The naira, on Wednesday, fell to N980 per dollar at the parallel section of the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The figure represents a depreciation of N50 or 5.38 percent compared to the N930 it traded on September 13.

Currency traders, known as Bureaux De Change operators (BDCs), said the decline is largely due to the new exchange rate regime.

“This time, the rate is not affected by dollar scarcity; it is just a consequence of the new exchange rate regime,” a trader identified as Aliyu, said.

Operating in the Ikeja area of Lagos, black market traders put the buying price of the dollar at N970 and the selling price at N980 — leaving a profit margin of N10.

Meanwhile, at the official market, the local currency depreciated to close at N776.6 on Tuesday, according to data from FMDQ Securities Exchange — a platform that oversees official FX trading in Nigeria.

Data from FMDQ showed that the market opened at N776.29 to the dollar, recording a high of N799.9 and a low of N720. 

A total of $71.01 million was traded at the investors’ and exporters’ window (I & E) window — Nigeria’s official trading window.

The naira has consistently experienced fluctuations since the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) implemented the currency float policy which now allows the exchange to be determined by market forces.

On September 12, the apex bank asked deposit money banks (DMBs) to stop utilising gains from the revaluation of the naira to pay dividends or finance operations.

A revaluation of a currency occurs when the value of a currency is increased relative to another currency in a fixed exchange rate regime.

The Cable

Nigerian opposition leader Atiku Abubakar has landed a major victory in the United States as part of his ongoing push to demonstrate Bola Tinubu’s ineligibility to be Nigeria’s president. 

A federal court in Chicago ruled Tuesday night that Chicago State University (CSU) must turn over all records relating to Tinubu to Abubakar within two days, saying the former vice-president has been able to sufficiently satisfy the purpose for seeking the records, according to the ruling seen by Peoples Gazette. 

Judge Jeffrey Gilbert also ordered a deposition of designated CSU officials within two days after the records have been released, noting further that the process can be conducted during the weekend if necessary. 

“For all of the reasons discussed above, Atiku Abubakar’s application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for an order directing discovery from Chicago State University for use in a foreign proceeding [ECF No. 1] is granted,” Gilbert ruled. “Respondent CSU shall produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in response to requests for production Nos. 1 through 4 (as narrowed by the court) in applicant subpoena within two days of the entry of this memorandum opinion and order.”

“The deposition of respondent’s corporate designee shall proceed within two days of the production of documents. The parties can modify the dates set by the court by mutual agreement. Given the tight time frame under which the parties are operating, the deposition can, if necessary, occur on a non-weekday,” the court added. 

The order comes hours after Abubakar filed his appeal to the Supreme Court, following the September 6 judgement of the presidential election petitions tribunal that upheld Tinubu’s victory.

Abubakar had on August 2 filed an application for the court to order CSU to produce documents relating to Tinubu, as well as leave to get the school’s administrators to authenticate any documents submitted under oath.

Abubakar said the documents would be used as part of his ongoing challenge against Tinubu’s election earlier this year. 

The candidate of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party said Tinubu should not have been allowed to run for president because he had submitted a forged document under oath in violation of the Nigerian Constitution. 

Section 137 (1)(j) of the Nigerian Constitution (amended in 2010) specifically stated that no one would be legitimately elected president of Nigeria if the person “has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission.”

On June 17, 2022, Tinubu submitted a certificate to INEC that was purportedly issued in 1979 and signed by Elnora Daniel. But Ms Daniel only arrived at CSU in 1998 from Hampton University, 19 years after Tinubu was said to have graduated. She left the school in 2008 following a financial mismanagement scandal, or 14 years before June 2022 when CSU issued yet a fresh certificate in Tinubu’s name under subpoena from a Nigerian lawyer who had inquired about Tinubu’s education there. 

The irregularities prompted Abubakar to file the suit to compel CSU to produce records relating to Tinubu and make its top officials available for deposition to certify the produced records, according to the Nigerian opposition leader’s lawyers.

During a hearing on the matter on September 12, the CSU’s lawyer Michael Hayes, said the school could not authenticate Tinubu’s certificate if asked under oath, although he said Tinubu attended the school and graduated in 1979.

Tinubu’s lawyers, led by Christopher Carmichael, argued that the court should not grant Abubakar’s application because it was a frivolous expedition aimed at soiling the Nigerian president’s image.

Tinubu’s lawyers also argued that Nigerian Supreme Court would not accept fresh evidence that was not produced during the tribunal proceeding.

But Abubakar’s team, led by Angela Liu, had argued that the Supreme Court would accommodate the fresh facts under unique circumstances, especially as they were not available to the Court of Appeal, which is the court of first instance in a presidential election dispute.

But Gilbert said courts across the U.S. have traditionally taken a broad and liberal view in granting applications under Section 1782, a statute that allows the release of documents and evidence domiciled in the U.S. to be obtained and used in a foreign proceeding.

PG

The workforce of the Court of Appeal received a boost on Wednesday as the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Olukayode Ariwoola, swore in nine additional justices for the appellate court.

