.
Rationale for requiring conformance with the principles of justice, social justice and equality in the administration of government

Professor Lord Bryce has articulated the place of equality as a pre-supposition (though not a constitutive element) of democracy. “Democracy”, he writes in his book, Modern Democracies, vol 2 (1920), page 674, “is supposed to be the product and the guardian both of Equality and Liberty, being so consecrated by its relationship to both these precious possessions as to be almost above criticism..”
The importance of justice in human society is perhaps best illustrated by considering the feelings aroused in us by injustice. Whereas justice is a cold virtue that evokes no feeling, injustice or unfairness arouses intense fury in us, as we get heated up and indignant about it. “Indignation, which is the conceptually appropriate response to injustice, expresses, as its etymology shows, a sense of not being regarded as worthy of consideration. Injustice betokens an absence of respect, and manifests a lack of concern.” Lucas, On Justice (1980), p.7. For this reason, the occurrence of injustice, especially if it is on a wide scale, immediately puts the “unity and coherence of society under strain.” Lucas, op. cit., p. 4

Justice is thus rightly regarded as the “bond of society,” Lucas, op. cit., p. 18, the “cornerstone of human togetherness.” Oputa, Lecture on Justice. It is the condition in which the individual can feel able “to identify with society, feel at one with it, and accept its rulings.” Lucas, op. cit., p. 1. An unjust society cannot maintain its unity and cohesion, because it cannot arouse in its members a strong enough feeling of loyalty and allegiance. Injustice not only alienates the individual’s loyalty, what is worse, it also arouses him to disaffection. An individual, denied recognition by society, cannot but feel alienated and disaffected. “Justice,” wrote James Madison, “is not only the end of government, it is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” James Madison, The Federalist, No. 25, ed. Clinton Rositer (1961). Unjust action by the state as between the racial, ethnic and religious groups comprised in it (i.e. the state) is of far greater concern. This is because of its tendency to generate greater bitter resentment and to provoke more violent social conflicts than unjust treatment of individuals.

By concentrating in the North nearly 80% of his 31 strategic appointments and by excluding the South-East completely, a feeling of alienation, of not being wanted, may have been created on the part of those so disadvantaged or excluded. A feeling of alienation may grow into that of disaffection or disloyalty.

But it is perhaps social justice more than individual justice that bears more significantly upon the maintenance of the unity and coherence of society. As Honore has observed, “modern social and economic developments have made it clear that individual justice….is only a partial and incomplete form of justice.” This perhaps accounts for the shift in emphasis since the 19th century from analysis of individual justice to that of social justice. The glaring injustice of the present-day economic order, both domestic and international, the cry of the underprivileged for protection and the demands of the individual on the state for welfare services have compelled attention being increasingly focused on the need and importance of social justice and away from issues of individual justice that once dominated it, and which characterised the order of society governed by classical liberalism. The concept of social justice has indeed conquered the public imagination. “Almost every claim for government action on behalf of particular groups is advanced in its name, and if it can be made to appear that a certain measure is demanded by social justice, opposition to it will rapidly weaken. People may dispute whether or not the particular measure is required by social justice, but that this is the standard which ought to guide political action… hardly ever questioned. In consequence, there are today probably no political movements or politicians who do not readily appeal to ‘social justice’ in support of the particular measures which they advocate”: F.A. Hayek, The Mirage of Social Justice (1976), p. 65.

Under chapter 4 of our Constitution guaranteeing the fundamental rights of persons, the state is enjoined not to violate or contravene the fundamental rights of life, dignity of the human person, personal liberty, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and the press, peaceful assembly and association and freedom of movement. The emphasis in the guarantee is on the word “every”, which means all persons equally, regardless of their station in life or standing in society, whether poor or rich, powerful or inconsequential, of lowly or noble birth, etc. The basis of the guarantee is that the dignity and sacredness of the human person entitle all persons to equal respect for all those attributes that make up the human personality – life itself, intellect and thought, conscience and feeling, movement and speech.

The examination herein focuses specially on section 42 prohibiting discrimination between individuals on grounds considered unfair. It says that a citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, whether expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in the country or any executive or administrative action of government, be subjected to disabilities or restrictions, or be accorded any privilege or advantage which are not applied to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religion or political opinions if such disabilities, restrictions, privilege or advantage are imposed or accorded by reason only that the individual affected is such a person, (Sex was made a prohibited ground only since 1979.)

