Re: Why Nigerians still support Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act


Note: This is a rejoinder to an article written by Olumide Makanjuola in the Guardian. 

By J.B Nwachukwu

I wish to commend Olumide Makanjuola for his boldness in writing on issues relating to Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual citizens (LGB), these issues though known aren’t issues that are publicly discussed by many because of its controversial and sentimental nature.  Although I am surprised that, despite his advocacy for equal rights, he isn’t advocating for the rights of the Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual citizens (TQIA). Don’t they need “equal rights” as well? Maybe equality is not so widespread, after all.

The said article which was published on the 17th of May raised many interesting issues, which if not addressed can mislead and impair reader’s judgment on the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act (SSMPA) and LGBTQIA issues.

Olumide seems to be surprised that despite the passage of the SSMPA, Nigerians are still respectful of the rights of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual citizens (LGB).

He said “Three years on from the passage of the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill into law, it continues to enjoy a high level of public support, despite other indications that more Nigerians are respectful of the rights of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual citizens”.

His surprise seems to be due, either to a total misunderstanding of the Act or a deliberate attempt to misconstrue what the Act provides for. This has to be true because further down in the article, Olumide argues that “by using the words “Same Sex marriage” what lawmakers did was to play on Nigerians fear for cultural change, with a controversial title, when really the law goes beyond banning same—sex marriage” he continues “one needs to go beyond the sensational title and talk about the content of the law that violates fundamental rights guaranteed in the Nigerian constitution. For example, clause 4.2 of the Act talks about public shows of amorous affection between people of the same sex. This is one of the sections aimed at criminalising freedom of association based on perceived identity, as well as criminalising people because of their association or knowledge of someone being lesbian, gay or bisexual”. He further argued that “Many Nigerian’s do not realize that with the way the Act is set up, the dangers of the law can affect anyone – even if they are not an LGB person. The definition of “same sex amorous affection” in section 4.2 of the law is so broad that it can apply to two male friends hugging or female friends hugging or female friends sharing a bed; in short any form of public affection between people of the same gender is criminalised”

I have painstakingly gone through the Act and nowhere does it provide for the things that Olumide is complaining of. This Act in question is so short-that if there was an award for the shortest Act in the history of Nigerian Legislation, this Act would most probably win it – that it should be subject to confusion.

The Act has eight (8) sections, Section 1-3 defines marriage to be a union between a man and woman and provides that any marriage between persons of the same sex either contracted in Nigeria or abroad is invalid in Nigeria. Luckily Olumide has no issues with this ones.

The section 4 which Olumide seems to have problems with, provides that the registration of gay clubs, societies and organisations, processions and meetings is prohibited. In sub section(2) it provides that the public show of same- sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly is prohibited.

Contrary to what Olumide posited, Section 4.2 doesn’t define “same-sex amorous affection”. That section merely prohibits public show of same sex amorous relationship. The Act did not provide for “affection” but “relationship”, these words mean two different things and I wonder what end Olumide seeks to achieve by changing them.  The definition (which I must point out is personal to him) Olumide seeks to ascribe to the section with all due respect is absurd, and it’s geared at erroneously arousing people sentiments. It is important not to forget the qualifying word “amorous”. Amorous is a word that is not subject to misunderstanding. Assuming without conceding that Olumide doesn’t know what amorous means, I will take the pain to provide a definition. Oxford English Dictionary defines it to mean “showing, feeling or relating to sexual desire (emphasis on sexual).  So for Olumide to say that, that provision can affect anyone even if they are not an LGB person is far from the truth. Or do members of the same family have amorous relationships? Can a father give either his son or daughter an amorous hug? Or do brothers give themselves amorous hugs?

Also, contrary to what Olumide said, nowhere does the Act criminalise people for knowing someone who is lesbian, gay or bisexual. Section 5(3) of the Act penalises those that witness, aid or abets the solemnisation of same sex marriage and those that support the sustenance of gay clubs and meetings and not those that know people that are LDB.

Secondly, the Act doesn’t infringe on anyone’s freedom of Association nor does it prevent people of the same sex from staying, meeting or leaving together, if it did, then same sex hostels, schools etc, would have been banned by now. What it prevents is the registration and meetings of gay clubs, societies etc. The Act doesn’t even criminalise Homosexuality, Homosexuality is clearly criminalised under chapter 21 of the Criminal Code. Moreover, it is imperative to point out that the right to association is not even absolute, Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) clearly provides that such right can be derogated from, in the interest of public morality and public health.