The new justices bring the number of appeal court justices in the country to 79, as information on the website of the Court of Appeal indicates that there were 72 justices before the new addition.

At the swearing-in, which took place in Abuja, the CJN warned the new justices against the temptation of collecting gifts that could tarnish their reputation and truncate their career progression.

He said, “Many high-profile cases would definitely come to you on appeal; they may likely come in some juicy and irresistible gifts that are often intended to dent your reputation and integrity. I admonish Your Lordships to flee from such disguised temptations because your reputation and integrity matter much and count enormously in your rise to honour and fame in life.”

He urged them to conduct their duties in accordance with the law of the country, adding that with their current position, they would be subjected to more public scrutiny than ever.

Ariwoola said, “You must, against all odds, conduct your affairs within the ambit of the law and the oath that has just been administered to you. The level of public scrutiny of your conduct will, henceforth, assume astronomical dimension because you have willingly taken up an appointment that will strategically place you perennially in the eye of the storm.”

Meanwhile, the CJN lamented that political cases are taking a toll on other categories of cases, especially criminal cases, before the courts in the country.

The CJN said while the political cases were being prioriotised because they have time limits, other cases are piling up in the courts and putting the judges under pressure.

He, therefore, encouraged Nigerians to explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms as opposed to going to court to settle their disputes.

The CJN said, “Today’s ceremony is an indication of the times that we are currently in. Several novel crimes are being committed in the country that have now made litigation to be on a steady rise. Political cases, especially, are taking a monumental toll on our dockets.

“Indeed, the times we are in are not pleasant, to say the least. No court in the land is spared of this. We are constantly on our toes and the dockets are ever-rising in response to the challenges of the time.”

He lamented that the situation had placed Nigeria among countries with a large number of litigation in the world.

Ariwoola, however, advocated alternative dispute resolution to save the courts from “unnecessary burden and depletion of both human and material resources.”

He said, “This underscores the undisputed fact that Nigeria continuously ranks among the most litigious countries in the world. I strongly believe it is high time we began to imbibe the culture of less litigation and more alternative dispute resolution mechanisms so that our courts can be freed of unnecessary burden and depletion of both human and material resources.”

Punch

Ondo State House of Assembly has served an impeachment notice on Lucky Aiyedatiwa, the state’s deputy governor, over alleged gross misconduct.

The impeachment notice was served on Aiyedatiwa yesterday after an emergency plenary session in Akure, the state capital.

The deputy governor was alleged to have approved millions of naira for the purchase of a bulletproof SUV for his personal use.

It also noted that Aiyedatiwa allegedly asked that the money be sourced from the state palliative fund and gave the approval while Governor Rotimi Akeredolu was on medical vacation in Germany.

During plenary, the majority leader of the house, Wole Ogunmolasuyi, quoted section 188 of the constitution to justify the need to write Aiyedatiwa over the allegations. He then moved a motion to serve the deputy governor the impeachment notice.

Ogunmolasuyi’s motion was immediately seconded by a member of the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the assembly, Tope Angbulu, representing Akoko South West II. 

Subsequently, Olamide Oladiji, the speaker, directed Benjamin Jaiyeola, clerk of the house, to write to the deputy governor, informing him of the allegations levelled against him.

Nine of the twenty-six lawmakers signed the impeachment notice, accusing Aiyedatiwa of “gross misconduct” and gave the deputy governor seven days ultimatum to respond to the allegations. 

Aiyedatiwa had acted on behalf of Governor Akeredolu when the latter was away from the state for a three-month medical leave in Germany.

On his return, the governor sacked the media aides attached to the deputy governor’s office.

The development came amid an alleged rift between Aiyedatiwa and Akeredolu. But the deputy governor had said he remained loyal to his principal.

A source in the state assembly who spoke on condition of anonymity said at least 23 lawmakers have already appended their signatures, supporting the impeachment notice against Aiyedatiwa. He explained that the deputy governor had been under intense investigation over alleged gross abuse of office.

He said, “By approving funds for himself, he already caused trouble and was aware the governor wasn’t happy with it when he returned from his medical leave.”

The deputy governor could not be reached for comments as effort to get him to talk on the matter proved abortive as of the time of filing this report last night.

Daily Trust

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Blasts heard in Kyiv, other parts of Ukraine

Blasts could be heard in Kyiv after an air raid alert on Thursday morning, Reuters witnesses said, as authorities sent rescue teams to at least two locations in the Ukrainian capital.

Air defences are at work and rescuers are on their way to possible blast sites in the city's eastern and southern districts, city Mayor Vitali Klitschko wrote on the Telegram messaging app.

Missile debris fell in central Kyiv and non-residential buildings were damaged in the east, causing a fire, he said, with some people seeking medical help.

Officials and local media also reported blasts in Ukraine's Kharkiv, Khmelnytskiy, Rivne, Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk regions.

