The Diary of Zarra Okumephuna

'Set up', the African way

2017-06-17T23:56:00.002+01:00

Over the past few weeks I have read many stories of new disturbing development in Nigeria called 'Set Up'. I also understood that the development is also trending in Ghana. This new trend is both from the State and private individuals.

It works this way. The State, in this case, the agent of the State which is usually the police or a private individual or gangsters would pose as someone they are not to lure vulnerable others into a trap and then by blackmail, force or threat to their life or name extort money from them or even make them to face the full force of the law of the state.

Legal philosophy would not endorse this as an instrument of criminal justice. In fact, the morality of this is still debatable. As a lawyer I have always been against 'set up' and entrapment as an instrument of criminal justice. The fact is that everyone has got a weak point and to capitalise on that weak point to make money out of anyone or to put him or her into trouble is morally repugnant and ethically unacceptable. Sometimes, people wonder why there is always a sign to warn drivers of speed camera or speed limit ahead. The reason is very simple. Every good law is not there to entrap people but to educate them on the importance of obeying the law at all times.

If those in authority secretly put speed cameras on roads without warning the motorists, they would make millions in fine from that. Economically, that would make sense but legally and morally that would be repugnant and unacceptable. The speed cameras are not there to entrap people but to guide them towards obeying the law.

In the same vein, if you are a gay man and a straight man begins to flash a big long fat dick in front of you and you fall for it, you should not be blamed. The law should be codified in such a way to punish the straight guy. In fact, here in the UK the straight man would be punished for flashing or indecent exposure. This is also the case with a lady. If she opens her vagina in front of a man and the man falls for it, the man should not be blamed. The lady should be cited for indecent exposure.

I also understand that some married men and even women also use their partners these days to entrap others. I saw a clip recently on the Internet where a married woman invited a man over to her house while the husband was lying in wait. When it was time for action the husband came out and caught the man pants down and red handed, as he was about to take advantage of his wife. In as much as what this man was about to do to someone's wife is wrong, it is also morally reprehensible, repugnant and unacceptable that he should be set up or entrapped this way. Weakness is part of human nature and if we begin to set trap for others nobody would survive?

The law should be made to be on the side of people being set up, entrapped and extorted from on daily basis. The fact that those who are being set up or entrapped maybe doing something wrong should not be a good reason for those setting them up or entrapping them to take the laws into their hands. You cannot build illegality upon illegality. In a simple term, it is not acceptable to do wrong to correct a wrong doing or to do wrong in order to achieve 'good'.

Meanwhile, looking at these three scenarios again. If you were in this victim's position, what would you do? I bet the natural instinct would surely take over. The natural instinct has nothing to do with morality. It is all about logic. For instance, when someone is hungry and sees food the logical thing would be to eat that food to survive. If you see a lady you like and she consented to sex, the logical thing to do would be to say yes and to stop if she says stop. It is simple.

Therefore, 'set up' and entrapment should not be an instrument of criminal justice and should be discouraged. In fact, it perpetuates criminal behaviour and those guilty of these should be cited for a crime instead.

All terrorists have got small balls...

2017-06-17T23:47:00.002+01:00

All terrorists have got small balls, hands and fingers and that's where their problems, insecurities and hatreds come from. They feel so insecure that they are determined to unleash their insecurity on all of us. But, they will never succeed because what is in us is greater than what is in them. Our love, tolerance and accommodation would always lead and triumph over their hate.

Manchester, London and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall never be afraid or defeated. I am not quite sure you guys understand who you are messing with. Can an ant fight an elephant? A horse no matter how fast it is, can it ever outrun a car? Or can the fastest bird on earth outfly an aeroplane?

Trust me, you guys do not know who you are messing with. You guys are venturing into where angels were smart enough not to thread. You guys have learnt to fly without perching and we also have learnt to shoot without missing. We will get all of you. None of you would ever be spared. Wherever you are on the face of the earth we shall smoke you out and keep you where you belong.

We dealt with Hitler and his Nazi madness. The Battle of Britain showed our resilience and determination to kill evil and what we can do when we are pushed to the wall. What we did to the Nazis shall be a kids play compared to what we have in stock for you. Trust me, we shall get you.

Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and London and our other great institutions of higher learning is a testimony of what our brain can do and that we value knowledge, learning, dialogue and understanding to being small, close and narrow minded. We are open and welcoming to all not because we are afraid or lacking in population but because we want to make this place a place of refugee, a place of perpetual succour for all those facing persecution, injustice, torture, victimisation, degrading and inhuman treatment in any part of the world. This is why this Great and United Kingdom is forever open to all including blacks, whites, agnostics, atheists, Christians, Muslims, gays and others who need our protection. That is not being weak. Trust me, it means being civilised for a civilised man would always open his door to a man, neighbour in need or in danger. This is what makes us humans.

It is because of this that we are not only multicultural but also multilingual, metropolitan, diverse and ended up producing great scientists, solicitors, barristers, surgeons, professors, pilots, drivers, cleaners, engineers, dentists and movers and shakers of this world whose name would be remembered till eternity.

This is why you are jealous of our achievements. Why not grow your hands, fingers and balls and be men and be civilised and stop behaving like castrated clueless cows that you are! I can assure you that life will still go on and is actually still going on despite your atrocities. People are still going about their businesses, loving London and doing things they are good in doing which is loving and not hating. You will never make us to hate each other. You will never divide us. You will never tear apart this great city called London. Though you may have attacked us on London Bridge, I can assure you that London Bridge like a giant Iroko would never fall down. It will definitely outlive you. You are just nothing compared to this giant, this gigantic and monumental city called London.

Can you believe that after your attack life is still going on? Blacks and whites are still moving on. Asians and Africans are still thriving. Straight men are still talking about girls, playing rugby and wearing short pants to better expose their suntanned bodies. Gay men are still going to Kylie Minogue concerts, drinking exotic red wines and Rosie and talking about boys. Arsenal and Chelsea are still there. Manchester City and Manchester United are still standing.

But don't worry. We are coming after you.

This is Great Britain and your small balls, hands and fingers would never defeat us. We shall defeat you and obliterate you from the face of the earth! And as far as we are concerned you are just in the past and in the minority and life would definitely move on.

This is why we are a Great Britain!

Beware of the Pharisees and the Sadducees

2017-02-19T15:50:00.001+00:00

Yesterday, while on a public transport I overheard two Africans having a discussion. The content of their discussion is not relevant here. However, the accusation leveled by one against the other merits my attention and comment. When his friend, during the course of their conversation refused to toe his line of argument, he got angry and accused him of being too westernized.

In fact, this is not the first time I have heard this type of conversation or accusation. Many times in the past, I have heard fellow Africans accuse other Africans of being too westernized as if there is anything wrong with westernization. I do not think that there is anything wrong with westernization. What I think is wrong is those accusing others of being too westernized. They are like the Pharisees and Sadducees and you must beware of them. Imagine the pot calling the kettle black!

By the way, for these Africans accusing their kinsmen of being too westernized or brainwashed with western ideas, the main question should be: who is actually more 'westernized' and 'brainwashed'? The accused or the accuser? Let us put it this way, is it the one who realized that he has been making a mistake and stopped making that mistake and reformed his views and opinions to be in line with modern thinking, discoveries and advances in science, technology and humanities or the one who refused and who had already abandoned his own religion (African Tradition Religion) to embrace a completely different religion from that of his ancestors?

How about the one who completely rejected the way his people dress (African wears) and now dresses like westerners (suit, jeans, t-shirt, tie, etc.) and even wear western perfumes like Dior, Channel, etc.? They even abandoned their traditional means of transport (walking, animals) to embrace cars and trains and live in pent houses instead of thatched houses, which are all western ideas and inventions. I thought that being anti-western in ideology, they would have preferred living on the trees, walking about naked and saying no to western benefits and inventions.

How about the man who forgot the wisdom of his people and the way they acquire these wisdoms under the tree to embrace western wisdom and education to the extent of acquiring university education up to PhD level and even using product of this way of education like mobile phones, laptops, and other computers you are using now to read this.

How about the man who travelled thousands of miles to come and live in the west forgetting his claim that his culture is more superior and full of morals compared to that of the west? What is he still doing in the west? Africa is a vast continent with huge fauna and flora. Why has he not gone back Africa to flourish and shower in that morality and wisdom? By the way, how did he come to the west? By flying like a bird, walking or swimming across rivers and oceans? He must have come here through one of those western inventions (airplane) he condemns on daily basis!

And this brings me to a very important question: since when did integration become an offence? Isn’t it a good idea to do as Romans do when in Rome? Or do you want the natives to tell us to pack our bag, book the next flight and go home and never come back? I completely support the idea of adapting to a new culture if in the first place you made a conscious decision to come and live in that culture. And this includes respecting the cultures, laws and values of your host country. If you leave Nigeria to live in Ghana, it is a moral imperative that you have to adapt to their cultures by respecting their laws and values. Do not get me wrong. I am not advocating abandoning your own culture. Of course, no culture can claim to be the best. Every culture has got something good, bad and or ugly in them. However, what I am saying is that if you make a decision to leave your country to live elsewhere, you must also respect the cultures, values and laws of your host country. That is my understanding of what a decent, educated gentleman is.

It is actually for this reason that here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in order to naturalize as a British Citizen, amongst other requirements, you must also provide evidence of proficiency in English Language by proving that you are from a majority English language country or by sitting and passing English Language to an acceptable standard for immigration purposes. You must also take and pass ‘Life in the UK’ examination. This is to ensure that you are well integrated at the end of the day.

And the moral of this short piece is that my African brothers and sisters should learn how to shut their mouth if they have nothing meaningful and useful to say. A culture rightly said that silence is golden. I am not trying to put down African culture and 'morality'. No. That is not the intention behind this piece. However, I am trying to point out that sometimes it is always good to think out of the box before talking.

The world does not begin and end in Africa. There are other continents apart from Africa. And bearing in mind that there are now close to 200 countries in the world, it is important to borrow from each other. Borrowing from others is not a sign of weakness or lack of civilization but a humble acknowledgment that the other person is doing something better than the way you are accustomed to. It is for this reason that it is said that no man is an island.

Is it fair to change the rule of a game in the middle of a game?

2017-02-16T13:38:00.003+00:00

In December 2014, the then Secretary of State for Home Office Theresa May who is currently the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland quietly and secretly tightened up the criteria for granting British citizenship. She did that based on the recommendation of John Vine the former Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.

Of particular importance and relevance to this article is the section on 'good character'. There was no prior warning or announcement before this change and it might also interest you to know that no Act of Parliament ever defined the term ‘good character’. The Secretary of State for Home Office is given the discretion to define it. He can include as many things as he wishes. For instance, this new change would see things like parking fines, bad behavior of your children or dependents, not paying council tax or TV licence and many others trigger the good character test.

That rule was tightened retrospectively thereby defying the first rule in law that no law should be retrospectively enacted to catch those who committed an alleged offence when the offence in question was not even an offence when it was allegedly committed. Think of it like making a law in 2017 to punish anyone born in the last 10 years anywhere in the UK on April 21 because it was the birthday of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II. If, however a law is passed making it an offence to punish anyone who gives birth from the next 10 month and onwards (bearing in mind that pregnancy lasts for 9 months) on April 21 then that will be fair since those affected would have been given prior warning or enough notice before that law comes into effect. This is what a just law being prospective and not retrospective means.

When a law is made to be retrospective it becomes unfair, unjust and defies all rules of logic, equity, justice and fairness. This is because those who arrived before a rule or law is changed do have moral and legitimate expectation that the goal post would not be tampered with or changed to their disadvantage. Asylum seekers and refugees are good example of a group that government owes a duty of moral and legitimate expectation. Sadly, they were not exempted in this change of the rule of the game in the middle of the game. Mind you that to seek asylum in the UK you need to be already in the UK to do that and that means that most asylum seekers and refugees would need to break the UK immigration law in one way or other to do that. They would have entered clandestinely and if this were the case they would not meet the 'good character' test. Bear in mind that UK does not allow asylum seekers to seek asylum in any of their embassy or high commission anywhere in the world. It must be done on arrival in the UK.

