Dangerous precedents have consequences. And the brunch, Monday in Abuja and some parts of the country, lay credence to this.
Not eschewing political expediency, however convenient at the material time, is like cutting off the tail of a snake forgetting that it will grow back. It is for this reason that the air is rent with false equivalence and puritanical patriotism by a large section of the Nigerian populace.
On Monday, October 20, 2025, it was a hectic affair in Abuja, Nigeria’s federal capital city. Chaotic scenes flooded the social media as citizens were caught in a battle between security forces and the #freeNnamdiKanu protestors led by Omoyele Sowore, who had run for president and has an online newspaper, SaharaReporters.
Those who argue for the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, organization have not denied that he endangered the south eastern part and threatened the sovereignty of Nigeria. Rather, their take has been that “if bandits and terrorists are having a free pass, why not Kanu?”
Valid argument without a doubt. Here’s why the Nigerian State must decide if existential threats should go unpunished. If the answer is to the contrary, it begs the question why for so long terrorists and bandits have been allowed to roam free, attend “peace meetings” fully armed and walk away with their arms without surrendering them.
It didn’t start with the bandits and terrorists of the north someone reminded me recently. When the government of President Yar’Adua rewarded militants of the Niger Delta, a precedent was set. Argue all you want!
It isn’t just about those who carry arms against the State and citizens, but those who have abused the trust reposed in them and have committed perjury through their forgery.
Nigeria for long has allowed high profile individuals to get away with crimes while less fortunate Nigerians rightfully pay the price for their sins.
A few weeks ago, following several denials and feeble pushbacks, Nigeria’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, was forced to resign from the government of President Bola Tinubu after being exposed in the web of certificate forgery.
As usual, he walked away without any criminal charge against him as was in the case of Kemi Adeosun, former Minister of Finance. It didn’t matter that the latter admitted that that she relied on “trusted associates” pertaining her forged NYSC certificate. She walked free and now even offers roadmap for the country. Ironic!
On the judicial front, the National Judicial Council, NJC, the body tasked with discipline and promotion of judicial officers in its 109th meeting in Abuja, under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, found out that nine judges of the Imo State judiciary falsified their dates of birth comprising five (5) High Court Judges and four Judges of the Customary Court of Appeal, Imo State.
Those found to have engaged in this less than noble endeavor are: 1. M. E. Nwagboso (High Court); 2. B. C. Iheka (High Court); 3. K. A. Leaweanya (High Court); 4. Okereke Chinyere Ngozi (High Court); 5. Innocent Chidi Ibeawuchi (High Court); 6. Tennyson Nze (Customary Court of Appeal); 7. Ofoha Uchenna (Customary Court of Appeal); 8. Everyman Eleanya (Customary Court of Appeal) And 9. Rosemond Ibe (Customary Court of Appeal).
It is saddening that individuals entrusted with the care of values and norms of society are themselves short of the expected examples they should abide and live by.
The law is clear on forgery and perjury which are serious criminal offences recognised under both the Criminal Code Act and the Penal Code. Both legal frameworks define forgery as the creation, alteration, or use of a false document with the intent to deceive, defraud, or cause injury to another person.
While both codes criminalise the act itself, they also provide specific punishments for offenders. Under Section 464 of the Criminal Code, general forgery attracts a penalty of up to seven years’ imprisonment, while Section 465 prescribes a heavier punishment of 14 years’ imprisonment for forging particular documents used in official or electoral processes such as certificates submitted to INEC or during ministerial screenings.
Similarly, the Penal Code, under Sections 363 and 364, criminalises not only the act of forgery but also the use of forged documents as genuine, especially when presented to public authorities like INEC or screening panels.
Section 364 prescribes a penalty of up to 14 years’ imprisonment, with or without a fine, treating the offence as a serious felony when the intent to defraud or obtain undue advantage is proven.
When a society dilly dallies on crime and punishment, when it sets bad precedents and fails to act as it should, it has no gumption to exclude some other perpetrators from its flawed bazaar of justice and amnesty.