** Notable remarks on Ukraine at UN Security Council

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Wednesday attended a U.N. Security Council meeting in person for the first time since Russia invaded in February 2022. Following are notable quotes from the meeting:

UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKIY:

"Unfortunately, this seat in the Security Council, which Russia occupies illegally, through backstage manipulations following the collapse of the Soviet Union, has been taken by liars whose job is to whitewash the aggression and the genocide being carried on by Russia.

"Therefore, the U.N. General Assembly should be given a real power to overcome the veto. This will be the first necessary step. It is impossible to stop the war because all efforts are vetoed by the aggressor."

U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE ANTONY BLINKEN:

"It's hard to imagine a country demonstrating more contempt for the United Nations and all that it stands for - this from a country with a permanent seat on this council.

"President Putin is betting that if he keeps doubling down on the violence, that if he's willing to inflict enough suffering on enough people, the world will cave on its principles and Ukraine will stop defending itself.

"But Ukrainians are not giving up for they've seen what life would look like if they submit to Russian control."

RUSSIA'S FOREIGN MINISTER SERGEI LAVROV:

"Today, the West turns selectively to norms and principles (on) a case-by-case basis exclusively based on their parochial geopolitical needs. This has resulted in a shaking of global stability as well as the exacerbation and the fomenting of new hotbeds of tension, (and) risks of global conflict."

CHINA'S VICE FOREIGN MINISTER MA ZHAOXU:

"The Ukraine crisis has dealt a heavy blow to world economic recovery and global development and severely affected the world food, energy and financial security. Developing countries are the first to bear the blunt brunt.

"Relevant countries should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction and protect the security and the smooth operation of global production and supply chains."

ECUADOREAN PRESIDENT GUILLERMO LASSO:

"When this organization was built, we the peoples of the United Nations determined to preserve and spare future generations from the scourge of war.

"How can we uphold the principles and purposes of the UN Charter for effective multilateralism and at the same time invade a neighboring country or not condemn that invasion?"

GHANA'S PRESIDENT NANA AKUFO-ADDO:

"Russia's aggression against Ukraine is plainly wrong.

"The war is having an increasingly devastating toll on the people in Ukraine and elsewhere in the world.

"The only pathway for a comprehensive peace ... is one that must be just and based on the charter of the United Nations, and international law."

SWISS PRESIDENT ALAIN BERSET:

"With Russia's military aggression against Ukraine, the (U.N.) Charter has been violated on a massive scale. Yet Russia ... has been denying its responsibility. Its responsibility for the thousands of dead and wounded in Ukraine. Its responsibility for the millions of displaced persons. And finally its responsibility for all those plunged into deep insecurity wherever they are in the world, including incidentally in Russia."

JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER FUMIO KISHIDA:

"We condemn in the strongest terms Russia's aggression against Ukraine, which is a clear violation of international law including the U.N. Charter. The aggression must be stopped immediately and the troops must be withdrawn, right now, and unconditionally.

"The occupation and militarization of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant pose a threat to world peace and stability. Russia's nuclear threats, let alone its use of nuclear weapons, are unacceptable."

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Kiev’s ‘terrorist attacks’ foiled in several regions – MOD

Russian troops have thwarted Kiev’s plan to conduct “terrorist attacks” in several regions using drones, the Russian Defense Ministry said in the early hours of Thursday. 

According to the MOD, 19 UAVs were “destroyed” over Crimea and the Black Sea. It added that Kursk, Belgorod and Oryol regions were each attacked by a single drone, all of which were intercepted mid-air.

Telegram channel Mash reported that residents heard “explosions” and the sound of anti-air weapons in several locations in Crimea, describing the drone attack as “the most massive one yet.”

On Wednesday, Ukrainian troops shelled the village of Maksimovka, killing a civilian and wounding one more person, Belgorod Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov said. A woman was injured during an attack on the village of Tyotkino on Monday, according to Kursk Governor Roman Starovoyt.

Kiev has stepped up drone and missile attacks on Russian territory in recent months, as Ukraine’s ground counteroffensive launched in early June failed to yield any significant victories. On September 13, cruise missiles struck a shipyard in Sevastopol in Crimea, damaging two Russian naval vessels.

** Putin never insults people, Kremlin spokesman says about chances of responding to Biden

Russian President Vladimir Putin never allows himself to stoop to insults, Kremlin Dmitry Peskov said when asked about the chances of a stern response to US President Joe Biden who had described Putin as a "dictator."

"You know that our president never stoops to this - to the level of personal insults against his colleagues. He certainly has his own opinion about this style of rhetoric. But the president, I repeat again, has never stooped to this and will not do so," Peskov said.

According to the spokesman, what is most important is that Putin is supported by the overwhelming majority of Russians, as has been confirmed more than once during presidential elections.

"In his entire career as a politician, Biden has never once garnered the same level of support as Putin. This is what he should probably strive for," Peskov said.

He said Biden faces "a very, very difficult election."

"We understand that the US is now actively clearing the electoral field of undesirable competition. But we have our own concerns, which we will be dealing with," the spokesman said.