Continuing, Olumide argues that because of the SSMPA, the police, other state and non- state actors have been empowered to think violence, hate and prejudice towards LBG persons. According to him, his organisation has documented evidence to prove that since the Act was passed there has been an increase in the human rights violations against LGB persons. Without demanding for the evidence, I concede that there are violations against LBG persons just as there are violations against many others and I condemn such violations vehemently. But I must quickly point out that those that violate LGB persons do so out of culpable ignorance and if found (indeed they must be found) they should be condemned and prosecuted accordingly. Such persons think that LGB persons are inherently bad or possessed by some evil spirt. I don’t subscribe to such. I believe that LGB persons just like any human being, can be intelligent, hard-working, virtuous, responsible etc. The only contention issue is their sexual orientation. Is it a new way of life or an abnormality / illness? Till date there has been no conclusive evidence to prove that homosexual persons are born that way, indeed it is widely held to be a nurture rather than a nature development. So why do we need to legitimise an act that is not natural or scientific?   Indeed the mere fact that one has the same-sex attraction (SSA) doesn’t mean, one must exhibit it, just the saw way that the mere fact an heterosexual man has attraction to multiple women doesn’t mean he has a right to exhibit it. Indeed, attractions need not dictate our relationships.

As regards the violations by the law enforcement agencies, it is wrong to blame such violations on the SSMPA, as we have examined above, nowhere does the Act empower anyone to violate anyone right including those of LGB. I think that if Olumide is sincere, he will agree that our law enforcement agencies are fraught with lots of irregularities. We’ve heard of numerous instances where for example, policemen enter a bar and accuse those drinking of a crime, all in the name to extort from them, it’s the same policemen that will castigate a woman when she goes to report her husband for battery. Will you blame the law for these infractions? A friend of mine, an adult, who decided to stay on his own had his house raided by his father. When he reported to the police, the police condemned him for being stubborn and obedient. Which law will you blame? It’s the law enforcement agencies and not the law. Indeed LGB persons rights are protected by the laws of Nigeria, there need not be an enactment or repeal of any law. Under the law of Tort and fundamental Human Right, they have lots of remedies available to them.

Based on a survey conducted by his organisation, Olumide further argues that Nigerians agree that LGB citizens deserve equal access to public health, housing and education.  This is very important, I agree with Olumide that LGB need access to public health, they already have access, but I am ready to campaign that they even need a higher access to public health than many of us because of the extreme health risks associated with Men who have sex with Men (MSM). The most recent report by the Centres for Disease Control and prevention (CDC) in the US, provides that more than 9 in 10 new HIV cases among young men and boys ages 13 to 24 in the U.S occur among homosexuals and bisexuals and the LGBT population has the highest number of people living with this virus when compared to other population. They are also at an increased risk of other STDs like syphilis, gonorrhoea and chlamydia. This very clearly proscribes the LGBT lifestyle as an unhealthy one.

Olumide made me laugh when he stated authoritatively that the Nigerian LGB community isn’t clamouring for same sex marriage, really. No country in the world where Gay marriage has been legalised, started advocating for gay marriage from day one. They started by asking for the repeal of sodomy law, to provision of civil partnership, etc. before they got the icing of the cake which is Gay Marriage.

I do agree with Olumide that Nigerians lack understanding on the subject of sexuality and human rights, I wish they knew, because if they knew, not only would they wake up from their somnolence, they will also resist any attempt to apathy and indifference and ensure that the LGBTQIA dictatorship in western countries doesn’t it repeat itself here.





Nwachukwu is a Legal Practitioner and a writer.



The United Nations Postal Administration(UNPA) on the 4th of February released six new postage stamps promoting equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The new stamps, which seeks to celebrate the diversity of the LGBT community, marks the first time the United Nations has issued stamps with this theme.

The artist, Sergio Baradat who designed them, in an interview said “We live in a world where even though developed nations have embraced marriage equality and LBGT equality, we still have a far, far, far way to go, but we are making some strides,” he added “There are some countries in the world right now where not only are we not celebrated or respected, but we are beaten and killed. And I thought that it would be a wonderful opportunity using art, to use postage stamps as a vehicle – using art to change hearts and minds.” He also stressed that LGBT rights are human rights and that all individuals deserve to be treated equally and fairly under the law.

The fact of referring to LGBT rights as Human Rights and also using the United Nations to push such propaganda hasn’t gone down well with many member states who feel this arbitrary act is an affront to the sovereignty of member nations who share different views.

In anticipation of the unveiling of the stamps, the Deputy Permanent Representative Of Nigeria To The United Nations Ambassador Usman Sarki relying on the charter of the UN condemned the action of UN Secretary General and the UN bureaucracy.

He told a meeting of Member States that “It is in that regard that we wish to remind the UN to limit itself strictly to activities mandated by Member States and especially to promote issues that are beneficial to mankind rather than lend itself as tool to promote aberrant behaviour under the guise of promoting human rights.” “The UN should not take unilateral decisions on such sensitive matters that offend the sensibilities of the majority of its Member States, and contradict their religious beliefs, cultures, traditions and laws. If it must act in this fashion, the UN should promote issues that enjoy consensus and, at the same time, advance the dignity of people and their genuine human rights. In the light of this concern, we call upon the UN not to proceed with this event and to put an end to all processes that are currently in place in all its agencies, funds and programs, that promote and legitimize this tendency on which there is no consensus among member states.