The words “restrictions” and “advantage” appearing in the provision call for special notice. They are words of wide import, and carry the scope of the provision far beyond what is implied by the words “disabilities” and “privilege”. The latter are essentially terms of art. Disability connotes “an incapacity for the full enjoyment of ordinary legal rights”, while privilege implies something approximating to a legal right, such, for instance, as the non-liability of members of the National Assembly for words spoken during the proceedings of the Assembly. The words “restrictions” and “advantage”, on the other hand, are not so limited in their import.

To come within the prohibition, however, a restriction or advantage, equally as a disability or privilege, must stem from some law or some executive or administrative action of government. Discrimination based solely on some social practice, such as the discriminatory rules or practices of social clubs or other wholly private associations, is thus not within the ambit of the prohibition. But law in the context of the provision seems to embrace legislation as well as the common law, customary law and Islamic law. Accordingly, any rules of the latter are unconstitutional and void to the extent that they discriminate between citizens on any of the prohibited grounds. The rules of Sharia law discriminating against non-Moslems are thus impeachable as unconstitutional.

Rationale for requiring conformance with the principle of equal treatment of citizens (or the non-discrimination principle) in the administration of government

The equal treatment of citizens by the state or freedom from unfair discrimination guaranteed in section 42(1) of the Constitution is among the rights that constitute the essence of the concept of human rights because it rests upon our common humanity as living human beings, with a body and a soul, the ability to breathe, think, speak, move about and to act, and a capacity for emotions and sensations. Every human being feels pain, anguish and happiness, and is endowed with a conscience that enables him to judge between right and wrong, and to form beliefs, just like everyone else. The differences which undoubtedly exist between individuals because of differences in physical, intellectual and will power – “rights,” which, to quote Lord Bryce again, “nature has bestowed on some and denied to others” James Bryce, Modern Democracies, vol. 1 (1920), p. 70, are only differences of degree, which leave unaffected our basic common human nature. Because of our basic common human nature, all citizens have more or less the same need for the security of their person and property, for justice in their dispute with others, for peace and order, for happiness, the good life and for welfare care generally, for obedience to the laws on the part of all, and the protection of their basic human rights.

The rationale for the state to treat all citizens equally arises partly from our common humanity as human beings with the very same basic need noted above, and partly from the need to avoid the incidence of unfairness in the administration of government, except where such is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. If the state is the product of a social contract, then, all citizens should count equally in relation to it. In this view, a democratic state is an organization in which the relationship of all members to it is on equal terms, whether it pertains to the conferment of rights, the imposition of obligations, the security of lives and property, the administration of justice, the distribution of social amenities or the exercise of legislative and executive power generally.

The actions of President Buhari since his assumption of office seem to fly in the face of the necessity for equal treatment of citizens regardless of differences in ethnicity and in their religious and political affiliations, and of the compelling rationale for the principle of equal treatment as articulated above.

• Prof. Nwabueze, a constitutional lawyer wrote this on behalf Igbo Leaders of Thought

Receive News Alerts on Whatsapp: +2348136370421

  • Sunshine

    Thanks my erudite scholar. This is a thought-provoking article.

  • Sobe.

    Sometimes, it is a good thing to disregard some people for the betterment of the nation. This is the right time to tell this man to please go away. This man we all know is a professor of Law, has been recently showing his diehard hatred to this government. For whatever reasons best known to him, his aspersions are not helpful for this nation. We needed and voted for a president that can change the way things are being run in this nation. We do not need another Ph.D president that is totally worthless. Please, we are tired of this pompous over assumed sophisticated foolish erudite. Please just go away.

    • Intrepid

      You call an elder foolish for making his points, others will call you a lunatic, if ever you will attain his heights and age. You may go away before him, because you are not his creator.

      • Sobe.

        It is not how high or age you reached but how useful and productive you are to humanity. His penchant for out of malice picking a quarrel with this government shows his ill intent character. It is only the almighty that determine lives. He will do us a favour by keeping quiet because we are tired of his jaundiced lectures. Nigeria is better off without his so called knowledge of the Laws.

        • Intrepid

          I am happy you believe there is an almighty God. The man is doing his bidding, that God sent him to do, you can cry rubbish as you have been doing, that will not in any way deter him from doing what he is doing. The elder statesman did the same thing to Jonathan, perhaps that was not rubbish then. Have you ever heard, that every one is entitled to his/her opinion? so democracy teaches us. If you don’t like his postulations, then gloss over. BTW, who are the Nigerians that are better off without sound interpretation of laws, coming from a priceless erudite like this Prof?