As Secretary of State for Home Office Theresa May threw caution to the wind and widened the definition of ‘good character’ without making any exception for these asylum seekers and refugees. To be specific, a number of undesirable behaviours were added to the list of disqualifying behaviours including illegal entry, assisting illegal migration and evasion of immigration.

According to the Home Office Guidance accompanying this change: 'In circumstances where an applicant entered the UK illegally, an application for citizenship should normally be refused for a period of 10 years from the date of entry, if it is known. If it is not known, the period of 10 years starts from the date on which the person first brought themselves to or came to the attention of the Home Office’.

These changes seem to have been made quietly on December 11, 2014 and many people were caught unawares. Even as I am writing, many people are still not even aware of this change of the rule of the game. Sadly, these changes would prevent almost all recognized refugees from qualifying for British citizenship for at least 10 years from the date their claim was finally accepted as opposed to the previous 5+1 rule which is five years of Limited Leave to Remain followed by one year of indefinite Leave to Remain after which the applicant is entitled to apply for naturalization so far he or she has no serious criminal records. Under this old rule whatever happened before the last six years is usually disregarded. Under the new rule, it is now the last 10 years.

The new rule is therefore not just very harsh, unfair and evil but a clear violation of UKs obligation towards the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. By 1951 Geneva Convention, the United Kingdom agreed not to punish those who entered the territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland illegally to seek asylum because their life was in danger. The UK also agreed to facilitate their integration and naturalization without unnecessary burdens. I have therefore no doubt that the United Kingdom is clearly acting in breach of Articles 31 and 34 of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

But the most painful part is that most applicants do not know about this rule. There was no publicity or prior warning before the rule was changed. Most of the applicants who have stayed in the UK for the required 6 years have gone on to apply for naturalization only to have their application rejected on 'good character' ground and thereby loosing their £1236 application fee, which the Home Office under Theresa May made non-refundable. Actually, they are only refunded £80 citizenship ceremony fee back.

For most of these asylum seekers and refugees, this is a month or even two to three months wages. It defies every logic that asylum seekers and refugees whose life were in danger and therefore had to break the UK Immigration Laws to seek asylum are being treated as a source of income for the government. But what type of application in 2017 would take such amount of money to process? The fact is that this rule is not fair and taking these helpless peoples money is evil that any civilized society cannot condone. Publicizing this change before it takes effect would have been better and refunding them at least £1000 would not be a bad idea either if the government must carry on with the rule change. But taking the whole money and refunding them only £80 is not my understanding of a fair and just society.

Bain, Gays And A Battle For Values

2017-02-09T17:52:00.001+00:00

I recently read an article by the former Jamaican Prime Minister who is also a college professor. The article in question was published in Jamaican Gleaner and is entitled: "Bain, Gays And A Battle For Values" and I do not agree with his line of argument in that article. It never sounded like an opinion of a college professor. In fact, his argument is baseless and unreasonable and I cannot begin or finish telling you how disappointed I am that a college professor and a former Jamaican Prime Minster could have written that.

It seems to me that there is a truth in the saying that those who undergo oppression end up being oppressors. Think of what the State of Israel is doing to Palestinians today despite what millions of Jews went though under the Nazis. It is sad that history keeps on repeating itself just because we have refused to learn from it.

Many years ago, my forefathers sold our brothers and sisters to the West in the name of slavery. Those caught up in this evil were mainly the minorities and the most vulnerable. The African states of those days never understood the idea that democracy is a government of the majority for the protection of the minority.

Where I come from in Nigeria (I am an Igbo, sometimes written as Ibo and often referred to as 'Red Eboe' in Jamaican Patois), it used to be a taboo to give birth to twins because the Igbo culture then saw it as a bad omen. It took a Western woman called Mary Slessor to put an end to that barbaric act. Sadly, the Jamaicans of today are still doing same thing we did to these twins to their own, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and every right thinking person must be asking questions.

There is not justification for how LGBTs are treated in Jamaica and the fact that there is state support for this type of treatment is awful and repugnant and should be a source of concern to every right thinking person. We are not in majority mandated or empowered to victimize the poor, the vulnerable and the helpless. Our lot is to use those advantages for the betterment of the powerless. If my forefathers had known about this, my fore brothers and sisters would not have been sold into slavery. We sold them because of our greed and wickedness. Wickedness of man's heart is at the root of homophobia, which is abundant in Jamaican communities of today.

I am Nigerian by origin and therefore not in better position to advise Jamaicans on how to order their nation and lives, however if they think that the best way to do that is to kill, lynch or imprison their own brothers and sisters who are homosexuals, then as a human I have a moral responsibility to intervene and that is exactly what I am doing now.

It is interesting that this is coming just at the same time the Caribbean nations are asking for compensation from the West for years of slavery which is responsible for the poor state of development in their region but how can you morally ask for that when you are doing same thing done to you by my forefathers and the West?

I can assure you that people do not make a choice to become homosexuals. People are born gay but even if they do make that choice, since when did it become a crime to make a choice that has no negative or adverse social impact on others? Is it a crime to make a choice to become a Christian, a Muslim or to marry the one you like? If it is not, why should it be if someone makes that choice to become a homosexual?

The former Prime Minister Bruce Golding alleged that the reason his government and the Present Jamaican Government could not and should not repeal the Jamaican anti-gay law was because of the need to safeguard the children. I find this claim utterly myopic, not grounded in facts and in fact borne out of prejudice and ignorance. If you are not gay, how on earth could you learn to be gay? And how could children become gay if Jamaican anti-gay law is repealed?

I urge the Jamaican community to rethink their position. You are dealing with your own brothers and sisters. You nation was born out of greed and wickedness of white man and my forefathers. I wonder what my forefathers would say if they come back to life today. There is no justification for still having anti-gay laws in Jamaica and the present air of homophobia in the country cannot be justified either. Jamaican problem today lies with the elites who have refused to allow the dividends of democracy to trickle down to the masses. And situations like this breeds discontent and anger against a section of the community, often times against the wrong section and sadly Jamaican homosexuals in this case.

And to set the record straight, the West is not putting pressure on no one not even Jamaica to do as they do in the West. Rather, what the West is saying is that homosexuality is the least problem facing Jamaican nation today. There is too much killing on the streets of Kingston and elsewhere, low level of education, poverty, illegal drugs, rapes and loads of them in the Island and these are exactly what the West is saying that Jamaica should focus on.

The Nature of Injustice.

2017-02-08T15:26:00.000+00:00

The nature of injustice is so elusive that we may not notice it in our time. It is such a powerful and elusive concept that it can becloud any sense of rationality and wisdom especially during the period of its operation, even amongst the wise and the learned.

Take the issue of slavery for instance, people's sense of justice were beclouded by injustice that majority even monotheistic believers thought that it was okay for a group of people to enslave and sell others just as you would enslave and sell animals or even houses, or cars and many other commodities that can be bought and sold in the market. This is also the case with the infamous law that forbade interracial marriage till it was struck down by Loving v Virginia [1967]. But if you think we have learnt our lessons, you must then be living in a fantasy world.

Today, the concept of injustice is once again manifesting itself in our time in the form of imprisonments, killings, lynching, persecutions and other forms of injustices against the LGBT community worldwide. Sadly, due to our very poor and short memory majority think it is okay and acceptable to make life very hard for the LGBT community worldwide. And the saddest part is that religion is at the root of this injustice. Members of the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam would always cite their various scriptures to justify this act in the ‘name of God’ thereby making fun and belittling the understanding of God as inclusive, all loving God who knows all including our destinies even before we were born.

This phenomenon and lopsided interpretation of the scriptures is a widely accepted not only in Nigeria and Uganda where members of LGBT community have either been imprisoned, lynched or killed lately but sadly in more developed worlds like Russia and even that beacon of modern freedom, egalitarianism, liberty and pursuit of happiness: the United States of America.

This is sad! It is sad for democracy does not mean the victimization of the minority by the majority. It is the other way round: the protection of the minority by the majority! It is for this reason that recent legal developments including HJ and HT v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] in the UK and Obergefell v Hodges [2015] in the United States have both stressed the importance of coming together to protect the LGBT community worldwide as the most persecuted group of our time. The word genocide is the only appropriate word that can aptly describe the plight of the LGBT community worldwide today!

It is for this reason that I am standing up in defence of the LGBT community worldwide by strongly endorsing and recommending this anthology by Unoma Azua to all right thinking people on earth! Yes, we must take sides for neutrality and silence empowers only the oppressor and never the victim. Just like Elie Wiesel said: ‘wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must-at that moment-become the centre of the universe’.

*This piece is written as an afterword for 'Blessed Body' edited by Unoma Azua.

May and Trump are birds of a feather.

2017-02-08T00:49:00.001+00:00

The fact is that Donald Trump the President of the United States of America and Theresa May the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have loads in common. They are both anti-immigrants, anti-refugees and their hearts are full of hatred for 'non-natives'. They are also both nationalists. For both of them it is either America or British and nothing or no one else. I doubt if both of them are aware that other worlds exist outside the United States or the United Kingdom. However, I must point out that the only difference between May and Trump is that while Trump is very vocal, May is like a green snake in a green grass.

It may interest you to know that the first to initiate these drastic immigration policies was not Trump but May. It is therefore safe to conclude that May taught Trump and the latter learnt more and trumped the former.

For instance, during her tenure as Secretary of State for Home Office, Theresa May was vigorously opposed to hosting Syrian refugees in the United Kingdom. And for those Syrian refugees lucky to make it to the UK, she fought vigorously to prevent their children in the jungle in Calais from joining them here in the UK. This is in clear disregard for Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to both private and family life.

It was also under her tenure as Secretary of States for Home Office that refugees who clandestinely arrived in the UK to seek asylum or claimed asylum very late were subjected to 10-year ban before they would be allowed to naturalize. The punishment is for arriving here clandestinely to seek asylum or seeking asylum in not 'a reasonable time'. Before that, the rule was 5 years of Limited Leave to Remain followed by 1 year of Indefinite Leave to Remain after which they are able to naturalize so far they meet other criteria including not having criminal records. The meaning of this 5+1 year rule is that whatever happened or however they arrived prior to the 5+1 year rule would be overlooked during their naturalization application. In fact, Article 31 of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees supported this bearing in mind that for most asylum seekers and refugees the only way they could seek asylum is by breaking local immigration laws.

But the saddest part is that most of these refugees were not even informed or made aware of this retrospective change in goal post and ended up applying for naturalization under the old rule of 5+1 year rule and having their application rejected, and in the process lost their £1236 non-refundable application fee. This is equivalent to a month wage for most of these refugees. Imagine stealing from those you are morally responsible to protect! Think of stealing from Syrian refugees you see on television on daily basis. But think of this very carefully. What type of application on earth will cost £1236 non-refundable fee to process? And the fact that this concerns people who are vulnerable, helpless and therefore in need of our help and protection makes it a moral and conscientious question.

The lesson here is that Theresa May has no regard for international laws, agreements and treaties which are binding on the United Kingdom. The same is also the case with Donald Trump. Bear in mind that Articles 31 and 34 of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees urged signatory states not to penalize refugees for arriving in their territory clandestinely and to facilitate their integration and naturalization. What did Trump do? He prevented them from coming to the United States to seek asylum and for those already granted refugee status he barred them from arriving back in the States. And what about May? She subjected them to a 10-year ban before naturalization in addition to stealing their £1236 non-refundable application fee!

And do I need to remind you that the first foreign leader to visit President Donald Trump was Theresa May? This is despite his rhetoric against Muslims, Mexicans, blacks, women, refugees, asylum seekers etc. Birds of a feather!

So when next you think of vilifying Trump, think of May too. They have so much in common. They are birds of a feather!

Religion and Poverty in Nigeria.