Since delivering his address – which is in line with the spirits of International Law and reason – Ambassador Sarki has been under attack by several persons. Some are saying that he is pushing a homophobic agenda at the United Nations.

Kenny Brandmuse, a Nigerian homosexual and activist has also criticised Sarki. Kenny is in usual way sought to remind Sarki that Nigerian was neither a Christian or Muslim country that it’s a secular country therefore sodomy laws cannot be imposed on them. While I agree with Kenny that Nigeria is a secular country, this is even provided for in Section 10 of the Constitution as follows “The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State religion.” It 1999 Constitution of Nigeria merely prescribes secularism. Secularism does not mean atheism and the Nigeria Constitution, laws and practices, recognize and acknowledge God. The Preamble to the 1999 Constitution proclaims Nigeria as “one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God”. It guarantees “freedom of thought, conscience, and religion”. Secularism under the Nigerian constitution does not mean moral neutrality but religious neutrality. Our laws recognize and integrate norms of morality which are distilled more from the moral imperative of social co-existence (which may be coincidental with the moral norms of native law and custom and Christian or Islamic moral injunctions) rather than predicated on any religion as such. As such it would utopic to claim that morality doesn’t affect our Laws. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 is an embodiment of Natural moral law etc.

Leo Igwe on the other hand has accused the Nigeria government of misplacing Her priority, that instead of tackling issues like poverty, unemployment, and insecurity, they are wasting time fighting homosexuality, he even posited that Sarki is not representing the position of millions of Nigerians that support without reservation and hesitation the efforts of the UN to protect the rights of religious, ethnic or sexual minorities. This is a big lie, when the Law prohibiting homosexual marriage was assented to in 2014, it received a thunderous applause from Nigerians so Leo Igwe assertion is unfounded.

I think Leo Igwe and his cohorts are misled as to the Nigerian Stance against homosexuality; the law that was passed was targeted against Homosexuals contracting a valid marriage and enjoying the rights that accrue to marriages, it was also targeted towards prohibiting public show of homosexual tendencies so as not to offend the public morality which the government is compelled to under the constitution to protect. That doesn’t mean that the government is encouraging hatred against homosexuals, as such the government is ready to prosecute anyone who assaults anyone for the singular fact of their LGBT status.

On the issue of misplacement of priority, I think it’s the United Nations that has misplaced its priority long ago, created to sustain peace around the globe, it has left its raison d’être of its creation and now they are now pursing anomalies in the name of widening Human Rights. As regards people being killed because they are homosexuals the data is very minimal, on the other hand there are graver human right violations in China, Syria, Iran, Nigeria(Boko Haram) and the UN is just playing lip service.

It’s not in doubt that homosexuality is an aberrant behaviour, there is no conclusive empirical evidence proving that such individuals are born that way, it’s a way of life just the same way somebody chooses to be a criminal, should we then legalise criminality because it makes some people happy? We can’t.

We stand with Ambassador Sarki, he is doing a great job, and we are proud that a Nigerian is challenging the World to align itself with reason.

Ending Violence Against Women and Children


By Joshua Nwachukwu

Reliving the tradition that was started in 2010, the organisers of the International Conference on Women and Children held its 5th conference from the 12th to the 14th of November 2015 at the Nigeria Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Victoria Island, Lagos.
The conference which is a gathering of world-class intellectuals brought together policy makers, members of the Bench and the Bar, Academic Dons, youths, religious leaders and secondary school students. The theme of this year’s discussion was “Global Approaches to violence against women and children: identifying the triggers, remedies and policy frameworks”.

In her opening remarks, the Wife of the President, Her Excellency Hajia Aisha Muhammadu Buhari highlighted the appropriateness of the conference theme in the struggle to eliminate global violence against women and children. Hajia Buhari stressed the importance of the family which serves as a healthy safe-net in protecting both women and children. She also called for the-invigoration of the institution of the family. She stated that abortion remains the greatest violence against women and the unborn children thus it should be avoided. Concluding, she reminded the audience that the Child’s Right Act remains the benchmark for assessing the rights of children and that the various legislations which propose to end violence against women and children like the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015 should be accompanied with multiple enforcement strategies.

The Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon Mudashiru Obasa , who arrived punctually to make his opening remarks and to declare the conference open, praised the organisers of the conference and promised to continue to support the conference as his immediate predecessor in  office did. While declaring the conference open, he admonished that violence against women should be tackled with caution since some of the reported cases have turned out to be false. He also encouraged girls to dress decently since indecent dressing could trigger violence.
In her opening remarks, the wife of the Governor of Lagos State, Mrs Bolanle Ambode challenged the international community to be more pragmatic in protecting female persons and children.
The topics discussed during the three-day conference ranged from rape, challenges of bringing rape suspect to justice, Girl- Child Marriage, Sex and child Trafficking, Role of the law and lawyers in ending violence against women and children, pornography, violence and child nurturing, imprisonment of pregnant women and nursing mothers, empowerment of women: a strategy for reducing poverty and violence to women,  United Nations Peace Keepers: Protectors or Predator, the presentations and discussions of these topics left the audience enchanted and deeply informed on the current state of things.

Being a conference on women and children, the organisers of this conference have always wanted to give a voice to children. So during the three-day conference, the pupils from Whitesands School Lekki, Dominican College Mafoluku, Somerset College Surulere and Lagoon Secondary School Lekki participated in the Children Discussion Panels. The themes for the Panel Discussion were: “when does domestic violence occur: when should we say No and How should we say no” and “ are working children different from non-working children of the same age” The audience were really impressed and shocked at what came out from the mouths of these students mouth. Students from Dominican College added colour to the event with a splendid Art Play which they presented dramatizing domestic violence. The Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, though in a hurry waited to watch the children perform and he was greatly impressed by their performance. On the second day of the conference, Dominican College presented a cultural dance which left members of the audience thrilled.

In my paper on the connection between pornography and violence, I stated that a comparative study of rape rates in the U.S,A., Scandinavia, Britain, Australia and New Zealand found a connection between the availability of  pornography and the level of rape. In Australia, the uniform crime data actually support the case for an increase in rape rates after the liberalisation of pornography.

One Discussion Panel which elicited many comments from the conference participants was the Discussion Panel of the Office of the Public Defender(OPD), Lagos State Ministry of Justice. The Panel gave us an insight into the workings of the OPD in Lagos state. It reiterated that the Office of the Public Defender offers Pro bono services to indigent persons,they also have a toll free number. The Panel of the OPD was so good that some participants from other states asked OPD if they could come and help the OPD in their respective states function optimally.  Officials from the National Emergency Management Agency of Nigeria (NEMA) also did well in educating us on the Internally-Displaced Persons(IDPs) Camps in Nigeria and how they are trying to eliminate violence against women and children in those camps .At the end of this conference, it was resolved that it is not enough to make laws against violence: efforts must be made to enforce the laws. Also highlighted was the role the Police Force plays in curbing violence. Many called for proper education of the police in the handling of rape victims and victims of crimes in Nigeria. Unfortunately the police were not there to defend themselves. Also highlighted was the need for religious organisations to be careful in handling cases of violence and they should not be more interested in protecting the church’s image or name.

All in all, the conference was fun, educating, eye opening, and it also created a room for networking. What a powerful message that was passed at the conference. We discussed ways to counter assaults on the family including pornography, cohabitation, divorce and marriage-substitutes; and promoting pro-family policies that build a renewed culture of strong marriages and healthy loving families. We discussed proper , parenting, and family living as the hope for the future.  It would be impossible to capture in this article what I learned  at the conference. I will be forever remember the message of hope passed at the conference. I will forever remember the concrete ideas for strengthening homes, and the strategies suggested for promoting public policy that secure and protect families.


usa a

Sonnie Ekwowusi

We all saw the anthropological cataclysm coming. The verdict of the American Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage was foreseeable. Given Justice Anthony Kennedy’s gay antecedents and gay pronouncements especially in the cases of Romer V Evans (1996); Lawrence V Texas 2003 and United States V Windsor (2013), the direction of his swing vote last month was predictable. And Justice Kennedy is not yet finished with America. He is poised to write another judgment legalizing bestiality and animalism once the opportunity presents itself.  

What is unfolding before our eyes is the sodomization and gomorrization of America, in fact, the decline of American civilization. President Obama was born for it. He lives for it. Unlike the Martin Luther King lofty dream, Obama dreams of a new gay American civilization. He doesn’t pretend otherwise. Whereas ex-President Bill Clinton used the White House to resolve his complex pelvic issues, Obama has converted the White House into a House of lesbians, homosexuals, Bisexuals, Transgenders, Beastgenders, Transsexuals, Beastsexuals, animalsexuals, and you name it. He converted June as Gay Pride. Obama legalized bestiality or sex with horses (beasts) among American soldiers. He made homosexuality the centre-piece of American foreign policy. For the first time in the history of America, an American gay envoy has been appointed and gay office opened for the purpose of homosexualization of the world thanks to Obama.