          The Wise Prof doesn’t hate Buhari, but loves Nigeria and a law abiding society. Shouldn’t one have some concerns, bearing in mind Buhari’s previous public statements on sharia and boko haram, and his present modus operandi, especially on appoinments? Buhari is not OMNISCIENT!!

        • Nazerine

          “Nigeria is better off without his so called knowledge of the Laws”
          Illiteracy is the highest form of disease.

    • Chukwu Michael

      Enemy of the truth. Fool that tread where angels fear to go. Wise men read this article well presentd and fear because the President is leading this country to avoidale choas. People like you you will die unwept having no regard for an elder. An elder that has accomplished much more than you and your entire generation can not accomplish joined together. If what Buhari is doing is for the betterment of the Nation, you a an unfortunate person who knows no good, much less better. If one who speaks the truth is the one who hates the Government, then those who praise sing for a fool who delights in dancing on the grave of those he killed are those who love the Government. He is doing every thing to help this Nation. Being a man who has served this country and knows what can bring war and what can bring peace, is doing everything within his power and God given wisdom to bring Buhari back from the journey of madness that he is blindly embarking on. Animal in human clothing, there is no doubt you are a type that stands for nothing and can die for nothing. If there is any reasonableness in you, you would have known that Buhari has not been behaving well. The professor is not interested in any favour as you are. It takes only a man who is fulfilled to speak this qunatum of truth. Unlike beggers like you,this father is not looking for anything personal, but that Nigeria should be lead according to the Law. Well, believe it or not, if Buhari furthers the attempt to Islamise this country, then,Nigeria will become a history.

      • Sobe.

        I have no use joining issues to your reptilian sentences. You better learn how to sequence your writings. On a final note, nobody has a monopoly of knowledge. If the acclaimed professor has issues very important he can seek an audience with Buhari. Writing rubbish every day in a paper is essentially of no use.

        • Nazerine

          Illiteracy confirmed!

        • Donald

          you are a good idiot who buhari to the professor all the poeffessors in the north must checked bucause you are expert in forginging certificates and results, chukwu have told you the simple truth any attempt by your buhari to islamise nigeria is just the of nigeria take it or leave it.

        • Chukxharry

          Do you know if he tried having an audience with Buhari but the coterie of courtiers and hangers-on usually surrounding a president never allowed him?Before OBJ resorted to the media to convey his mind and views to our immediate past president GEJ, he sought to have words with him to no avail.Do you know if it’s similar scenario playing out?Secondly, there is nothing in his writing to suggest he is being show-offy about his scholarship or learning,so the issue of the “monopoly of knowledge” does not arise.It’s commission of fallacy(referred to as “ad hominem”)to be attacking the person of the professor rather than refuting his arguments by referencing to the constitution.We should learn to tolerate the views of others even when they’re at variance with ours,because they may have valid reasons for viewing things differently.It does appear that most of us are only interested in the ‘political correctness’ of a person’s views not the truth.

        • Nazerine

          It is Buhari who should consult Prof Nwabueze if Buhari needs his advice. We, Igbos, do not worship Buhari for Professor Ben Nwabueze to go and seek audience with him.

        • Chukwu Michael

          Pity your labour to get attention,but will tell you that you are an adicted,incurrable ignoramus. Folly will kill you.

    • Nazerine

      The best way to know an illiterate is the way he despises education.

    • Uzoh63


    • Ify Onabu

      What you need is perhaps a semi-literate Sole Administrator who rules as if Nigeria is his fiefdom, isn’t it?

  • Sammy Sparkle

    I grew up respecting Prof Nwabueze having studied his renowned constitutional law books. I am clearly disappointed with his clearly sectional and tribal stance. This is the kind of ranting you expect from politicians who see public appointment as a path to relevance and whatever else.
    I would imagine that as a statesman, he should know better that these concerns of his are premature considering the vast array of appointments still to be made. Perhaps it is an agenda to put pressure on the President to reserve juicy appointments for ‘his people’ when they are made.
    If we are to develop, we should stop this parochial and sectional views. They only a sense of entitlement without responsibility.