2017-02-06T01:32:00.003+00:00

I read somewhere recently that religiosity declines as worldly prosperity of individual rises. I couldn’t agree more. For instance, most Nigerians - placed at 93% religious on a recent survey by Pew - would loose their faith and stop being religious once they relocate to the West. This is mainly because of economic pressure, change in prosperity expectation and the attendant pressure to maintain it. Also seeing for the first time that impossibilities (like underground travel, air travel, first class medical centres curing the 'incurables', autopsy revealing exact cause of deaths, illnesses having a medical explanation and not as a result of ‘juju’ or ‘obia’ from your father’s second wife or neighbour) are possible in the West could lead to this situation.

In the West and specifically in the United Kingdom, to make money in order to pay your bills, you will need to give less time to faith and more time to work. Mind you, paying bills like TV license, road tax, council tax, gas, electricity and water rates, transport fares, etc. are still foreign to most Nigerians. In fact, in Nigeria most of these are taken for granted. It is normal to drive without insurance and if you are lucky to have electricity in your house collecting the bill by the power company would be as difficult as looking for a needle in a haystack.

While, most Nigerians would spend an average of three hours in places of worship in Nigeria, once they relocate to the West, this trend is immediately reversed because their work pattern would change to meet up with the gigantic bills they would have to pay monthly. They would need to pay loads of taxes, feed and cloth themselves and therefore cannot afford to spend a whole day in the places of worship. In fact, they would oftentimes need to do a rotating shift and that could mean that they are more likely to work on Sundays and Fridays too and even put more effort at home to fine-tune their works in order not to be sued by their clients or patients for negligent advice or treatment or performing below the expectation imposed on them by the rule of duty of care. Even poor customer service could lead to numerous complaints and reflect badly on the individual in particular and the company in general.

The implication of this is very clear. Nigeria may be a very religious country but religiosity is linked to the fact that they have no too many bills to pay like their western counterparts and can therefore afford to sleep in places of worship.

In fact, in Nigeria people spend more time in places of worship (mind you that most government offices are partially closed daily and mainly on Fridays for the Muslims to pray) and therefore less productive, whereas in the West the reverse is the case (you dare not leave your job to go and pray or close any government office for any religious reason during the week or you would be cited for breach of contract or negligence of duty) hence the reason Nigeria and Nigerians are less productive, poor and will continue to be compared to their western counterparts.

But the good news is that this situation could be reversed. That is, if Nigerians could learn to spend less time on their knees and more time on their feet being productive after all it is said eloquently that heaven helps only those who help themselves.

Let Us Judge.

2017-01-30T13:12:00.001+00:00

I couldn't agree more with a recent newspaper editorial in a British newspaper that lambasted British lawyers for criticizing the former British Prime Minister David Cameron for not doing enough to help Syrian migrants or suggesting that his offer to take in about 20,000 Syrian migrants over a five year period was not good enough.

Revisit the criticism to know where I am heading. It is not enough carrying 'We Welcome Migrants' placard, criticizing David Cameron or the Tory government handling of the crisis. To prove that you truly love migrants, the proof must begin from you. You must have to play your part too and this includes ensuring that they are not discriminated against in everyday services especially in the job sector when they arrive in the UK. Are you ready to give that assurance? I so much doubt that! The change must begin from you and not from the Prime Minister or the Tory Government. We are all agents of change and must do our bits to help these people otherwise our actions would be akin to sitting on moral high horses.

By the way, let us look at those talking. Here in the UK to be a barrister (I do not say a solicitor), if one of your parents or family member or friend of the family is not already in the profession, you probably would definitely struggle to get a pupillage and that struggle would be like a camel going through the eye of a needle or looking for a needle in a haystack.

These judges and barristers are where they are today because of the benefit of their parents discriminative attitude against those who have no barristers in their own family. Their parents overlooked merit and shamefully concentrated on bias, nepotism and 'family connection' to get them where they are today. It is because of this reason that barristers here in the UK are often sons and daughters of barristers, judges, KCs and QCs who themselves descended from long line of barristers, judges, KCs and QCs. I dare you to give me 10 names of barristers in the UK who do not fall into this category and I shall buy you a hot chocolate!

It is a shame that being a barrister is still one profession or vocation where corruption and nepotism is still very rife and nobody is doing something about it! And to think that these people are custodian of justice in the society makes you to begin to wonder about the quality of the legal system in this country.

I am therefore appalled that these lawyers have the gut to utter absolute rubbish and balderdash to make us believe that they like migrants and those from the lower class. They occupy juicy positions in the legal profession and using that influence are preventing others from climbing same ladder because they are busy making provisions for their sons and daughters and grand children and great grand children. And they still have the audacity to talk rubbish. Look at who is talking: a pot calling a kettle black!

I change my mind about Jeremy Corbyn.

2017-01-30T12:01:00.002+00:00

The notion that some persons cannot make a good leader or do a particular job is an absolute nonsense. So far they have the necessary qualification and given equal opportunity, training, level playing ground, fair game, justice, fairness and equity and of course the moral support of those being led, anyone can be a good leader or do a particular job. However, if the leader in question chooses to be a dictator and refuses to listen to those he is leading or to leave the scene when the ovation is still at the crescendo, then he becomes a bad leader and unworthy to lead.

I am very sorry that I wrote here sometime ago that I do not trust the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. That was very fast, furious and foolish of me. The conclusion was very immature. Decency and common sense should have dictated that I first give him a chance before condemning him.

It is sad that I spent four years in the best Law Schools (SOAS and Birkbeck) in this country and yet forgot so easily that principal maxim in law that demands that the other party must be heard first or given a chance before being condemned. I sincerely apologize to Jeremy Corbyn and wish him all the best.

Meanwhile, I should be ashamed of myself. Being a black person, one of the greatest hurdles the likes of me face in this country is that the society especially employers judge as failures even before we are given the chance to try and fail. Some of these employers have the mindset that nothing good can ever come out of the black community and therefore are very reluctant to hire us. Most employers would even go as far as thinking that you would be coming to the interview with a gun or a knife. This is sad and the biggest tragedy of our time.

This stereotyping of a particular group of people based on their colour or religion or other characteristics just as President Donald Trump is doing at the moment in the United Sates is sad. It is sad that a whole race, religion or generation is being condemned without even being given an opportunity or the chance to prove themselves. It is even sadder that these people are not being given an opportunity to prove that their colour or religion or other characteristics have no relation or bearing to their ability to do a particular job. It is for this reason that the then Baroness Hale Of Richmond said in Ghaidan v Mendoza [2004]:

"My Lords, it is not so very long ago in this country that people might be refused access to a so-called "public" bar because of their sex or the colour of their skin; that a woman might automatically be paid three quarters of what a man was paid for doing exactly the same job; that a landlady offering rooms to let might lawfully put a "no blacks" notice in her window. We now realize that this was wrong. It was wrong because the sex or colour of the person was simply irrelevant to the choice which was being made: to whether he or she would be a fit and proper person to have a drink with others in a bar, to how well she might do the job, to how good a tenant or lodger he might be. It was wrong because it depended on stereotypical assumptions about what a woman or a black person might be like, assumptions which had nothing to do with the qualities of the individual involved: even if there were any reason to believe that more women than men made bad customers this was no justification for discriminating against all women. It was wrong because it was based on an irrelevant characteristic which the woman or the black did not choose and could do nothing about."

That was actually the thinking that led me not to back Jeremy Corbyn. This thinking that someone cannot make a good leader or do a particular job is absolute rubbish and I deeply and sincerely apologize to Jeremy Corbyn.

Trust me, there is a huge potential in diversity!

2017-01-30T11:58:00.001+00:00

Few weeks ago, I read in UK Evening Standard of a black British woman of Nigerian origin who had to change her name to an English name to get a job. After graduating from the college she was not able to attract any job interview despite her brilliant CV, track records, academic achievements and work experiences. The saddest part of this story is that as soon as she changed her name by deed poll she landed a job interview and a job within one week! Isn't this sad?

Must we all be whites? Must we all be named John Smith to get a job in the United Kingdom in 2016? Isn't this akin to ISIS or Daesh or whatever you prefer to call them or even Boko Haram wanting all of us to become Muslims and live under a caliphate? There is a good reason why evolution allowed us to evolve differently. There is definitely a good reason why we all speak different languages or even same language with different accents. In fact, our different accents and even languages could be an aphrodisiac to some people. Listen to French, Italian or even Hausa and Swahili languages and you will know where I am heading.

There is also a good reason why some of us were born blacks while others were born whites or other colours. Those reasons should be seen as a blessing and not a barrier. They should be celebrated and not tolerated. There is nothing wrong with being black, Nigerian or having a jaw breaking name or even speaking with an accent.

Nobody should have to be overlooked or denied any job in the United Kingdom in 2016 because of their language, accent, name, origin, religion or creed or even the colour of their body for these are immaterial as to whether someone could do a job and do it very well.

It is very sad that brilliant candidates are not being hired due to their accent or the colour of their body while square pegs in round holes are being hired because of their 'accepted' name, colour, language and accent and who they know or related to in the high places.

Same employers who employ these people would tomorrow be the first to shout that graduates of these days are not well equipped for the job market whereas the blame should be on them for hiring wrong people based on nepotism and their myopic and thwarted prejudices.

On a final note, I must reiterate that great talent can come from anywhere. See beyond colour. See potential. Employ an ethnic minority!

Question God! Go beyond boundaries! Yes you can!

2016-12-11T14:56:00.000+00:00

I find it distressing and disappointing when people refuse to use their brain and thinking faculty! What on earth makes you think that you cannot think for yourself? Would it be a crime or a sin for you to sit down, speculate, observe, rationalize and come up with a novel answer to a problem so that others can learn and begin from where you stopped? You can think! So think!

You don't have to believe it just because the Koran or the Bible said it or because Mohammed or Isaiah said it first. Subject those claims to analysis and I bet you, you will see the wonders your brain and thinking faculty can perform!

Why would you go on barefoot in London in the middle of hurting winter? Because you are a member of Celestial Church or because your pastor said that is what God wanted? I so much doubt God would want any of his children to die of hypothermia!

How about facing the east to pray? Does it mean that God cannot answer your prayer if you face the west, south or north? Did He not make them all? I mean did He not make all directions? Why would He specifically choose east? Does it mean that He consciously created the four directions and suddenly chose one over others?

The issue here is that people have refused to reason and use the brain God gave to them. Why would you have to do something that does not make sense to you? You don't have to do it if it does not make sense to you! It is as simple as that and not a rocket science!

How about the woman who had a bad dream and ran to the church to sleep for three days? Does it mean that God is no more in your heart and in your house? Must you pray in the church or mosque when God said that He is everywhere at all time?

And you, who pay tithe everyday, have you ever asked your pastor or imam for the church or mosque account book? Who says you cannot question him? Even if he is God, you still need to question him! I question God too all the time. In fact everyday!

I have always asked God why on earth He made men with nipples when men are not expected to feed any child. I have always asked him what happened to his sense of perfectionism when He ended up making organs in human body asymmetrical. Could you believe that two breasts in a woman are not of equal size? Not even your balls as a man are equal! Why would God do such a thing?

And the most annoying thing is that when you ask, a thinking and rationalizing human will ask you not to question God. Hell no! God must be constantly questioned until we get all the answers to our problems from Him.

And for you who refuses to question him, best of lucks in your ignorance and myopic mind.

In Support of Abolition of Government Sponsorship of Pilgrimages and Taxation of Places of Worship in Nigeria

2016-12-10T19:48:00.005+00:00

I support the resolution of the just concluded Nigerian National Conference to introduce taxation of places of worship in Nigeria and to abolish the government sponsorship of pilgrimages to holy places such as Jerusalem, Rome, Medina and Mecca. Sadly, some people have already started opposing it. How on earth do you tell a victim that he is being victimized? How do you convince an average Nigerian that most of these religious leaders are milking them to death in the name of God?