In US foreign policies and international relations, Obama, John Kerry and Hilary Clinton have been consistent in advancing gay “rights” among comity of nations.  The US is now a major exporter of gay “rights”. It has recently pressurized Uganda to reverse its anti-gay law. Under the influence of the US, Mozambique has recently decriminalized its anti-gay law. At the moment the US is putting pressure on Kenya to legalized homosexuality. Obama lately has been dating President Mohammadu Buhari (Hopefully not for homosexual “marriage”, although Robert Mugabe is proposing to “marry” Obama). Obama and Buhari are billed to meet on July 20 to discuss issues which include security, economy and Ebola. But fear is being entertained that Obama might trade off US assistance to Buhari government with shooting down Good luck Jonathan’s anti-gay law. Buhari should reject such a trade-off as if it is coming from the devil. Obama has an ugly agenda: he is poised to homosexualize many parts of the world by 2020. His lack of support for the Jonathan government is traced to Jonathan’s anti-gay law.

Surely, the animals in the animal kingdom must be laughing at us by now. In his usual comical mood, the tortoise in particular must be chuckling with laughter and telling other animals, “these humans think they are rational and wise, but see how barbaric and primitive they are. The homosexual practice which we animals have rejected is now being practiced among humans”. The American founding fathers must be turning in their respective graves by now. In the beginning, the gay right movement was unknown in the United States. Even under the common law, marriage is recognized as a contract between a man and a woman.

But the first organized homosexual rights movement in the United States emerged in the 50s. It sought to change the criminal law in United States in favour of homosexual practice. But it was the sexual revolution of the 60s that helped the American gay movement to take its tap root.  Spurred by the campaigns of the American Law Institute Penal Code in 196os, some homosexual started advocating for what they perceived as their right to privacy and to practice their homosexual acts. The first Supreme Court decision to recognize the so-called right to privacy was Grisworld V Connecticut (1965). Later in Lawrence V Texas (2003), the Supreme Court (with Justice Antonini Scalia, Chief Justice William H. Relinquish and Justice Clarence Thomas heavily dissenting) overruled Bowers V Hardwick and held that consensual sexual conduct which including right to homosexuality was part of the liberty protected by substance due process under the fourth amendment of the American Constitution. But subsequent Federal Laws and State laws had differed from Lawrence’s case (supra) and endorsed the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

At the dawn of American Revolution, the common law concept was adopted and became part of American laws. Suffice it to say that several States in the United States later passed laws prohibiting sodomy in the United States. Penalty for indulging in sodomy included long sentence and long fines. At the dawn of the 19th century and even early 20th century, several States in the United States imposed law against sexual deviant behaviour like homosexuality. For example, in 1970 the Connecticut authority denied driver’s licence to one man who professed to be homosexual.

The Declaration of American Independence is premised on respect for the Laws of Nature and Laws of God. “The equality” meant in the Declaration is equality in human dignity not in barbarism or in animalism. In his book, We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future, Matthew Spalding writes that “ it is important to understand that the philosophical grounding in natural rights does not create a radical and unlimited sense of freedom, as some claim today.



Sonnie Ekwowusi

Last week, some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) community and religious leaders in Nigeria took the United Nations Population Funds (UNFPA) to task for trying to compound the woes of the pregnant Chibok girls recently rescued from Boko Haram and the internally displaced persons (IDPs) by prescribing abortion to them and sterilization procedures to the rest. In condemning the prescription as an unwarranted inhumane and wicked intervention, the Project for Human Development (PHD), an NGO based in Lagos, argued that what those pregnant Chibok girls and IDPs need at this moment in time is the human compassion of effective medical care, social counseling, rehabilitation and re-integration, not life-risking and violent-wrecking abortion or sterilization (Read, “Group rejects Abortion option for pregnant Chibok Girls”, THISDAY, May 18, 2015; “Group Faults UNFPA over Abortion, Sterilization on Boko Harm victims”, The Guardian Newspaper, May 23 2015, Page 6; “Rescued Girls: UNFPA has abortion agenda, PHD alleges”, Vanguard, May 26, 2015, Page 36; “Don’t abort Boko Harm babies, group pleads”, National Mirror, May 27, 2015, Page 21)

But in a swift reaction last week, the UNFPA and its Director-General Prof. Babatunde Osotimehin stated that the UNFPA was not guilty as charged, but paradoxically Osotimehin went ahead to contradict himself by admitting that the UNFPA promotes “reproductive health” and “modern family planning services” which are other phrases used for describing abortion and contraceptive services. How can Osotimehin be speaking from both sides of the mouth?. In one fell swoop, he denies that UNFPA promotes abortion, but in another fell swoop he admits that UNFPA promotes abortion. In any case, if you google the words, “Osotimehin and abortion”, you will come across Osotimehin’s absurd arguments that African women need safe abortion and contraceptives to slow down population growth, enhance women’s health and reduce poverty. In his article entitled: Planned Families, strengthened Communities (The Guardian, Wednesday, November 28, 2012), Osotimehin writes that studies have shown that investing in abortion and contraceptives “reduces poverty… and gives women a greater say in their households and communities”.