Reuters/RT/Tass

If Nigeria were a different country, a society that draws a moral line no one is allowed to cross, the Minister of Women Affairs, Uju Kennedy-Ohaneye, would be out of her job by now. For some unclear reasons, she intervened in the case of the embattled Dean of Law, University of Calabar, Cyril Osim Ndifo, who is being investigated for cases of sexual assault. Her interference, the subtle threats she made to the young women she called on the phone, and her stunning lack of understanding of what sexual assault entails, jointly disqualify Kennedy-Ohaneye from holding a “Women Affairs” ministerial position. She gave herself away as unworthy of representing women’s interests, and the right thing was for her to be replaced.

Worth comparing to her case is the kissgate scandal that sank the head of the Spanish Football Federation, Luis Rubiales. Amidst the euphoria of World Cup victory, Rubiales kissed midfielder Jennifer Hermoso on the lips. He said the kiss was consensual, but she insisted it was not. The case outraged many, made headlines internationally, and put Spain under the spotlight. Rubiales swore he would fight to the end but eventually capitulated to the value system of his country and resigned.

Unlike Rubiales, however, Kennedy-Ohaneye’s resignation (or sack) is not imminent for at least two reasons. One is that she was appointed by a leader with zero moral legitimacy. He would look quite hypocritical if he tried to enforce the standards he himself does not embody. Number two is significant because it speaks to the larger context of her survival—our society no longer has abominations. By that, I am not merely asserting that we no longer teach children not to whistle at night or jump over a pregnant woman’s outstretched legs. No, what I mean is that our society has let down moral standards so frequently that there are no longer boundaries. If you have the means, there is simply no border of behaviour you cannot cross. Anyhowness reigns.

One of the reasons I bring this up is connected to the incident with ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo and his alleged disrespect for traditional rulers in Oyo State. In a society where public events—including those attended by high-ranking government officials—are hardly ever structured, it is unsurprising that the Obas disregarded the protocol requiring them to stand up to acknowledge the governor’s presence. Meanwhile, should all those norms not be part of the rites of their installation?

Since the video of Obasanjo talking down at the royal fathers over their disrespect for the state governor went viral, I have been almost entertained by how people construed his brashness as disrespectful of “our culture,” “our traditions,” and “our values.” The shock that attended that incident illustrates what I have come to see as the Nollywoodization of public consciousness. Nigerians have been so enamoured with the cinema portrayal of Obas as “kabiyesi” (the one who owes no one accountability) that an encounter with reality shocked them to their bone marrow.

Obas simply do not have much of the ascribed cultural or constitutional consequence under our modern political system. That they are allowed to exist as relics of the past is a political strategy that can be dissipated at any time and without serious repercussions. No traditional ruler in any part of Nigeria is too big to be sacked. In fact, it is easier to sack an Oba than to sack a regular civil servant. A governor can wake up from a drunken stupor, sack an Oba, and nothing will happen. Obasanjo could have handled the situation like an elder, but he was not entirely wrong to remind the Obas where they belong on the political food chain. Any Oba that thinks himself too big for the ìwòsí meted out to them should stay in his palace next time.

Anyway, what is more amusing about the outrage that attended the incident is how people jumped to defend the integrity of “culture” and “traditions” to the extent of questioning Obasanjo’s Yorubaness. Perhaps the most hilarious of all the public statements rashly released in the wake of that incident was the one written by the Oluwo of Iwo, Abdulrosheed Adewale, an Oba that still goes by the clownish title of “His Imperial Majesty.” His statement said Obasanjo should be made to apologise for the “desecration” of traditional institutions to prove he is truly a Yoruba man. His press release is a study in irony because if I stopped ten people on a Yoruba road and asked which so-called traditional ruler has contributed the most to the diminishing of the Obaship institution, nine out of them would mention the Oluwo. His public image is that of a lout, a mere boor who could not be ennobled by his so-called “revered stool.”

Unfortunately, he is not alone in thinking of culture/tradition in such reduced terms. People take the veneration of symbolic items as what is there to “culture,” and begin to demand what is akin to idolatrous reverence for them. Each time the issue of homosexuality arises, it has become customary that someone will justify the criminalisation of sexuality by making the “culture” and “tradition” defence. They will tritely claim that our African culture is somehow superior to that of the West that lets its queer population breathe. Such limited understanding of what constitutes culture is why they prioritise the promotion of provincial (and primordial) identities over its capacity as an ideology that, if appropriately fashioned out, enhances social flourishing.

Culture is powerful, and a society unmindful of its force will find itself weeping over the disgrace of an Oba while leaving aside its far more worthwhile potential to structure a people’s imagination. In primary school, we were given the elementary definition of culture as a people’s way of life. We can look at our society today and understand that culture is also how people make life. Culture matters because it determines thoughts and actions, the spectrum of ideas that people consider good, moral, and worth promoting. That is why what society considers “abominable” matters. They are the standards that condition how far society will go on any issue and how far it also will not.