But, why should churches and mosques not pay tax when atheists and agnostics do? Democracy is all about equality and equity and if one is forced to pay tax, the other should not be exempted. Religion has done more harm than good in Nigeria and it should and must be forced to pay tax to repair the damages it has done to the nation so far. Almost every single unrest in Nigeria is directly or indirectly rooted to religion. All the obnoxious laws in Nigeria against the minorities especially the homosexuals are directly or indirectly rooted in religion. Even the kidnapping of over 200 schoolgirls in Chibok in Borno State is down to religion. If religion can be used effectively to cause trouble, preach hatred, propagate division and endorse the victimization of the minority, it can also be used effectively to generate much needed money that the nation is in dire need of to repair these harms, heal the nation and placate the victimized.

I so much doubt there is one good reason churches and mosques should not pay tax? Just look at the likes of David Oyedepo! Is it fair to our nation, equity, decency, good governance and democracy that a man openly known to be the richest pastor in Africa with fleets of luxury cars, expensive private universities and private jets is not paying tax simply because he is a ‘man of God’? If the poor civil servants are paying taxes why should the likes of Oyedepo not pay tax? And yet his conscience is not telling him that he is robbing both the Nigerian government and our poor folks! Oyedepo is an epitome of whatever is wrong with Nigerian religious leaders. They are rich beyond imagination, highly elevated like sacred cows and of course above the law. They rob the poor, wine and dine with the corrupt and fellowship with the oppressors of the oppressed in complete opposition to what Christ and His gospel stood for.

Religion is one of the main reasons Nigeria is in precarious financial situation today. It has retarded development in the country, elevated corruption and yet leaders of these religions are busy manipulating their followers and living scandalously on the contributions of these poor followers and taxpayers. Every right thinking person should be asking of what benefit is religion to the nation that it should be exempted from paying tax? In fact, there is no benefit whatsoever to the nation. Any benefit these religions bring goes only to their members and not the nation. You are more likely to be admitted to the Covenant University owned by Oyedepo if you are a member of his church just as a Muslim university would always think twice before employing or admitting anyone outside of their faith. Religion is therefore of no benefit per se to the nation to be exempted from paying tax.

I would therefore be happy if this noble idea is pursued and implemented. But then, if it is implemented the religious leaders would simply tax their poor followers the more. Education is therefore very important to persuade these brainwashed folks that their religious leaders are milking them to fund their opulent lifestyles.

These religious leaders have for so long abused their position. Give them handshake, they would want an arms length. Look at Boko Haram, they want a caliphate and people like David Oyedepo are slapping and assaulting little girls up and down the nation and getting away with it because they are religious leaders! And the part that is most sickening is that these so called religious leaders would allow the nation to sponsor their opulent lifestyle and sponsor their members (often handpicked rich donating members) on pilgrimages to Medina, Mecca, Jerusalem and Rome with money that should have been used to better the lots of poor Nigerians. I am even flummoxed that many Nigerians are against the proposal but then how do you convince a man in chain that he is actually in chain? Until he realizes that he is chain, any effort to set him free would be futile and akin to pouring water on stone!

Boko Haram, Homophobia: They have same roots, hate and prejudice!

2014-05-16T21:03:00.001+01:00

Recently, I was accused of being out of touch with reality for mixing and comparing the fear and plight of Nigerians due to the terror of Boko Haram with the plight of homosexuals in Nigeria due to the recently passed Nigerian anti-gay law. But am sorry, if you cannot see the connection I can see it clearly and my point is that what Boko Haram is doing today in Nigeria is terrorism just as what Nigeria is doing to Nigerian homosexuals is also called terrorism. Nigeria is inflicting a brutal act of terror on Nigerian homosexuals and Boko Haram is doing exactly same thing to all of us and we must condemn both. They are both acts of terrorism.

The activities of Boko Haram and the Nigerian government have same thing in common; terrifying the weak and the helpless. Boko Haram wants all of us to abandon western education and become Muslims or we shall all die. Their mission is not different from that of Nigeria Government headed by President Jonathan Goodluck: become straight or you end up in jail for 14 years. Do you not see the connection there? I can see it clearly.

To homosexuals in Nigeria, the Nigerian anti-gay law terrifies, dehumanises and puts them in daily and constant danger and fear of their lives and that is exactly how the terror of Boko Haram makes the rest of us feel. They are using numerous tactics including kidnapping, looting and suicide bombing to make us agree with them and be what they want us to be and not what we want to be. They want to reap us apart and strike ruthlessly at the core of our fundamental human right to freedom of choice, association, life and being who we are and not what others want us to be. But we should not allow them just as we should not allow the Nigerian Government to send our brothers and sisters to jail for committing no crime but being who they are.

I invite every well-meaning Nigerian to join me in condemning Boko Haram as well as the Government of Jonathan Goodluck who set this motion of hatred in progress. This is the right thing to do for you cannot condemn one terror leaving the other. You cannot condemn Boko Haram and yet continue to condone the persecution, imprisonment, lynching, victimisation, blackmailing and all sorts of terror against homosexuals in Nigeria. It does not work that way. You cannot have it both ways. If a Muslim wants freedom of religion, he must also grant that freedom to Jews and Christians and to everyone else, no matter how repugnant their belief maybe to him. If Boko Haram wants to abolish the western education in Nigeria and make all of us Muslims, fine but then they must allow the people to exercise that choice. They can always group as a political party and then give the people the opportunity to decide for themselves.

What Boko Haram is trying to achieve is impossible and that is to make every single Nigerian a Muslim, establish a Muslim caliphate and abolish our western system of education. It might also interest you to know that that is exactly also the mission of Nigerian Government of President Jonathan Goodluck: to forcefully ‘convert’ all Nigerian homosexuals into being straight. This is ridiculous! I am convinced some people are born gay but even if they are not, what is wrong with that freedom of ‘choice’? What is wrong with the ‘choice’ you made to become a Muslim, a Roman Catholic, an Anglican, an America, British, black or white or even an atheist?

Democracy is not about domination. It is all about majority for the protection of the minority. A man is strong and his strength comes out fully when he uses that strength to defend the weak, the poor, the helpless, and the minorities and in fact, whoever is in need of that help. That is exactly the reason the West has been saying 'Hey, you are getting it wrong! Do not victimise your brethren for what they do not choose to be. They are your brothers and sisters and blood'. But then most Nigerians including the Nigerian government of Goodluck Jonathan turned around to accuse the West of meddling in Nigeria affairs. This same people would shamefully turnaround and invite same West to help them fight Boko Haram! These people, do they not have a sense of shame at all?

I do not agree that the West is meddling in our affair. They are telling us the right thing. These people are smart. Ever wondered the reason the West is highly organised and today a dream of every single African to visit and live in? Ever wondered why these people were able to invent aeroplane, computers, trains, cars, television, underground travelling system, iPhone and loads of other sophisticated technologies? Ever wondered the reason the West is against the victimisation and persecution of homosexuals? They have invested millions, times, manpower and efforts before coming to that conclusion and we must respect them for that and accept that we got it wrong. There is nothing wrong in saying that someone is more brilliant than you are. In fact, it is a virtue to acknowledge that and that is exactly what Nigeria needs today. We must be humble enough to accept that we got it wrong and are still getting it wrong before it is too late. We cannot do without the West and their hugely relevant and important guidance and advice.

But then, if you cannot accept what the West is telling you about homosexuality and even telling the West to their face to shove their aid up their ass, how on earth could you still turn around all of a sudden to ask same West for help to fight Boko Haram? Has someone sold her shame in the market or is someone not thinking before talking. You cannot have it both ways.

In fact, whatever Nigeria thinks about her internal affairs and sovereignty, sadly globalisation has made the whole world look like one little village and what happens in Nigeria today is not just a Nigerian affair but a world affair. The West is therefore justified in guiding Nigeria to the right path and Nigeria in the spirit of humility and humanity must accept this guidance. The whole world cannot and should not keep quiet while Nigeria is busy persecuting her own minorities. But why on earth do you think that the West would ever leave Nigeria to turn into another Gambia under a lunatic? Nigeria should learn that hate does not pay; it actually breeds more hate and we should not allow this cycle to continue ad infinitum.

Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Laureate could not have said it better: “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must-at that moment-become the centre of the universe”.

The situation in Nigeria is calling for an urgent action and response. Nigerian homosexuals are living in fear of their lives for being in the minority. But so are also the rest of us due to the menace of Boko Haram. But I must add that Nigerian government including the government of Jonathan Goodluck should be blamed for all these mess. By their actions and policies, they instilled in the mind of ordinary Nigerians the ugly concept of hatred and persecution of the minorities. Today we are reaping the bitter fruit.

Nigeria fired the first shot and once you fire the first shot of hatred you cannot stop it. It must complete its target. Nigerians hate homosexuals and I have issue with that and Boko Haram hate all of us and I do have issue with that too. Therefore, the solution lies in one concept: equality for all and the protection of the right of all without discrimination.

The meaning of Islam?...

2013-09-26T21:38:00.000+01:00

Is Islam still a religion of peace? Maybe, you should ask those caught up in the recent mall incident in Kenya or the victims of the recent Peshawar church bombing in Pakistan. Frankly, I am unable with this short piece to give a befitting and balanced response to this question myself, however I will leave the platform open for you to form your own opinion at the end of the day. But to help you out, I think it is pertinent we take another look at the events of the last few weeks.

The event at the Kenyan Mall is still very fresh in our minds. I will therefore leave that and jump into what happened at the same time in Peshawar, Pakistan. Some days ago, two Muslim suicide bombers entered All Saints Anglican Church in Peshawar, and slaughtered more than 70 Christians and maimed many more as they worshipped God and praised Jesus. That ugly incident occurred just at same time some Somali Muslims entered a mall in Kenya, separated the shoppers into Muslims and non-Muslims and to be sure those who claim to be Muslims are truly Muslims, they were asked the name of the mother of Mohammed. Those who failed the test were slaughtered alongside those who did not identify themselves as Muslims.

I am not sure if you actually know the situation of religious minorities in Pakistan but from my own little research about the country it is safe to conclude that if you are not a Muslim in Pakistan today, you are dinning with the devil! In fact, you have your house dangerously built in the midst of a drunken hungry shark, devil and a deep blue sea. There is no means of escape for everywhere you turn is equally dangerous. One blogger summarized it thus: "You have absolutely no idea how many Christians cower behind locked doors and boarded-up windows, living in terror of those who say they follow the example of Mohammed in cleansing the land of non-Muslims".

"Christians routinely have their houses burned, their schools and hospitals destroyed, and their churches desecrated and vandalized. In Pakistan, it is not uncommon for entire Christian families to be burned to death inside their houses. The crime is allegedly 'blasphemy' against Islam-invariably baseless, but the summary punishment is meted out by a baying horde-sometimes thousands strong-and there is no mercy from the clubs, sticks and stones", the blogger added.

In fact, situation on ground shows that Christian towns and villages in Pakistan are being reduced to slums even as poverty amongst these communities has reached an endemic stage. Christian children are often poorly educated (except in the private schools) and local politicians are corrupt and incapable of doing anything meaningful to safeguard these poor Christians apparently in fear of provoking the Muslim majority, the members of Taliban and Al Qaeda. These corrupt bunches also include some of the Christian leaders, who have little concern for social welfare, security, justice or human rights. But be aware also that not even some of these Christian politicians and others are safe from the hands of these mad Muslim extremists.

"Christians in Pakistan are hunted by complete strangers and haunted by fear. Muslims dare not convert or intermarry with Christians on pain of death. The pulpits whisper their sermons for fear of upsetting the mosques, and the graveyards are filling. There is social segregation, economic hardship and political disenfranchisement. Abduction and forced conversion to Islam are commonplace-especially among young girls. These are rarely reported to the police for fear of the consequences", noted the blogger.

This is sad and the fact that these happen in the name of God makes fun and mockery of the concept of God. Maybe, I maybe right after all after being vilified for suggesting that religion and hatred go hand in hand and that one needs a heart of darkness and wickedness to be a believer.