Before commenting on pregnant Chibok girls and the UNFPA, permit me to quickly unmask the UNFPA. This is necessary to highlight the damage being caused in many African countries by the UNFPA. Only last April at the 48th Session of the United Nations Commission on Population and Development which took place at the United Nations Building, in New York City,  a fortified African Group led by Ambassador Usman Sarki, a distinguished and widely respected Nigerian ambassador, courageously stood its ground and refused to be coerced or intimidated by the UNFPA, America, Belgium and other European nations into accepting the inclusion of “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE) and “reproductive rights” (terms that connote  abortion rights and teen-contraceptive-use rights) as part of  the consensus document. Ambassador Sarki made it clear during the negotiations that unless the UNFPA, United States and European nations were ready to withdraw the vexatious CSE and abortion rights from the text, the African Group was not going to accept and adopt the text.

Now, let me unmask the UNFPA. As its name aptly reveals, the main mission of the UNFPA in developing countries like Nigeria is population reduction or human capital reduction or fertility reduction. The UNFPA tries to achieve this by making what it calls “safe abortion” and “unmet contraceptive” services assessing and affordable to the vast African population especially African teen population. Why is the UNFPA bent on reducing the fertility rate in Africa? On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated a top secret document entitled National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report.  It was subtitledImplications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.”  This document was declassified in 1989.  It laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries. In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.  The named countries were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia. According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless developing countries implement population control programs.

NSSM-200 also specifically declared that the United States was to cover up its population control activities and avoid possible charges of imperialism by recruiting some United Nations agencies such as the UNFPA to do its dirty work. Section 30(a) of NSSM-200 states:  “Concentration on Key Countries. … Assistance for population moderation should give primary emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is special U.S. political and strategic interest. Those countries are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia. Together, they account for 47 percent of the world’s current population increase.” NSSM-200 also states “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion…since abortion is still repugnant to the peoples of Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and parts of Asia and Oceania, we must mask our desire to legalize abortion by pretending to care about the state of women’s health.  We do this by saying that we want to eliminate “unsafe abortion.”

 In other words, since the word “abortion” is repugnant in the highly-sensitive Nigerian religious culture, the UNFPA avoids using it and instead uses euphemisms or dodgy phrases such as “reproductive health”, sexual and reproductive health services”, “family planning services”, “reproductive health services” which connote abortion and contraceptive services. So when Osotimehin says that the UNFPA promotes “reproductive health”, sexual and reproductive health services”, “family planning services”, “reproductive health services”, he actually means that the UNFPA promotes abortion and contraceptives.

Rethinking Charlie Hebdo: The right to Freedom of expression Vs the duty to respect the beliefs of others.

By Nwala Ijeoma *

In the wake of the events of 7th January, 2015, the world is still in shock and pain. Most of us are really afraid for we do not know what the future holds for our dear “right to freedom of expression”. Before going further, I would like to state, unequivocally, that in no way do I support the use of violence as a way of settling disagreements or reacting to any threatening opinion. The Charlie Hebdo killing was mindless and not well thought- out.

However, when half of the world is pointlessly holding vigils, demonstrations and ‘copping’ trends with the hash tag #JeSuisCharlie, it all becomes disturbing as it shows we clearly do not understand what the right to freedom of expression really is. We are merely following trends on the internet.

This poses a danger, as only a handful are saying what needs to be said. As John Stuart Mill said, “the right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins .” This quote or versions of it are also attributed to a few other writers such as Holmes Jr., and Abraham Lincoln. One might be curious enough to ask, ‘why should there be an end to my right to swing my arms? They are, in fact, my arms and why shouldn’t I be minded to do what I please with it?” If you have asked yourself this, you are not alone. This has been the basis of one of the most heated legal arguments; whether morality is and should be a part of law?

To answer the first set of questions, a version of the expression spoken by an anonymous judge might be told. A man was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose. He asked the Judge if he did not have the right to swing his arms in a free country and the judge replied “your right to swing your arms end just where the others man’s nose begins.” Even the law abhors careless misstatements and acts or omissions that end up hurting others- causing damages, according to law. Therefore, we are all encouraged to exercise care and caution in all we do.

If you still choose to ask, what then does morality have to do with this argument? I will reply with a few questions too. Are we not being moral, when we choose right instead of wrong? Are we not being moral when we think of what our actions will cost our neighbors? Are we not being moral, when we lend happiness to others instead of sadness; when we encourage rather than put people down; when we say kind words and not harsh ones; when we criticize, to encourage improvement and not insult and mock; when we prevent a stranger from dying in whatever little way we can instead of walking away and most of all, when we love one another? Do we all not need love? Are we afraid of the word ‘morality’ because it might denote that we are affiliated to one religious order or another, and we cannot have that? A neighbor is any person who may be reasonably affected by our actions and inactions whether or not he is in close proximity to us.