Look at the whole architecture of governance in Nigeria and you will see that both the Obas that represent the “traditional” institution and the ones of the modern political system symbolise this abject lack of standards. Both join hands to desecrate our democratic potential, enrich themselves at the expense of the people, and have no interest in “culture” unless they can manipulate it to promote our subservience to their politics. So, yes, we know things are bad, but it is not the royal fathers who routinely commit ethical infractions that should school us on the “desecration” of culture/tradition.

That our leaders no longer set a baseline for public officers shows the extent of our cultural degradation. That we too lack the means of making them accountable shows that nothing has meaning anymore. Our culture, no longer retaining what it should ideally consider abominable, has become self-defeating and significantly contributes to our social and economic backwardness.

Punch

Mohbad is dead but the controversy surrounding his death is pretty much alive.

If you are in my generation and you don't know the crooner of "plenty enemies..." you would be forgiven. Afterall, Mhobad himself predicted in his lyrics that he would be more popular when he's laid down, prostrate and dead. And it came to pass.

He was born only 27 years ago and at that age, on reflection, I realised that that was  just a year after I was done with my Masters degree at the University of Lagos. Like people my age at that time in Nigeria, I was still  wondering what to do with my life.

Nigeria of this age is different, some of our young people found their rhythm early in the new economy boosted by high tech, digital musical entertainment economy. Their ingenuity and creativity gave them early fame, not just in Nigeria but globally.

But here is the thing, every success story has its undercurrent. The Naira Marleys of this world are the dark side of the much envied and globally acclaimed music industry of Nigeria.

Now, there are global rallies and protests asking for "justice for Mohbad" but we must admit that everyone failed him. Imole cried for help through his music. His lyrics asked for justice but we were deaf. He wrote to the Police and he was scorned. Our society owes Imole an apology for failing him, even if post humously

The best tribute we can pay Mhobad is for our society to pay more attention to what is being said by this our young and even the silence of these teeming young  people to whom we hope our future shall be bequeathed. When they cry out for help, the best we can do is listen. That way, we will be able to prevent another talent, another gifted one of our young and budding stars from being bullied to death by those we thought were nurturing them.

In all of the circumstances preceding his death, where were the elders in the music industry that Mohbad could have had access to? Was there any institutional body established to call members of the industry to order? Lawyers have the NBA. The advertising industry has ARCON, and the Medical field has the NMA. Even Nollywood, with all its flaws, has the Guilds in its factions. How come PMAN has become toothless? And other bodies like COSON are only interested in the loot of the industry?

Our society failed Mohbad, and RIP simply is not enough.

We need institutions that work. The organic nature of our society has broken down on the altar of money. Nigeria needs a moral re-armament, and it is urgent!

As a society, we  can do better.

** Soji Odedina is of First Katalyst Marketing, Ikeja, Lagos.

Every parent wants their child to reach their full potential and flourish: my mum called me Faiza because it means “winner” in Arabic in the hope that success would be inevitable. It’s an emotion that runs deep, and one that politicians across the spectrum are keen to tap into, for ever promising to build an “aspirational” or truly “meritocratic” society where any individual can make it as long as they work hard enough.

Equality of opportunity is a phrase commonly used by our politicians, even for those too scared to talk about equality more generally. Yet for decades we’ve been moving in the wrong direction. A recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found that where you are born in the UK, and the income and wealth of your family, now matter more than ever in defining life outcomes, with social mobility at its worst in more than 50 years.

After decades of failure, it is past the time to see through the empty political promises and popular narratives that place the emphasis on the individual to succeed, rather than a system that is rigged against the least wealthy.The “dream big and you can do anything you want” soundbite may offer inspiration to some, but it will do nothing to deal with the country’s vast and widening wealth and income inequalities. Neither will a focus on education, a classic trope of the social mobility genre, which has never been and never will be a sufficient tool to bridge Britain’s class divides.

The challenge of social mobility is a stubborn one. Intergenerational mobility – the change in occupation or class from one generation to the next – declined by about 50% between the 1958 and 1970 birth cohorts. Even after New Labour investment in early years care and education, and the resulting dramatic decrease in child poverty in the 2000s, educational attainment gaps between rich and poor children born in 2000 were roughly the same as those born in 1980. Why?

Our natural inclination is to focus on where the poorest end up, but the logic of social mobility requires some to move down for others to move up. Yet the wealthiest in our society have stubbornly held on to their class position. This is evident in the findings that show surname status can persist for as many as 20 to 30 generations, or that those who go to the most elite private schools, the “Clarendon schools” (Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Rugby, Westminster, Charterhouse, Shrewsbury, Merchant Taylors’ and St Paul’s), are 94 times more likely to end up at the very top than those who go to any other school.

When the rich are able to maintain their privilege, there simply isn’t the room for others to join them at the top. The richest 1% of households in the UK have wealth of more than £3.6m, whereas the bottom 10% has £15,400 or less. Can you imagine starting a monopoly game with 230 times less than another player? Yet the multiple policy strategies proposed to tackle low social mobility over the years almost always sidestep wealth and ignore a key factor driving differences in life chances.