"To be a Christian in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is to be persecuted and oppressed. The Muslims who persecute and oppress the infidels are simply doing their job. Those who blow themselves up and kill Christians in their churches are martyrs for the cause of Allah and the greater glory of the Prophet of Islam", says the blogger.

How Not To Tackle Dan Brown And ‘The Da Vinci Code’

2013-08-20T14:02:00.000+01:00

I just finished reading ‘The Da Vinci Code’ by Dan Brown for the second time. I read it for the first time in 2007 while living in Rome, Italy. While reading the finishing pages of the masterpiece on my way to walk this morning, I had a chanced encounter with a Roman Catholic priest on Jubilee Line. He is a Nigerian priest of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. Apparently aware that I am of Nigerian origin too, he asked why I was wasting my precious time reading such a ‘nonsense’ book. Yes, he referred to the book as ‘nonsense’. Well, I expected this from a Nigerian priest, for anything that challenges or do not conform to the bible is nonsense to them. I can tell you that this priest has never gone beyond the cover of the book to know what the book is all about. He threw caution to the wind and judged the book by its cover and title neglecting that wise old saying: ‘never judge a book by its cover! But, I can assure you that this book is one of the greatest things that have ever happened to humans since the evolution. The effort and research put into the book is awesome and unprecedented. I doff my cap for Dan Brown and to tell how much I have come to love this guy, I have read all his works and will begin reading his latest work ‘Inferno’ in the next couple of days.

As I noted at the outset, the priest’s reaction never flummoxed me. I have been dealing with people for long especially on Facebook and Twitter to know how and why they react to issues and why they react that way sometimes or all the time. But the priest’s reaction brought back old memories of the reaction of the Roman Catholic Church when the film version of the book debuted. The film debuted at the commencement of the 59^th Edition of the Cannes Film Festival and the Roman Catholic Church reacted like a wildfire. Even the Pope, who rarely comments on films, gave a reaction and that actually helped to sell the film.

The film is quite interesting from two angles in the sense that even though it is a very controversial film bordering on the faith of over 2 billion world Christians and about 1 billion Roman Catholics, it is at the same time a lesson on how not to handle a very sensitive issue that borders on the faith of the people. This becomes very important against the background of the then controversy surrounding the publication and republications of cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, which some Muslims claimed was offensive to them, their faith and the person of the prophet.

The Da Vinci Code due to what has been described as its sacrilegious and scandalous tone also attracted same criticism from different quarters of the Christian world. The loudest noise came from the Vatican and the Opus Dei; the two main characters or hinges upon which the door of the film revolves. But the fact is that unlike what happened with the Prophet Mohammed cartoon controversy, the Vatican and the Opus Dei were very diplomatic in their protests and criticisms. And I must add that it is exactly what is expected from whoever feels that his faith has been insulted or offended. I believe that sometimes two wrongs may not make a right. We may not right a wrong by committing another wrong. What happened in Nigeria during the cartoon controversy was a good example of why violence cannot and should not be used to send a message on how aggrieved one is an certain issues. The killing of Christians and burning of both their houses, businesses and churches met with reprisal attacks in the South especially in the Southeast of the country. A friend from the Southeast justifying the reprisal attack noted that nobody or religion has the monopoly of killing others. Is that not senseless and stupid of us all?

Even though I began by eulogising the Vatican and the Opus Dei on the diplomatic way they handled the film, I still had reservations on certain moves I saw as barbaric in that diplomacy which reminded one of the almighty Roman Catholic Church of the middle ages when men and women were wantonly burnt at stakes over flimsy excuses and ignorance. The persecution of Galileo and lots of others who suffered the same fate in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church is still fresh in the minds of the people. While the hullabaloo surrounding the film was still going on, some high ranking clergy of the Roman Catholic Church threw caution to the wind by covertly calling for violence. They urged the Roman Catholics to boycott the film or take a legal action. In fact one of cardinals asked Dan Brown the author of the novel to do such a film on the Prophet Mohammed and see how the Muslims would welcome it. This is a statement, I considered as taking the issue too far. I am just trying to figure out what this cardinal had in mind in making that statement. But whatever he had in mind, the Cardinal should have been openly denounced for taking it that far. The Church did nothing!

The novel whose film version featured some famous artists including Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Sir Ian Mckellen, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina and Jean Reno, sold more than 36 million copies in 44 languages within months of its debut. The story line amongst other things claimed that Jesus Christ did not actually die on the cross but that after his ordeal, he later got married to Mary Magdalene and lived happily ever after in the present day France where his descendants eventually became the French monarchs and spawned a royal line. Also the Opus Dei, a famous religious organization in the Roman Catholic Church was depicted in both the film and the novel as an influential controversial murderous organisation taking lives wantonly in order to conceal the ‘fact’.

The Opus Dei has a special status of a personal prelature in the Catholic Church meaning that even though they are present in a diocese, they do not necessarily owe allegiance to the local bishop but to their own bishop who reports directly to the Vatican. This arrangement created a very complicated situation because most often the Opus Dei do not consult the local bishops before taking actions the local bishops should ordinarily be aware of simply because the Opus Dei and its members have been structured by the Vatican not to owe allegiance to them. This no doubt could be embarrassing and insulting to these local bishops.

The Opus Dei itself is also not helping the matter. It is no secret that in this age of globalisation and information technology the Opus Dei still prefers to keep most of its activities secret thereby opening up room for suspicion. To give a picture of what Opus Dei looks like to some Roman Catholics I would like to quote extensively from a letter that appeared on page 19 of an English Roman Catholic weekly, the Tablet of October 15, 2005. The letter was written by a Jesuit priest, James Martin SJ as a reaction to an article earlier published in that weekly. The letter was titled; ‘Opus Dei Secrecy’ and I quote,

“May I offer a brief but substantive correction to Christopher Howse’s review of John Allen’s book on Opus Dei (Books, 1 October)? In his review, Mr Howse recounts the story of my research for a 1995 article on Opus Dei for America. Mr Howse notes that although I reported that Opus Dei’s statutes were secret, in reality they are-and were at the time-readily available. But as John Allen accurately recounts in his new book, the truth is more complex and more revelatory of Opus Dei. When I first asked the group for a copy of their statutes, they said that they were not permitted to distribute them to non-members. After I spoke with a canon lawyer who disputed this claim, Opus Dei then replied that the statutes had not been translated into English and besides were in “church Latin”, whatever that meant. Eventually I obtained them from outside Opus Dei. (As for Mr Howse’s comment that Opus Dei’s statues were easily retrieved from the internet in 1995, I note for the record that Google, for example, started operations in 1998). The main point is how odd it was for a catholic organization, time and again, to withhold something as simple as their statutes from a Catholic writer interested in learning more about the group. It is this kind of secrecy, which Opus Dei now says it is trying to change, which has long frustrated and even angered so many Catholics”.

It was quite interesting and coincidental that this film came out at that time of history. As I pointed out earlier, shortly before the release of the film, there was a little air of panic round the globe as a result of controversy generated by the publication of the cartoon of Prophet Mohammed by the media. The dust generated by that panic was yet to settle down before this controversial film made its debut. The Vatican and the Opus Dei, the two main characters in the film fought tooth and nail to ensure that Christians especially Roman Catholics did not patronise the film. That reaction did more good than harm to Dan Brown; he sold more books and much more film was even sold. People were curious to know about this book and the film and they simply bought both!

At the time of the controversy over the film, I wrote a piece cautioning that the Roman Catholic Church should accept that the era of the Holy Roman Empire when the Vatican had the almighty power to dictate which books to be or not to read is gone. It simply had no more power to burn books or list them in the Index of Forbidden Books or issue imprimatur or nihil obstat. The Catholic Church should not have taken such a stand because that was being primitive. Dan Brown has the right to write whatever he wants to write and Christians have the right to read the ones they want to read. Dan Brown by writing The Da Vinci Code was as an American exercising his First Amendment right and Christians by refusing to read the book would also be exercising their own right just like the Vatican had also the right to criticise the film. But going a step further to cow the Catholics into boycotting the film was a step taken too far in the wrong direction.

On a very personal note, I never believed that Dan Brown insulted the person of Christ. If Christ really married Mary Magdalene, who cares? According to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, marriage and sex are not sin. The church teaching is that premarital sex is a sin and if Christ really had children with Mary Magdalene it was within marriage according to the gospel of Dan Brown. I believe that the role of the Vatican here should be to inform the Catholics of dangers inherent in watching the film or reading the novel but by going a step further to ask for boycott and legal action against the film probably under the pain of moral obligation would not only be a violation of the fundamental human right of Dan Brown to the profit of his business but could also be interpreted as a sign of a church that is not in touch with her faithful.

The reaction of both the Vatican and the Opus Dei following the film did not help the matter at all. They only succeeded in making themselves a marketing medium for the novel and the film. In fact I was forced to buy the novel with three other of Dan Brown’s works after reading the reactions of both the Vatican and the Opus Dei and am quite sure that many others got to know about this film and the book through this way. Precisely, what gave impetus to my desire to buy the novels was when the Vatican directed the removal of a banner advertising the film in one of the churches in Rome.

Truly, the film has come and gone but the dust generated by the film is yet to settle. This may not be a good time for Christians but am definitely sure it is a better time for them to express what they believe in. Christians can choose out of belief not to believe the film or the book just as I do not expect Dan Brown to be bothered weather they believe his works or not. The Christians response to the book, the film and the author matters a lot. Do they kill him? Do they excommunicate him? Do they burn him at the stake? Do they murder him? All these would obviously be going to the extreme and clearly contrary to the teachings of the Christ who is the source of their faith and hope. Am not in doubt that some Christians thought of doing things like these but the simple truth is that there is no room for these thoughts in Christianity. Christians should not take up swords but love and prayer and leave the vengeance for the Lord!

Tell Them We Are Still Rising!

2013-06-18T12:57:00.000+01:00

The December 23, 2002 publication in a Nigerian weekly magazine The Insider captioned 'Vengeance like the Wind' has once more proved that Oko Mass Communications and Journalism is still a force to be reckoned with in the media industry and training in Nigeria today.

The two-page publication which eulogised the effort of the twenty-six year old Greg Ugbaje whose maiden play was performed at the French Cultural Centre, Ikoyi Lagos is yet another sign that Oko Masscom is still maintaining its standard in the area of training capable and efficient communicators; a sign that it is still rising!

Ugbaje, a graduate of Okopoly Mass Communications and Journalism whose play’s maiden performance drew many notable critiques in Nigeria like Professor Bode Osoyin of the University of Lagos, Chuka Nnabuife of the Guardian, Niji Akanni a veteran theatre director, Layiwola Adeniji of ThisDay, Ademola Olaiwola of the University of Lagos and host of others, opined that his maiden work is a result of his long and quality training at the Mass Communications and Journalism department of the Federal Polytechnic Oko, Nigeria.

For many who knew Okopoly as the seat of Mass Communications and Journalism in Nigeria and West Africa, this is not a surprise as it was not the first time the department has been praised or one of her products honoured for an outstanding achievement in the field of journalism. In 1989, the 21 year old department was adjudged by the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) as having the best studio complex in the West African sub-region. The studio complex commissioned by former Nigeria Head of State, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida is standing today as a beacon of academic excellence and professional prowess.

As part of a programme to immortalise the name of the late Rt. Hon. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the first Nigerian President and Owelle of Onitsha, the department is in collaboration with the Howard University, Zik's alma mater, carrying out a process of establishing a Zik's Institute of Communication Studies which on completion will become a resource/research centre for communication for the entire black Africa.

It is also a fact that there was a time Okopoly Masscom was the only HND (Higher National Diploma) awarding department in Nigeria. In 1998, one of its graduate, Chinwe Ogbuka, a journalist with the Punch Newspaper in Abuja won a UCIP (International Catholic Union of the Press) award for an article on women plight titled 'The Plights of Women Journalists in Nigeria'. She received the award in Paris, France. Same UCIP award also went to Gasper John Emenyeonu in 2001. Emenyeonu, a graduate of the department was rewarded in Fribourg, Switzerland for an article in the same category of women plight titled, 'Africa Women, Victims of Culture and Convention'. Emenyeonu is with the Champion Newspaper. Also in 2002, Annette Edo formerly with the Newswatch Magazine and presently with the Tell Magazine clinched 2002 DAME (Diamond Award for Media Excellence) Award in Health Category for an article she wrote titled, 'The Death Peddlers'.