Morality is the very fabric of this universe. But is it even desirable that all rights must have an end or limit? Morality will say YES! When we exercise complete and absolute freedom or rights, we, too, become despots as we will be merely living out our own selfish and uncontrolled passions without, for a second, thinking of how it affects our neighbor. Because, while you have a right to swing your arms in public ,in a jolly manner, as an expression of excitement or whatever, you must, however, stop when you walk into a crowd so that you do not injure anyone. Yes, morality places a heavy (worthwhile) burden on us when we exercise rights because for every right, there is a corresponding duty.

Now where does the right to freedom of expression end? I say it ends when the feelings and beliefs of others are at stake. Yes, we have a right to say and express our opinions without fear of being put down or fear of violence of any kind but do we do not also have a corresponding duty to respect the feelings and beliefs of others when we seek to express ourselves? Isn’t there ever a thing as “sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words almost killed me”? Should we go on proclaiming rights and forgetting that corresponding duties weigh heavily upon on the ‘right-holder’?

I am not a Muslim but I believe that Muslims are entitled to their own beliefs and so are Catholics, Buddhists and atheists. We have no right, under the toga of freedom of expression, to jest Mohammed, Jesus or any religious character or event which a religion holds dear and sacred. We have no right, to say words that would hurt our neighbors. We have no right, whatsoever, to intimidate a religion by mocking the ideals of that group. The word ‘respect’ is being used so little today.

The Charlie Hebdo editors did not ask to be killed but this does not make them martyrs. They did, however, provoke reactions from people by hurting them continuously with their publications. What most people know of the Charlie Hebdo Story is that they got killed because they were journalists expressing their right to freedom of expression. What people do not ask is, did he carry out the duty that came with that right. He deserves to be mourned as dead people should but he should not to be treated as a saint. But because he is dead now, we will not point fingers.

I am sure that when those zealots set out to kill the Charlie Hebdo editors on the 7th, they did not know that today the world would be celebrating them. In fact, if they did, I am sure the editors would still be alive today. They did not also understand that by that singular action, they have further put other Muslims and Islam in a more difficult position in Europe. This is to show you that they felt murder was the only way to ‘defend’ their faith since religion in the twenty-first century is foremost perceived as undesirable and a threat and very little is done to prevent the senseless mockery of religious beliefs. Violence is in no way an answer to any question or opinion, no matter how threatened we may feel by that opinion. I am not insensitive to fact that men just died, but I am also sensitive to fact that the editors of Charlie Hebdo exhibited courage when they chose to continue with satirical, ‘insensitive’ and often vile publications despite threats against them. They are, however, not saints as the world would like to believe because they chose to disrespect the feelings and beliefs of others.

So, no, I am not Charlie, #JeSuisNePasCharlie. I am Nwala Ijeoma and I do not condone mindless violence or mindless expressions against another’s belief. I have the freedom to say what I want but a duty not hurt my neighbor whenever I chose to express myself.

*Nwala Ijeoma is a law student at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka


By Sonnie Ekwowusi

What is happening to us in this country? Why should anybody in his right senses target the Nigerian young for destruction? I can’t believe what they are doing to the Nigerian young. While we are still lamenting that Chibok girls have not been released and that many children are victims of Boko Haram senseless murder, some people are meeting in Abuja and corrupting children. We are losing our sense of public shame in this country, and, this, for me, is a big tragedy. Last week the so-called 3rd Nigeria “family planning” Conference was staged at the Sheraton Hotels, Abuja. From all intents and purposes, the Conference was supposed to be a Conference on family planning but the Conference ended being a very big public scandal: it ended up being a Conference to assist Nigerian children and Nigerian minors to have access to all sizes of condoms, and contraceptives and literature on permanent sterilization Vasectomy, deprovera female sterilization (Tubal Ligation), injectable contraceptives, IUCD, postinor2,Lo-femenal, norplant, suction tubes etc.