This is where the new IFS research is most insightful. The researchers found only around half of wealth persistence can be explained by differences in education and earnings between those with more or less wealthy parents. Instead, unearned income – namely wealth and wealth transfers, including inheritance – act as an increasing drag on social mobility. Owning your home, especially in London, where house prices have increased most in the country, sets you up for generations.

My academic colleagues and I often lament that even after the Occupy movement, Thomas Piketty’s bestselling book Capital in the Twenty-first Century, and Oxfam’s campaigning work focusing on the huge divides between rich and poor, inequality has only got worse. But this tends to be how inequality works. More wealth at the top means more power at the top. The rich capture our political, economic and social systems, block efforts for change and scare those who resist into submission. So rather than serious proposals to address our unequal society, all we are left with is the same old “education will fix it” mantra, or an emphasis on the individual to “pick themselves up by their bootstraps”.

The social mobility story has too often acted as cover for the rich, rather than as impetus for change. But the myths that it is founded upon are losing credibility by the day. Wealth inequality may not be getting the attention it deserves in the political sphere, but the mood among the public is markedly different, as plenty of people find themselves in an endless, exhausting rat race, working two jobs and still struggling to pay the bills. In response, many are waking up to the reality that they don’t get rich, or even comfortable, by simply working hard: they get rich by being born rich. The social mobility myth is dying – now we must demand an economic settlement that works for all.

• Faiza Shaheen is a visiting professor in practice at the London School of Economics, the Labour party parliamentary candidate for Chingford and Woodford Green, and the author of Know Your Place

Barely two weeks after the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal affirmed the victory of President Bola Tinubu in the February 25 polls, presidential candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party and Labour Party, Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, have filed 86 grounds of appeal at the Supreme Court to nullify the judgment.

The two candidates in separate appeals filed on Tuesday, asked the apex court to set aside the PEPT ruling and nullify Tinubu’s election, describing the verdict as erroneous.

Atiku’s appeal was hinged on 35 grounds in which he faulted the tribunal’s ruling on electronic transmission of results, Federal Capital Territory votes, and other key planks.

Obi, on the other hand, faulted the September 6 judgment on 51 grounds.

The PEPT led by Haruna Tsammani had in a unanimous decision held that Atiku and Obi as well as other petitioners failed to substantiate their allegations against the poll conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission.

The justices stated that the documentary and oral evidence presented before them could not prove the claims of irregularities, corrupt practices, non-compliance with the electoral guidelines, and other allegations for which the petitioners had asked the court to void Tinubu’s election.

Atiku, who came second in the poll, had prayed the court to void Tinubu’s election and declare him as the authentic winner of the poll and Obi on the other hand, also said he was the rightful winner of the polls despite coming third in the exercise.

In the Notice of Appeal dated September 18, and filed by his lead counsel, Chris Uche, the former Vice President, sought the nod of the apex court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower court.

Atiku’s appeal

Atiku and the PDP are also asking the Supreme Court to determine that Tinubu was not duly elected by a majority of votes cast in the election and therefore, “the declaration and return of the 2nd respondent (Tinubu) by the 1st respondent (INEC) as the winner of the presidential election conducted on February 25, 2023 is unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional, undue , null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”

The appellants further want the court to determine that the 2nd respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election.

They are also praying the court to declare that Atiku, the 1st appellant, ‘’having scored the majority of lawful votes cast in the presidential election, be returned as the winner of the said election and be sworn in as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

In the alternative, the PDP flag bearer is seeking an order directing the electoral commission to conduct a run-off between him and Tinubu.

In the ground one of the appeal, Atiku held that the tribunal erred by refusing to uphold his argument on the compulsory electronic transmission of results as contained in the Electoral Act, 2022.

Citing page 678 of the judgment, he stated, ‘’The lower court erred in law when it refused to uphold the mandatoriness of electronic transmission of results for confirmation and verification of final results introduced by the Electoral Act 2O22 for transparency and integrity of results in accordance with the principles of the Act.”

Atiku insisted that the Electoral Act introduced technology in the conduct of elections, particularly in the transmission and collation of results, being part of the election process easily susceptible to manipulation and compromise.

“Failure to comply with the said prescription of electronic transmission of the result of the said election in the polling units by the Presiding Officers amounts to non-compliance with the provisions of section 60(5), section 64(4), and (5) of the Electoral Act,2022 which requires the transfer of the results of the election in the polling units by the Presiding officers in the manner prescribed by INEC,” he added.

The appellant further averred that the PEPT erred in law when despite the clear provisions of the enabling statutes, namely the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Electoral Act 2022, the Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Election, and the election manual, it held that the requirement of electronic transmission of the result of the election directly from the polling units to the INEC collation system was not a requirement of the Electoral Act, 2022.

Atiku further insisted that the lower court erred in failing to hold that the non-use of electronically transmitted results by the 1st respondent’s collation officers and returning officers for the collation and verification of election results before announcement, constitutes non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act,2022.