    • Nazerine

      I believe, to sustain your respect, you expected Prof Nwabueze to clap for Buhari for saying he would discriminate against those who did not vote for him and for following it up with 80% appointments to the North and 20% for the South with the total exclusion of the Southeast zone.

    • Chukxharry

      With due respect, you lack objectivity and sincerity in your assessment of the discourse and views of the eminent lawyer!Only a person whose mind has been blurred with biases,as yours, can misconstrue and misjudge the motive and intention underlying his write-up.The very nature of Nigeria,with ethnic and religious plurality,demands conscious balancing of power and influence among the regions and peoples living in it,and our brilliant jurists who authored the constitution profoundly took cognizance of this via the inclusion of certain sections and provisions,which the prof drew attention to and contextualised Buhari’s pronouncements and appointments,so what’s parochialism and sectionalism in this?We all have a right to hold divergent views on national issues and must not conform to popular or mainstream opinions before we can say something.He has spoken his mind,according to his convictions and best judgement,and that’s it. But one thing you must be reminded is that, you are entitled to your opinions,but definitely not your own facts.

    • Uzoh63

      Go and si down,the yoruba race ostracized GEJ for not making a yoruba speaker of H.O.Reps and claimed he did not give you juicy posts.At what point did nigerians start thinking about performance and when did best persons come from the North? Prof is fulfilled and surely do not need any appointment from buhari but was stating the truth,hypocrists like you won’t like to hear them,please allow buhari to refute those facts.

    • Ify Onabu

      Useless contribution. Prof Nwabueze’s article is well researched and cannot be contradicted!

  • Nazerine

    Buhari has totally destroyed the nation-building process initiated by former President Jonathan.

    • New Nigerian

      Jonathan was killing Nigeria to create “the nation” that you referred to – so it had to be killed!

  • Nazerine

    I thank Prof Nwabueze for being the John the Baptist of our time. Future generations shall read this article and say ” he warned them”

    • New Nigerian

      He is not John Baptist of our time. John Baptist would not lie.

  • Bejim

    Well written. However, one must point out that the quoted speech that Buhari purportedly delivered at Queen Amina Hall on May 2. was a satire by Rodolf Okonkwo ( It did not take place.

  • Chiotu Nnamdi

    The beauty of democracy is the plurality of opinions.The prof should be informed that No President can succeed with a provincial agenda.No ethnic group can elect a president on its population.President Buhari won because of the diversity of votes.He is condemned to carry everyone along.

    • New Nigerian

      The false argument is that having someone of a tribe, makes him the access point of fulling the rights of those tribe. The policies and execution of plans for all Nigerians is guaranteed. We need the right managers based on merit to implement it – we want to see the New Niger bridge built, we want to see that no one steal our common wealth, we want to see no kidnapping in Igbo land, we want to see that there is no rigging of election, we want to see elimination of insecurity, killing of corruption and reviving the economy of igbo land….we had igbolady as coordinator of the economy under Jonathan…it did not help igbo land…Buhari’s administration would implement policies that will benefit igboland, even if the managers are from Bauchi…

  • Uzoh63

    Prof Nwabueze is a senior silk and SAN too,he should mobilize senior Lawyers from the South East to test the veracity of this obvious nepotism by Gen.Buhari in Supreme court.Ohanaeze should also file a petition at ICJ ,America and U.N to further expose Buhari’s dictatorship to the outside world.All Igbos sould mobilize against Buhari in any way possible to make his govt unpopular both within and abroad.

  • amador kester

    Presently buhari is taking questions from the public on thisday online, a media portal and answering them via his media aides. Why not ask him this question

  • Sharia_Haram

    We should take him to court. Buhari must be STOPPED!

  • Ify Onabu

    Did we not warn Nigerians that Buhari, like the leopard, cannot change his spots?. The man is an unrepentant dictator. He is a fundamentalist of the highest order. He is an irredentist. Our people knew this and yet they voted for ‘change’. The consequences of this change agenda is what is unraveling now. We are waiting for Buhari’s praise singers and apologists from Southern Nigeria to refute the scholarly submission of Prof. Nwabueze.