In the area of politics, Ben Nwankwo a graduate of the department was at various times Commissioner for Works, Environment etc. and at present Federal House of Representative aspirant in Anambra State, Nigeria. Donald Duke also an alumnus is on his way to becoming a governor for the second term in Cross River State, Nigeria. This is also the case with Tony Muonagor alias 'Tony One Week' who is a household name in home videos and gyration music.

It is also a fact that a good number of Police and Armed Forces officers were trained in the department. A recent research also proved that Oko Masscom graduates are competing favourably with their counterparts in the labour market. It is against this backdrop that the Polywall Weekly is giving kudos to the department and the chain of its qualified and seasoned lecturers. Their toils are never in vain for the students are untiring in upholding the honour and glory of this famous department.

The students and staff should therefore not relent in their efforts or be tired in their laudable achievements. We must ever be ready to tell them that we are still rising!

I wrote this piece as an editorial for a demonstration newspaper called 'The Polywall Weekly'. It was a partial requirement for the award of my Higher National Diploma in Mass Communications and Journalism by the Department of Mass Communications and Journalism, School of Information Technology, The Federal Polytechnic Oko, Nigeria. Note that it was written and submitted in 2002 and therefore the accuracy of most of the information is not guaranteed. Though I did a little editing on the piece, however I tried as much as possible not to alter the piece in such a way that it will become a shadow of its original. The inaccuracies in the original piece was due to constraint posed by lack of internet and research facilities in the polytechnic during the period as well as time constraint.

Why I support same sex marriage!

2013-03-28T19:17:00.001+00:00

This afternoon, I was asked a very simple question and I gave a very simple answer. I was asked if I support equal marriage and I replied ‘Hell Yes!’ I meant what I said and I said what I meant. The question and answer came against the background of two events, one recent, the other remote. The recent event is very obvious; the debate and voting this night that led to the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill which will become law as soon as Her Majesty gives her assent to the bill. The voting itself was remarkable and a resounding victory for common sense; 400-175! I am very happy with that development and it is indeed a giant step for mankind!

However the other event I wish to comment on was the recent statement made by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow. In a rhetoric directed to the British Prime Minister, the Archbishop, Philip Tartaglia said: “You and your government need to be aware from the outset that the Catholic Church will not register civil partnerships nor celebrate same-sex unions: not now, not in the future, not ever, no matter what legislation or regulations your government enacts or endorses.”

I find this intervention very upsetting because am not quite sure the church is in a better position to tell the state how to conduct its affairs neither is it within her power to tell people who to love and live the rest of their lives with. This is purely a state and personal decision and has nothing to do with the church. We do not need the support or the endorsement of the church to fall in love or the sanction of the church to make that everlasting commitment. Two people who love themselves regardless of their sexual orientation have as matter of right to give a contractual character to that love and that is what marriage is all about. Marriage has nothing to do with the church. Philip Tartaglia will be my witness that of the entire sacraments only one does not demand the presence of a priest or the church; matrimony. The teaching of the church has been that the sacrament of matrimony is a covenant between two people; the couples. Priests are only there to solemnize it and that is not really necessary. The sacrament of matrimony cannot be voided if a priest was not there to officiate over it and that is in line with the teaching that it is a sacrament that revolves only around two people; the couples.

The church therefore has not right to question the state or dictate to two lovers how to live their lives. They are not being forced to marry these people but then they should not stop those who want to marry them. Live and let live and that is exactly the meaning of tolerance and common sense. If you do not want to move on, you must allow others. You cannot have it both ways! We have come a long way before arriving at where we are today and the church must stop being a cog in the wheel of progress. If the church is happy being in 13^th century, I am quite sure I speak the mind of all when I say that we are happy being in the 21^st century!

Once upon a time, it was a taboo for anyone to marry in any church in this country except in the Church of England but with time that became a history and the Roman Catholics, the Quakers and other denominations were allowed to marry in their own churches. The reason for that was because these other churches were being discriminated against and the dominant Church of England cannot imagine the popish Roman Catholics and others enjoying same right. There was also a time when it was unthinkable for black man to marry a white woman. For those who hold this view, a black man is dirty, smells and would pollute and corrupt what it means to be white; a blonde hair and blue eyes. The good news is that we are completely over that period though there are still pockets of diehards who still share this opinion. If you doubt me, ask of what becomes of the fate of children born to black and white parents in Eastern European countries like Ukraine, Latvia and Lithuania. They are simply being treated as second class citizens and nobodies for a fault that is not theirs. This type of illogical and irrational hatred and prejudice cannot be justified. It is very common amongst the less educated but I can also assure you that it is also very prevalent amongst the educated even in highly advanced western states like the United Kingdom.

Baroness Hale of Richmond could not have put it in better way in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] when she said; "My Lords, it is not so very long ago in this country that people might be refused access to a so-called "public" bar because of their sex or the colour of their skin; that a woman might automatically be paid three quarters of what a man was paid for doing exactly the same job; that a landlady offering rooms to let might lawfully put a "no blacks" notice in her window. We now realize that this was wrong. It was wrong because the sex or colour of the person was simply irrelevant to the choice which was being made: to whether he or she would be a fit and proper person to have a drink with others in a bar, to how well she might do the job, to how good a tenant or lodger he might be. It was wrong because it depended on stereotypical assumptions about what a woman or a black person might be like, assumptions which had nothing to do with the qualities of the individual involved: even if there were any reason to believe that more women than men made bad customers this was no justification for discriminating against all women. It was wrong because it was based on an irrelevant characteristic which the woman or the black did not choose and could do nothing about"

It is a frame of mind like this that is at the back of the opposition to same sex marriage. Before I go into that, I will like to narrate two incidents that I witnessed in the last of couple of days. One was a cartoon I posted on my Facebook page. There was a man and a woman on a bed who had just finished having sex. As the man was reading a newspaper, he came across a story on a plan to legalize same sex marriage by the government and he shouted that it would make an absolute mockery of the traditional marriage and the woman replied that it is exactly what the husband will say. The meaning is that these two folks who finished committing the sin of adultery see everything wrong in same sex marriage and of course homosexuality but obviously not in adultery.

The next incident concerns a friend who is a product of a mixed marriage. The mother is English while the father is Ugandan. As we were lunching together he saw a story on same sex marriage in a newspaper and he shouted that the world is certainly coming to an end. I did not disagree with him; however I reminded him that there are still millions of people in the world who still think that it is an abomination for a black man to marry a white woman even as children of such mixed marriages are treated with scorn in many parts of Eastern Europe.

In a nutshell, the summary of my story is that there is nothing to fear about same sex marriage and the good news is that you can keep quiet because it is not your business! The fear, hatred and opposition are completely unfounded, irrational, illogical and bigoted. Let those who want to marry, marry and let others keep quiet for that is not their business. Let me once again put in context the outburst of the Archbishop I mentioned at the outset; What would have been your reaction if a Afrikaan in apartheid South Africa had said..."You and your fellow black people need to be aware from the outset that the Apartheid government of South Africa will not recognize that a white man is equal to a black man nor do we have intention of thinking of that: not now, not in the future, not ever, no matter what argument or reasoning you black people and your supporters endorses".

If you are a black person, I can read your mind. In the same way you cannot tolerate this statement so do men and women of goodwill must not tolerate Philip Tartaglia’s rhetoric. I am convinced that sometimes, it is good to reason from the both sides of the Atlantic. What this guy said is unbecoming of a cleric. It is tantamount to hatred and clearly against the gospel of love he was called to preach. Denying others their right while asserting yours is not godly; It is only godly when we live and let others live too. I have always asked myself, If it is all right to take tithe from these homosexuals why is it all right to ostracize them and refuse them that single moment to prove to the world that they can love and cherish each other? I am not a great fan of religion but am not oblivious of the fact that religion should stand for what Jesus Christ stood for; love and compassion and not hatred.

And since nobody or no religion is going to be compelled to perform such marriages, what is this hullabaloo all about? Religion should not be allowed to be a setback in this giant leap to human rights being championed by the state. If anything, religion should be in the forefront of the human rights advancement. That is my stand and it is not too difficult to understand it. It is very clear; there is a big difference between religion and state and that gap should be minded. Religion should mind her business-though of course they have right to give a reasonable advice-and avoid meddling with the state affairs. Since homosexuality is a bio-genetic issue, I still have doubt that religion is competent to speak about it. That is a privilege that should be left with science. When it comes to how many of us will inherit the kingdom of God or perish in hell, then religion should be invited to throw more light on it.

It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to hide under the cloak of religion to infringe on the right of others. I find it utterly despicable when theologians begin to pontificate on an issue that is the birthright of scientists. I find it also very uncomfortable listening to these beliefs and arguments that cannot be backed by science. It is not enough to believe it just because the holy book said it, it must also make sense and stand the test and demands of 21^st century. You cannot use over 2000 years old theology to explain the 21^st century science. We are enlightened enough to know our left from our right. It will therefore be ridiculous to tell our children in this 21^st century to ascribe their ignorance to divinity. Hell no! We cannot allow that to happen. They have brains and should be encouraged to make better use of it. My argument does not in any way deny the existence of God but am quite sure no one has ever seen Him and if no one has ever seen Him, on whose authority then can someone begin to tell others who to love and live with?

Some people so much love to misunderstand me and am loving it!

2013-02-20T13:42:00.002+00:00

Sometimes, when I post something here some of us do not even bother to read it in detail before heaping mountains and oceans of insult on me. Though I am gradually getting used to those insults, it is important that I explain something. First, if you do not read my post, you can never understand what I am saying. It is not enough to read others reply and then go on attack. The best policy would be to read all the post before you begin your third world war on me. Secondly, I have a background in Mass Communications, Journalism and at the moment I am in the law school. These three disciplines demand a high level of reasoning and I mean a very deep logical reasonable reasoning not just that type of reasoning based on what my father, tradition, religion or culture said. It is a powerful type of empirical reasoning that takes into account facts as it is being witnessed, as it happens, as it develops and as it is being discussed.

Secondly, I have read a lot and I still read. At the moment, I have over thousands of collection in my library and reading hundreds of books, journals, magazines yearly is a pleasurable challenge to me. One big advantage I have acquired over the years is that I am able to learn from the way others think. I am also able to compare ideas and using empirical evidences I am able to come to my own conclusion. The implication of this is that I speak with audacity because I know that I will be right in at least 99% of the time. Yes! Because what I am saying has been subjected to scientific analysis and held to be nothing but the truth! There is no way many experts in a field will get it absolutely wrong. Two good heads maybe better than one!

I therefore do not understand why some people chose as a passion to deliberately misunderstand me. It is not actually a sin to misunderstand someone but I guess it is foolhardy and an idiotic not to subject other party’s opinion to research before heaping oceans and mountains of insult upon him; that is exactly what is meant by being stupid and idiotic and that is why I am so quick to delete from my friend’s list those who chose as passion to be stupid and idiotic. Even as a lawyer, I do not agree that freedom of expression also include the right to talk nonsense and rubbish. We are here to learn from each other. You cannot expect to gain from well researched opinion of others and when it comes to your turn you begin to insult others. You do not have to agree with everything I say here but then you owe me a duty to disagree with me in a very polite and educated manner and not in a manner that is very common to monkeys in the wild. If I wanted monkeys to be my friends here, I know where to find them but because am very eager to learn from you, I demanded and accepted you to be my friends. I wish therefore you do not let me down.