He also argued that the tribunal was wrong to shift the burden of proof to him, referencing page 644 of the judgment.

Atiku and the PDP equally submitted that the lower court erred in law when it failed to nullify the presidential election on the grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 ‘’when by evidence before the court, the 1st respondent conducted the election based on very grave and gross misrepresentation contrary to the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, based on the “doctrine of legitimate expectation.”

While pointing out that the Electoral Act 2022 made the use of Bi-modal Verification Accreditation System and INEC’s Results Viewing portals mandatory in the conduct of the 2023 general election, the appellants noted that INEC through its Chairman, Yakubu Mahmoud, publicly gave guarantees, undertakings, clear and unambiguous representations to candidates and political parties that the polling units results were mandatorily required to be electronically transmitted or transferred directly by the presiding officers.

Atiku held that INEC conducted the said Presidential election based on ‘’the gross misrepresentation” to the appellants and the general voting public that the presiding officers were going to electronically transmit the results of the said election directly from the polling units to the 1st respondent’s collation system.

He added that “Contrary to the above unambiguous representations, undertakings, and guarantees, the 1st respondent neither deployed the electronic transmission of election results nor the electronic collation system in the said election, sabotaging the raison d’etre for the enactment of the new Electoral Act 2022 and the introduction of the technological innovations.

Public institutions

“Rather than hold the 1st respondent as a public institution accountable to the representations that it made pursuant to its statutory and constitutional duties which created a legitimate expectation on the part of the appellants, the lower court wrongly exonerated the 1st respondent of any responsibility by holding that the use of the technological innovations to guarantee transparency was not mandatory.”

The appellants also challenged the tribunal’s verdict on the 25 percent votes requirement in the Federal Capital Territory in grounds 9, 10, 11, and 12 of their 42-page appeal.

Specifically in ground 12, Atiku faulted the PEPT lower court for saying that in a Presidential election, polling one-quarter or 25 percent of total votes cast in the FCT was not a precondition for a candidate to be deemed as duly elected under section 734 of the Constitution.

Atiku challenged the decision of the tribunal to strike out his witnesses’ statements on oath.

Highlighting the particular errors made by the tribunal, Atiku said, “The witnesses’ statements on oath and the reports were products of the inspection conducted pursuant to the order of the court, and could not have been produced in advance before the filing of the petition; same being dependent on access to electoral documents in the possession of an adverse party.

“The PW 12, PW L3t PW L4, PW 15, PW 16, PW 17, PW 18, PW 23, PW 24, and PW 25 were presiding officers, being ad hoc staff of INEC who functioned at the polling units, who could only testify upon orders of subpoena, being staff of an adverse party, and could not have prepared witness statements on oath in advance before the filing of the petition.”

Atiku in ground 14 also held that the lower court erred in law when it held that Order 3, Rules 2 and 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 permitting parties to file witness statements of subpoenaed witnesses after commencement of action did not apply to election petitions.

Regarding the court’s ruling that Tinubu was qualified to contest the presidential election, Atiku held that the grounds of qualification and disqualification to contest an election were circumscribed by the provisions of the Constitution and such grounds are exhaustive.

The appellants also maintained that the lower court was wrong to have dismissed the testimonies of their collation agents as hearsays, citing page 657 of the judgment.

On the decision of the court that the appellants dumped certain exhibits on the court without any witness linking them up with the specific complaint of non-compliance, Atiku and PDP averred that the lower court erred in law because ‘’it failed to give effect to section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022 which obviated the requirement of calling of oral evidence where the non-compliance is manifest on the face of the certified true copy of the electoral document.’’

The parties added that all the electoral documents in question held to have been dumped on the court were duly certified true copies of electoral documents obtained by the appellants from INEC itself.

The appellants dismissed claims by the justices that ‘’a document made in anticipation of litigation or during its pendency by persons interested is rendered inadmissible in evidence by virtue of section 83 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011.”

The appellants insisted that the PW21 and PW26 who prepared the said documents and through whom they were tendered are experts.

‘’These exhibits were products of court-ordered inspection of electoral documents in the possession of the 1st respondent. The said provision of section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 does not apply to the evidence of experts”, Atiku’s lawyer further argued.

The appeal faulted the justices for not evaluating the appellant’s exhibits and for not admitting Dino Melaye’s evidence, which was described as mere hearsay.

Atiku and the PDP were also unhappy with the justices for stating that the evidence of PWs 19, 20, and 22 did not advance the case of the petitioners, noting that the tribunal used disparaging words against the applicants in its judgment.

Obi faults judgment

Obi in his notice of appeal filed by his lead counsel, Livy Uzoukwu, is praying the apex court to, among other things, allow his appeal and set aside the ‘’perverse judgment” of the lower court.

Obi complained about the whole decision of the panel, particularly pages 3-327 of the judgment except the rulings in favour of the appellants.