    Good write up from the erudite Professor. Certain facts however stands out. 1/ Nigeria is greater that any individual or group 2.I am a Nigerian and a Christian and I know NIGERIA can never be an Islamic/Christian State. 3/ Informed Nigerians knows the truth/reality from the lies/propaganda ,4/ Nigeria belongs to all Nigerians and we have no other country than her. 5/The Courts are there to enforce the CONSTITUTION. 6/ As in all democracies , there is a RULE OF LAW, so did the Prof and other scholars taught me. Obama would be dictatorial if he has his way but nay you have the Courts/ Congress to check him.Yes thank you Prof for your brilliant and scholarly presentation. I intend saving this presentation for my children even as I want to have your say on ‘the fight against Corruption & Kukah’ is there any need for the campaign? Where should it stop? et al’

  • gtjimoh

    Trash and more trash! Calling the elected president of Nigeria an irredentist Islamist, is nothing but a continuation of a series of orchestrated Igbo campaign of calumny aimed at discrediting the noble aims and persons of President Buhari. The Igbos which the so called scholarly professor is championing their course hiding under some academic discuss are the same group that hated Buhari with all their being, calling him Boko Haram sponsor, Janjaweed party member and many more. If the Professor is quick to forget, some of us still remember those and more. Is it this same Buhari now after wining an election that you didn’t vote for, in fairness to him, that should now select Igbo man to head his personal security and kitchen cabinet which he has prerogative over and because of his party program? The professor should stop his name calling and rather encourage his Igbo people to change their we and them mindset. Nobody is forcing you to be a Nigerian, If you hate the Muslims or you hate the Northerners due to your superiority complex and you can not stand the present setup, please go into exile, or better still create your own country. We are tired of all these nonsense coming from the South east of the country. The president will only be violating the constitution of Nigeria if he failed to appoint an Igbo man as a minister, so wait till he announce his full cabinet. Igbo people held all the important position during Jonathan regime, what did they do with it? They steal the country blue and almost break the country with their greed and selfishness.

    • New Nigerian

      To the Nwabuezes of this world, the muslim Igbo man do not exist…they believe in a bipolar world, which does not exist. I know many Muslim Igbo folks that would be incensed by the continued disregard of their existence by their own kinsmen. There are Muslims who are Igbo, just as there are Christians who are Northerners, so his making them Muslims because they are northerners must be offensive to them as well…but again, if the Nwabuezes have their way, Jonathan would still be in power. Let them stop the sun from rising if they can, or the wind from blowing.

  • New Nigerian

    The professor is erudite on constitutional law. He comes across as struggling at accepting the new government because it hits an emotional nerve in him that we obviously still do not have Jonathan running our lives. With his piece here, when you put a drop of filth in a glass of drinking water, it renders it filthy…these erudite piece is nonsensical, it recirculates already discredited lie that their is an islamiciztion of Nigeria Agenda at play and that Buhari is for that….There are muslims in Igboland, I know many in Nigeria and in the diaspora, so to be Igbo is not necessarily to be non-muslim.

    Oligarchs from Igboland had been the bane of the common man in the Igbo nation since independence till date – They seriously believe Jonathan was going to win through rigging and followed it up by suppressing the votes for Buhari in their zones to the point of not allowing progressive elements in Igbo land to harvest the required vote that would ensure representation at the federal government – now they are crying hosannah for what they had done to themselves with their own hands, even as they make it clear that should Buhari make the mistake of choosing on of the cry babies, they still do not have his back or the back of Nigerian masses …we say cry on, go on with crocodile tears….Mr. Kachukwu is of Ndigbo lineage and is one of the most powerful appointment to date…but again these self-appointed leaders of thought are more concerned about their own agenda, not the peoples agenda… We the people would continue to work hard to liberate the masses from the Oligarchs who see them as canon fodder for their rabid and insatiable greed for personal gains. It is a human rights issue and the right thing to do – liberty, freedom, through democracy & rule of law would reign everywhere in Nigeria, even if Oligarchs detest that.

  • Senda Ogen

    This writeup is a shame to read especially coming from a ‘learned’ professor. I was waiting for evidence as to this explicitly disparaging expose’ on the president. I waited in vain for nothing came. There was conjecture here and there without substance. As a student I expected the professor to back his claims with facts but he failed to do so. A president making 31 appointments out of possible thousands is engaged in Islamization? Other than the sensitive security positions that went to northerners, very powerful posts named so far have gone to southerners. If Islamization was the agenda, why not reserve all the top posts for northerners? The president’s personal security should go to people he 110% trusts and you can look at the Indira Ghandi assassination as a case for reflection. Other than that, there’s still multitudes of persons to appoint. I sure hope you reflect on your article and do better.