To get the facts right, I am not at all offended by this but am concerned that having been my friend here for quite sometime now, it is high time people began to appreciate the love of learning, the art of reading, the joy of disagreeing in an intellectual manner and the beauty in thinking with our magnificent, natural and God-given brain. It is quite interesting to note that I am actually not alone in being misunderstood in this way. In fact, many English judges have lamented on number of occasions that British journalists have either persistently refused to understand them or have taken leave of their brain. Twenty five years ago, Sir John Donaldson, then Master of the Rolls got so pissed with this deliberate lack of understanding by the British media that he deemed it wise to explain himself in detail in his judgement in (1) Nadarajah Vilvarajah, (2) Vaithialingham Skandarajah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1990]. He said:

"This court has before it two applications for bail by Tamils, Vaithialingham Skandarajah and Nadarajah Vilvarajah. Before dealing with those applications I would like to try and clear up two fundamental misunderstandings about what it was that this court decided on 12th October 1987. Reading the newspapers the next day and listening to the radio and television (with, I am bound to say, the notable exception of Law In Action) as far as I could make out either no-one had read the judgment- this, I am bound to say, included the Secretary of State, who broadcast on the radio at one o’clock -or they did not want to understand the judgment. So let me make it quite clear what we decided-or rather what we did not decide.

We did not hold that any of the Tamils were genuine refugees. We did not hold that any of the Tamils were entitled to asylum. What we did do was to set out the scheme of the relevant immigration rules which, as we saw it (I am not sure how much dispute there is about this aspect), went in two stages. First the Secretary of State had to examine whether the applicant was a refugee, based on the formula to be found in the Convention of well founded fear of persecution on various grounds. Secondly, if he was a refugee as defined in the Convention, the Secretary of State then had to consider whether or not he was going to grant him asylum. The fact that he was a refugee did not entitle him to asylum. The only circumstance in which he, being a refugee, was entitled to asylum was if he could bring himself within Article 33 of the Convention, which adopted an entirely different formula related to fear of death or loss of freedom.

What we said was that when the Secretary of State said that none of the Tamils were even refugees, let alone entitled to asylum, he had applied the wrong test, and that each of the Tamils was entitled to have the question of whether or not he was a refugee decided in accordance with the right test, although it might very well be-we had no means of knowing-that, applying the right test, the Secretary of State would still have concluded (this time rightly) that the Tamils were not refugees. But it was not for us to decide that and we did not decide it. We certainly never approached the question of whether they were entitled to asylum, because that was the next stage down the line.

I hope, without any great confidence, that, having set it out again, it may be understood what it was that we were deciding. It is in the judgment, and nothing that I have said now is intended to modify one word of the judgment which we gave on that occasion. I am merely indulging in an effort at communication, but as I say without any great confidence that I have succeeded".

Thanks for reading and now you can behave yourself!

Why an African may not be the next pope!

2013-02-13T17:33:00.003+00:00

Let us be clear on this; Africa is not producing the next pope! I know you won’t like to hear this but then I do not owe you a duty to write only what you like to read. I am not under any duty of care under Tort to write what will make you happy just as you do not owe me a duty to read everything I am writing, however I bet someone somewhere would eventually appreciate the logic of my argument. That is if you actually agree it is logical at all.

My argument here is that Africa will never produce the next pope not that an African will never be a pope sometime in the future. That dream is still possible but then Africans must have to dream less, pray less and work harder like mafias. Being a pope has nothing to do with prayer and dream (Africans dream and pray too much, even more than the pope), it has more to do with machinations, politicking and Darwinian and Machiavellian principles. To refresh your knowledge the Darwin principle is all about the survival of the fittest while that of Machiavelli is simple: the end justifies the means! For an African to be the next pope he must learn to live with these two principles!

The reason behind my argument is obvious. It is not because Euro-Americans have anything against Africa but because a lot of things are involved in being elected as a pope. The above mentioned points are some of them but then one must also appreciate the fact that half of the 120 cardinals that will elect the next pope are Europeans and I so much doubt these cardinals will be willing to give a go at an African pope. And if you follow this logic very dearly, it has an implication. The implication is that any pope who does not want an African succeeding him could easily do that. All he has to do is to appoint less number of young African cardinals or large number of old African cardinals. The reason behind this is that less number of young African cardinals will never have enough vote to support each other or to ensure an election of an African pope while a majority of old African cardinals are always likely to get old and go beyond the age of entering a conclave that elects a new pope.

But there are also other arguments too. The first is the thinking pattern of Africans in general. It is a fact that the environment plays a huge part in the way people think. For this reason, the thinking pattern of two six year olds would be different if they come from different parts of the world and if they don’t travel out of their various places of birth it will still be the same. Travelling will make a huge difference in their thinking pattern. This is in line with the theory that travel is part of an experience and of course the level of development in a given place plays a part in the thinking pattern of the inhabitants. For this reason while most Africans would like to settle scores with war, ethnic cleansing, fighting, smacking etc. most Euro-Americans would prefer dialogue and resort to war and fighting as a last resort. This differences lies with their environment.

In line with the above view, the thinking pattern of an African is quite different from the way Euro-Americans think. Often, Africans are very aggressive and violent in the way they think but Euro-Americans even though they exhibit same trait often moderate it along the line of public opinion, learning and discoveries. Ever wondered why Ugandans would want to kill all homosexuals in their country while Euro-Americans talk of their human rights? It lies with the fact that Euro-Americans have a space to accommodate changing environments and views, Africans often cannot because that will go contrary to what their fathers and forefathers told them. The meaning is quite obvious; their forefathers and traditions are better learned than they are. For this reason Euro-Americans cardinals are less likely to vote for an African cardinal. They would not like to be led by a cardinal from dark ages. Yes Pope Benedict XVI is a conservative but he never had it good with his Euro-American followers and the major reason he resigned is still far from the truth! Do not believe everything the Vatican tells you love!

Akin to the above point is that Euro-Americans would not like to be led by a person who is more holy than the pope. African cardinals come across as more holy than the pope. While Euro-Americans believe that they are sinners in need of God's grace, most Africans would not agree; they are holy indeed and it is of people like them that the kingdom of God was made. They are ever ready to point to the west as the reason for decline in faith noticed in the world today especially in the west. Euro-Americans so much hate this holier-than-thou attitude and little wonder two English Anglican bishops vehemently opposed John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York being the next Archbishop of Canterbury because 'he has a temperament of an African chief'.

And by the way, a friend told me that another reason Euro-Americans may not entertain an African pope is because most of the African cardinals had not played a vital role in opposing injustice, poverty, discrimination, corruption and mismanagement in their own countries and therefore may not be useful to the global church especially this time the church needs reform like yesterday. Same friend asked me to name one Oscar Romero in Africa and I named Anthony Cardinal Okogie of Lagos, Nigeria and he said he may not be enough to convince Euro-Americans that Africans can do it.

But on a very progressive note, this is not a time for a conservative pope. What the Church of Rome needs now is a progressive who can bring all the factions, side-lined, ostracised and forgotten under one roof. I am not quite sure an African pope can do that at the moment. The African church and culture is deeply immersed in discrimination, hatred, unhealthy competition and support for regimes infamous for human rights abuses. For instance, in Nigeria it would be hard for a Roman Catholic Church to take it lightly that one of them is going to marry an Anglican. This type of conservatism is very unhealthy for the region that wants to produce the next pope. I am very sure that Euro-Americans have seen loads of hatred to have more time for hatred and discrimination made in Africa.

I therefore do not see the possibility of an African pope now and stands to be proved wrong anyway!

HIV Epidemic In Nigeria…A Good Example Of Nonchalant Attitude Towards A Serious Problem!

2012-09-13T23:57:00.004+01:00

I am appalled by the fact that despite the continued rising threat of HIV and AIDS in Nigeria, the effort of the Nigeria government to match the virus is nothing to write home about. About 3.6 million Nigerians are living with the virus today and that is one out of every 11 people living with the virus in the world. It seems that the Nigerian government is not perturbed by these figures. The government seems very much interested in politicking and looting the commonwealth than taking a decisive, strong and confrontational approach to deal with the virus. This is a very bad way to tackle a pressing problem!

The implication of this nonchalant attitude towards the virus is that a lot of people especially the young people who make up the bulk of our population and work force and of course the future of our country are daily succumbing to the virus, not even in tens but in hundreds. I am scared that there will be a time in future when there will be no more young people to take over the mantle of leadership of this country but God forbid we will ever get there. This is scary indeed and that should scare a hell out of every living creature and right thinking person in Nigeria. The picture I am looking at now is very bleak. It is nothing to write home about and will become hydra headed and monstrous if this nonchalant attitude of the Nigeria government continues.

The implication of the poor quality of this picture is that Nigeria is today bearing one of the highest burdens of the virus in the world and that burden is still appreciating instead of depreciating and that is exactly what makes the whole story so sad. This is not good news and should be a source of concern to all of us and I mean it. The saddest part is that the Anti-Retroviral Therapy that is meant to manage the virus is nowhere within the reach of the millions living with the virus. Even the little in circulation is being hindered by injustice in the circulation and distribution system. This has led to the exclusion of those who are in genuine and urgent need of the drugs even as those who do not need them smuggle them and make thousands in profit in the black market. This is unfortunate, completely unacceptable and somebody must bury his or her head in shame!

It is scandalous and even sadder to know that patients still die of HIV today in 2012 in Nigeria. Elsewhere HIV could be perfectly managed to allow those living with it to live almost their full lifespan. In fact, in the United Kingdom today, you could just go online, request a free kit that will be sent to you, take a swab of your mouth and send it back in an included prepaid envelope and your HIV status result will be with you in less than a week! Why should this case be different in Nigeria? I have seen people living with HIV for over 25 years here in the United Kingdom and they are very healthy and doing their everyday normal job and even having babies born free of the virus. Would it be a sin for this bright picture to be exhibited in Nigeria?

And if you think that what I have been saying is very shocking, wait until you here the next thing I am going to say and that is the fact that 1 in 3 of those living with the virus in Nigeria today do not even know they have the virus. How would they know if they do not go for regular tests? Due to the ignorance of their serostatus, they will go on to infect others or get married and infect their wives who will in turn pass it on to their kids. This is sad and people should be encouraged to go out there and have the test even as the Nigeria government must make itself accountable to these people and pretend at least to be a responsible government for once. Those who are positive should take good care of themselves and ensure that they do not pass on the virus to others while those who are negative should strive to continue being negative and always having protected sex is the key!

Above all, everyone should play a part by ensuring that condoms are always used during sex and that should be the right condom size too.

What is the point of studying law?

2012-09-05T00:16:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, a young college graduate held me to ransom! He wanted to know why I chose to study law and not History, Physics, Mathematics, English Literature or something else. It was a fascinating intellectual lucubration. By the way, the young man was actually wrong in assuming that I did not read something else before delving into law. In fact, before going to the law school, I had already studied Mass Communications majoring in Print Journalism and also practiced as a journalist for over five years. Being a journalist, I thought that a career in law especially Mass Media law might be a very good idea. I did not tell the young man this, however I did promise to get back to him in a very formal way as soon as possible. This blog is therefore a fulfilment of that promise.

For majority of those wanting to explore a career in law, we could fairly argue that the main motivating factor is to contribute towards building a just, free and fair society. The often repeated cliché amongst lawyers is the burning desire to see a future fair to all and a world where justice and fairness must appear to the right thinking members of the society to have been fairly dispensed without looking at the wherewithal or status of parties to a dispute.

Right from the time of ancient legal philosophers and jurists, law has always been associated with justice and fairness and since the year 1543 when Lady Justice was first blindfolded by a German Sculptor Hans Gieng on the Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen in the city of Berne, law has also become not only a symbol of blind justice, objectivity, impartiality and truth but also a driving force in the maintenance of law and order hence the full sense in arguing that law is the soul of the society. It is principally because of this reason that successive generations had continued to reserve a pride of place in the society to the study of law bearing in mind also the role law could play towards safeguarding lives and property, rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad ones. It is purely because of these reasons that I chose to study law; I want bad guys to be punished and good ones to be rewarded.