He submitted that the tribunal justices reached a wrong conclusion when they held that the petitioners did not specify the particular polling units where the alleged irregularities and malpractices occurred, or specified the figures of the votes or scores which they alleged have been suppressed, deflated, or inflated.

Rather, he said the justices overlooked the fact of the appellants’ pleading that certain facts and documents were captured in a particular pleading by incorporation or reference did not amount to a concession that those facts were not pleaded.

He further explained that the appellants exercised their option of listing all the documents pleaded in the body of their petition by incorporation/reference, hence complied with the said paragraph 4(5((c) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, noting that a party should not be penalised for scrupulously complying with both statutory and judicial laws settled in Nigeria.

Obi and the LP disagreed with the court’s submission that paragraph 72 of their petition was vague, insisting that it constituted a complaint of over-voting in polling units in 13 states pleaded in the petition namely Ekiti, Oyo, Ondo, Taraba, Osun, Kano, Rivers, Borno, Katsina, Kwara, Gombe, Yobe and Niger States ‘’with full and specific itemization in the forensic report produced/tendered by the appellants which was unlawfully discountenanced by the court below.”

In its ground seven, Obi affirmed that the justices also erred in law and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice when they held that the onus was on the appellants to prove the 1st respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 73(2) of the Electoral Act in the conduct of the questioned presidential poll.

According to Obi, the tribunal overlooked the fact that the chairman of the 1st respondent is the officer in lawful custody of election documents which the appellants applied for, within the meaning and contemplation of both the Electoral Act and the Evidence Act.

‘’Despite the service of the subpoenas on the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent still failed to produce the election documents up to and until the conclusion of proceedings in the trial court.

‘’The refusal and or failure of the 1st respondent to produce the election materials, in all circumstances, amounted to disobedience of court order and raised the presumption of withholding evidence under section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, against the 1st respondents”, the appeal further said.

Obi contended that the court lacked jurisdiction when it struck out evidence of 10 out of the 13 witnesses called by the appellants, relying on section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended; section 132(7) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and paragraphs 4(5)(a)-(c), 6 and 14(2); Oke vs. Mimiko (2013) LPELR-20645 (SC).

He also held that the justices erred in law and reached a perverse decision when they discountenanced and expunged the evidence of PW4, PW7 and PW8 as being persons interested in the outcome of the proceedings.

Obi also argued that sections 41 (1), 47 (2), 50 (2), 62 (1) & (2), 64 (4) (a) & (b), (5), (6) (c) & (d),(7) & 152 of the Electoral Act 2022, when interpreted together, provide for IReV and the electronic transmission of polling unit results to IReV.

On the alleged criminal conviction of the erstwhile All Progressives Congress flag bearer by a United States court for drug dealing, the appellants further canvassed that “the justices erred in law and contradicted themselves.”

The appellants argued that section 301 of the constitution made the president the governor of Abuja.

They noted that the court failed to appreciate that for the president to assume office or the position of the governor of Abuja, he is also under a mandate to secure 25 percent of votes cast in the FCT.

Addressing the dismissal of the European Union report, the petitioners declared that section 104(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 relied upon by the lower court did not prohibit the making of many originals of public documents and depositing of some of the said original copies with more than one public office or officer, as in this case.

Reacting to the appeals, the Director of Publicity for the APC, Bala Ibrahim, said there was no cause for alarm.

He said, “It is a legal matter. But I think they have a right to do so. It can’t give the party a sleepless night. The ruling party has its own lawyers who are up to the task. It is not an issue though.”

Punch

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has weighed in on the rising military coups in Africa, saying the development shows that young people are in search of liberators.

In recent years, there have been seven coups across Africa, with the latest happening in Gabon on August 30. Niger, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Guinea, and Mali are all under military rule.

Speaking at Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library (OOPL) in Abeokuta, Ogun State, during an interactive session with a group of youths from Africa for Africa Youth Initiative (A4A), the former President said he would not support a coup considering his experience in the hands of former Military dictator, late Sanni Abacha.

He said, “So, the youth are looking for liberators, and we must bear that in mind. Why do we have to allow the youth to start looking for liberators beyond the government of the day? Why?”

According to Obasanjo, certain conditions have been encouraging military takeovers across the continent.

“Having suffered at the hand of Abacha, I will not want a military rule, but if it has to come, what can we do? I will just say okay.

“The point is this, do we have conditions that encourage the type of things that are happening, because if we don’t have the conditions that encourage them, they may not happen. That doesn’t mean it should be encouraged. What it means is that we should make sure that we do everything to prevent coups from happening.

“When you see things that happen in many countries, and I will not exclude Nigeria, then you wonder and don’t forget, don’t forget particularly the youth, they support most of these coups. The one in Gabon, the Coup Leader was being carried on the head by the youths, not by old wretched men and women like me,” he added.

While calling for the entrenchment of true democratic principles with God-given attributes as a way of discouraging coups in the continent, Obasanjo urged African youths to brace up and take leadership positions today and not tomorrow, which may never come.

CTV