Before going further, it is pertinent to point out that finding an acceptable meaning of the term ‘law’ is a controversial one and indeed an uphill task. Finding a common ground in understanding the meaning of the term ‘law’ is very difficult and depending on who is being asked, the term ‘law’ could mean different things to different people. It could symbolise an honour or class elevation for those involved; I do not subscribe to that! It could also be a force for good and deterrence to evil; this is where I stand! And yet to others it could be a symbol of oppression or even misuse of power and disorder rather than order.

A young Blackman in Peckham High Street in South London will definitely give a different meaning to it from a young Whiteman of same age in a High Street in Cornwall. How about looking at law from the perspective of different world religions? Would a western law on divorce mean same thing to Muslims, Hindus, Christians and Jews? How about looking at it from the angle of customary laws of Asian and African countries? And how would you explain to a secularist that Sharia and Canon laws are also laws or that the ancient pagan Roman law played an important part in shaping the meaning, development and contemporary understanding of law in the west and the rest of the world? Such definitional and ideological struggles are exacerbated by discrepancies between different religious systems and their competing truth claims. The study of law therefore becomes imperative in order to make the crooked way straight!

Am sure that by now that you must have agreed with me that these perceived controversies as to the meaning of law makes it not pointless but reasonable for a pride of place to be given to the study of law. Ever since the Roman Catholic Church used her monopoly of the Canon Law to uphold and justify the doctrine of inquisition, many world religions, states and tyrannies have continued to compete ferociously to outdo each other in totalitarianism and autocracy in the name of law. The Jewish Pogrom, the South African Apartheid, the Armenian Genocide, the American racism, the on-going shooting of protesters and killing of innocent citizens in Syria are just some of handy examples of evil being perpetrated in the name of law. The consequence of these developments is obvious; it is increasingly becoming difficult to know what exactly is lawful and what is not or the boundary between legality and illegality. Situations like these make the study and knowledge of law very imperative and more urgent than it has ever been and that is the reason why I joined the bandwagon!

Law is therefore very essential in order to set a boundary and standard for human conducts and even as that point is noted, we should also not overlook the importance of law as a potent instrument in defending the rights of the people, safeguarding the life and property of the citizens as well as arbitrating over disputes and assuring the commoners, the poor and the oppressed that the law will always be on their side as their last hope against the ‘brutal hands’ of the mighty and the rich.

A balanced justice!

2012-08-30T23:09:00.001+01:00

Many people were definitely shocked with the sentencing of the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 people in a bomb attack and gun rampage just over a year ago. For these atrocities, he was handed 21 years imprisonment and must serve a minimum of 10 years. He would have been committed to a secure mental health unit if the court had accepted the prosecutor’s plea of insanity.

Following the massacre Breivik was charged with voluntary homicide and committing acts of terror over the attacks in Oslo and Utoya Island on July 22, 2011. His sentencing generated loads of comments from both sides. Those in favour of harsh sentencing condemned the verdict as a mere pampering of a criminal who deserves to be killed or serve a very long sentence with a hard labour while the liberals welcomed it as a giant step for humanity and a great leap for civilization.

But, however you see it, the question of modern criminal justice system has become a perennial one; it will never go away. The intensity of the debate surrounding this topic has been getting too hot lately, polarising the community into two opposing factions. On one side are those who feel strongly that the criminal justice system has become so soft due to the continuous ‘decline of the rehabilitative ideal’ which has resulted in hard criminals like sex offenders, drug addicts and violent offenders being let off the hook instead of being made to face the consequences of their actions.

On the other side however are those who feel strongly that the criminal justice system must be dispensed not arbitrarily but with respect and in accordance with the principles of human rights, rule of law and protocols especially that set down by the European Convention on Human Rights in order not to appear deliberately retributive. The opponents of this type of soft approach to the justice system are not convinced. Their argument is that criminals committed crime and by so doing deprived others of their fundamental human rights and as a result the right thing would be to deprive them of their own rights too. They contend that things have got out of hand in the name of human rights and to show how far the situation has deteriorated they cited the introduction of private prisons and contracted prison warders both of which effectively commercialised the criminal justice system.

But it is also not amusing that the system on the other hand had become so severe to the extent that a country like America is not bothered that she holds two million of her citizens in confinement on any given day. It is because of this that I am using this platform to ignite a debate to see how we are a going to strike a reasonable balance to solve this perennial problem. Breivik sentencing may have been too lenient but then something more than that may end up being too cruel and work against the gain we have made so far in giving dignity to humanity.

Do we really need to punish an offender cruelly to teach others a lesson? I guess the answer should be no! How about his human rights and the fact that any form of inhuman punishment would mean a violation of his person and the whole humanity and would surely work against the spirit of Article 3 of the ECHR? It does not really matter what people say but the main thing that should preoccupy us is the fact that these offenders’ actions are tempting enough for us to unleash our primitive uncivilised behaviour. That will be a disaster if we succumb to the temptation for it would mean taking humanity hundreds of miles back to the Stone Age. The zeal to punish should not make us forget the need to treat humans with respect and dignity. The fact that we are poked in the eyes should not be a reason for us to overact. The balance has to be maintained at all time. The maxim in criminal has always been proportionality and we should keep it that way!

Those women with extra male hormones perform wonders…Please let them be!

2012-08-28T15:26:00.001+01:00

I understood that sometime ago, just before the commencement of the London 2012, the Nigerian national female football coach sacked all the lesbians and 'tomboys' in the team. Her reason was that lesbians and 'tomboys' have no place in Nigerian culture and by extension in the female football in the country. How she arrived at who is or who is not a lesbian is still a puzzle Okumephuna is yet to understand!

For 'tomboys', definitely when you see one, you will know! They behave like men, hence the name 'tomboy'. But does being a 'tomboy' translate into being a lesbian? For those who are educated, enlightened and are at home with the science of chromosomes, the answer is obvious and it is NO! And that should be in capital letters!

The reason why some men behave like women or appear very effeminate or some women appear like men or behave like 'tomboy' boils down to one thing and that is our sex hormones. We have three of them and they play various parts in both men and women's sexual development and maturity.

The hormones made by the ovaries are known as female sex hormones and the two outstanding ones are the oestrogen and the progesterone. The ovaries also produce some of the male hormone, the testosterone. In a nutshell, women sex hormones are mainly oestrogen and progesterone while that of men is called testosterone.

From the above, the implication for a woman who is unlucky to produce too much male hormone called testosterone would be that she will mostly likely end up appearing more like a man than a woman or what we call today a 'tomboy'. This will not mean that she will be a lesbian or that she is a lesbian. In fact, a lady could be a 'tomboy' without being a lesbian just like a guy could be so effeminate and still be a gigolo!

However, I am strongly of the opinion that there is a correlation between too much female sex hormones in a man being responsible for his being gay just like too much male sex hormones in a woman could make her to be a lesbian! This is not a scientific view but I am of a strong opinion that there is a high percentage of truth in this assertion. This situation could also lead to bisexuality and this is a simple science!

Now the main question becomes if the Nigerian coach was right in sacking those lesbians and 'tomboys'? My answer is NO! She was wrong and her decision stinks of ignorance, bigotry, lack of knowledge and not being at home with the science of chromosomes. And we saw the consequences in the just concluded London 2012; a woeful failure by our female competitors especially in games like sprinting.

In some games, lesbians, 'tomboys' and those women who have too many male hormones have more advantage when compared with other women with normal average hormones. Some examples will suffice here. Look at sports like female football, boxing, BMX, javelin and discuss throwing and similar sports, women who are lesbians, 'tomboys' or who have too many male hormones often dominate and the reason is obvious; because they are either lesbians, tomboys or have too much male hormones. This statement however does not mean that all of them are lesbians, tomboys or have too many male hormones. But it is certainly true to a reasonable extent to associate their prowess in the game to these three factors! Believe me!

It is therefore sad that this ignorant coach took such a rash and unwise decision and this action calls for an urgent need for Nigeria to always think twice before taking decisions that will come back to haunt her. We need these girls and please let them be. Those extra male hormones perform wonders in sports! London 2012 is my witness!

This article is highly opinionated and I declare that I have no conflict of interest. Your criticism and contribution to the debate is therefore highly needed!

When the church gets dirty!

2012-08-27T08:14:00.003+01:00

The Roman Catholic Church again! When will the Roman Catholic Church stop meddling with politics and state affairs? Yesterday, the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland read letters in over 500 Catholic parishes in the country urging them to protest vigorously the plan of the Scottish Government to introduce same sex marriage. I find this deplorable for the simple fact that it is not right for the church to meddle with the business of the state.

The mission of the state and that of religion are two different missions. The religion is here to nourish the spiritual needs of her members while the state is there for the temporal needs of the citizens. While the religions focus mainly on their own members-for instance Roman Catholics for Roman Catholics, Anglican for Anglicans, Quakers for Quakers, Muslims for Muslims-the state is there to offer a level playing ground for all. This is important not only to ensure a level playing ground for all but also to ensure that no one religion dominates and imposes her dogmas on others. It will also ensure that the rights of minority religions are protected in states with majority religion.

It is because of this that the state must strive to maintain a secular stand and work vigorously towards distancing herself from any religion or adopting any religion as the state religion. It is also for this reason that I have been in the vanguard of the call to separate the state from religion and enthrone the American version of First Amendment in the constitution of all the countries in the world! To refresh your memory the first amendment said;

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

This is very important bearing in mind the formidable role the church could play in influencing a government to do evil against its citizens. The 'silent' role played by the Roman Catholic Church during the Jewish Holocaust is still fresh in our mind! And the fact that the Vatican state played a formidable role in allowing the Nazis to escape to different parts of the world is deplorable and shows the danger of allowing the church to meddle with state. Is it also not shocking that a civil case of trespass by Pussy Riots in Russia’s Christ the Saviour Orthodox Cathedral suddenly became a criminal case just because the Orthodox was involved? And think also of the cozy relationship between the state and religion in Iran!

Bearing this in mind, one would have thought that the governments and the churches must have learnt their lesson, but it seems to me that their memory is very short. It is against this backdrop that I am highly disappointed about the news that the New York Cardinal, Timothy Dolan, the nation's most prominent Catholic prelate, will deliver the closing blessing to the Republican National Convention in Florida next week.

This is highly embarrassing! The Roman Catholic Church is a highly respectable church and it will do her more good to still carry herself with some dignity. The cardinal’s choice is not good for democracy and it is neither good for the church. There is increasingly cozy relationship between the state and the church and this should worry all the lovers of democracy worldwide. It seems to me that the American Roman Catholic Church is working very hard to play the role being played today by the Ayatollahs in Iran! This is very dangerous and you should be scared!

I think that at the moment we are better off and contented living in a secular state where laws are product of rational thinking by rational beings and am pretty sure that we cannot even begin to contemplate or imagine living in state where laws are imposed on people simply because one man claimed that God revealed a book to him in a mountain or a cave. This is 21^stcentury and the idea of theological laws in 21^st century democracy is ridiculous and should make us to press the panic button.

Nigeria is in a state of mess today due to where the two main religions of Islam and Christianity have put us. Despite being a secular state, at least in theory, these religions have succeeded in cobwebbing into every sphere of public life in the poor country! Could you believe that despite the fact that people still die of lack of adequate healthcare in Nigeria today, the government still sponsors pilgrimages yearly to Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem and Rome? Since when did religion become more important than the health of the people? The health of the people should be the supreme law!

I am therefore worried that Cardinal Dolan would appear in Tampa to ‘endorse’ the Republican agenda and I have no doubt that this gesture will cause an irreparable damage to the image of the Roman Catholic Church not only in the United States but across the globe. If the Republicans invade any country tomorrow if they win the next election, the implication would be obvious; the Roman Catholic church endorsed and blessed it just as she did for the Nazis in the early years of Hitler’s government and of course the crusade; Deo volente!

This will also damage the ability of the Roman Catholic Church to be a moral voice for the oppressed and the voiceless and deprive her of the moral pedestal to play an opposition role to the excesses of any Republican government in power.