At the Youth pre-conference sponsored by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) which took place a day to the Conference, a video animation was shown to young Nigerians on how to effectively practise “safe-sex” using the condoms and other contraceptives. The young people also watched another video animation of other young people sharing knowledge and experience on issues related to condom use and contraceptive use. The UNFPA created a social media campaign code-named “No Hoodie No Honey” posted on twitter aimed at supplying condoms and contraceptives to young Nigerians including Nigerian minors. The UNFPA was out to coerce young people into believing that “safe-sex” is their right and therefore they shouldn’t be ashamed to practice “safe sex” even if the different cultures and religions teach otherwise. For example, one of the inscriptions on the No Hoodie No Honey roll up stand posted on twitter reads: “Lets push for easy access to the female condom and that a woman may buy condoms without being shamed”

First: this advert is tainted by fraud and deception. The advert that condom protects its user against infections and against HIV is a fraudulent advert. Scientifically, no condom is safe proof. Every condom has naturally-occurring holes that put its user in serious jeopardy. Because condoms are not safe, the Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON) has enacted a law that every condom advertised in Nigeria must carry the following Health Risk Warning Clause: “Be warned: condom is not 100 per cent safe: total abstinence or faithfulness is the best option”. The “Gold Circle” condom carelessly and indiscriminately used in Nigeria has been banned in Ghana. On 20th July 2005, Ghana’s Food and Drugs Board (FDB) issued what it called “Consumer Alert on “Gold Circle” Brand of condoms to the effect that the Gold circle condoms do not have adequate physical strength and therefore likely to break during use. Therefore the FDB directed all Ghanaian pharmacies, licensed chemical shops and other outlets that had stocks of “Gold circle” brand of condoms to remove them from their shelves and return them to their sources of supply. I don’t know when the “Gold Circle” condom would be banned in Nigeria.

But assuming condom were effective, condom-use promotes sexual promiscuity and pre-marital pregnancy because of the false sense of security it generates in users. And sexual promiscuity, by definition, spreads sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV.

In any case, condom “safe-sex” is not the first priority of the average young Nigerian in the street: the first priority of the average young Nigerian is to settle down in life-to secure a good job, earn a good salary, have a roof over his or her head and marry a good wife or a good husband later. If the organisers of the Abuja conference were really and truly interested in helping the Nigerian young, why didn’t they organise a job-creation conference or a skill-acquisition Conference or farming Conference to boost food production instead of  a condom Conference?. Is condom food that young Nigerians must eat to stay alive?

More importantly, most contraceptives are deadly. A Study that has been carried out have shown that a woman who takes birth control pills before her first child is born has at least 40% of increased risk of developing breast cancer and that a woman who has taken the pill for four or more times prior to the birth of her first child has a 72% risk factor in developing breast cancer. In October 2011, the New York Times published an article entitled Contraceptive Used in Africa May Double Risk of H.I.V. This article was based on a cohort study by prestigious medical Research journal The Lancet that clearly stated that “the risk of HIV-1 acquisition doubled with the use of hormonal contraception especially the injectable methods.” In addition to the HIV-related effects of this product, there is also the doubled risk of breast cancer demonstrated by various studies like the extensive research done by the Fred Hutchingson Cancer Research centre, Seattle and published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) in February 2012, with the research team stating clearly after their studies : “We found that recent DMPA (Depo-Medroxyprogesterone acetate a.k.a Depo-Provera) use for 12 months or longer was associated with a 2.2-fold increased risk of invasive breast cancer.”

It is sad that most foreign NGOs and agencies are coming to Nigeria to exploit our children to their own gain. The UNFPA, for example, has become notorious for distributing condoms and contraceptives among Nigerian teens. And the government appears to have shut its eyes to this atrocity. This cannot continue. Now is the time to stand up and protect our children if we want them to have a stake in bright future.




By     Sonnie Ekwowusi

Greeting: With the certainty that you live among us and often read this page, Oh! Boko Haram, I have decided to communicate you through this medium with the hope that the words of this letter, as poor as they may be, may not only penetrate the depth of your heart but may find a dwelling place in your inner being leading to the immediate release of the abducted Chibok girls and cessation of violence and killings in Northern Nigeria.

Boko Haram sponsors, supporters and sympathizers both in and outside government or in the Nigerian military, home or abroad, my greeting. This letter is equally addressed to you.

Know you brethren, that among the universal fundamental rights of humanity which Islam stipulates that must be observed and respected in all circumstances and at all times is sacredness of life. In Islam, human blood is sacred and cannot be spilled anyhow. The first and foremost basic right in the Holy Quran is the right to life. “Whoever kills a human being without justification like manslaughter or corruption on earth, it is though he had killed all mankind” (Holy Quran; 5:32). “Do not kill a soul which Allah has made scared except through the due process of law” (Holy Quran; 6:151). Islam abhors human slavery and abduction. In the words of the Prophet (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him), “There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgment. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money”.  The life, property and honour of non-Muslims (dhimmis) are to be respected and protected in exactly the same manner as those of Muslims. God Almighty has stipulated in the Holy Quran 4: 93, “Anybody who kills a believer deliberately will receive as his reward (a sentence) to live in Hell for ever. God will be angry with him and curse him, and prepare a dreadful torment for him”. According to the Prophet (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) Muslims who kill non-Muslims (dhimmis) will not even smell the fragrance of paradise. The Holy Quran stipulates that, “there should be no coercion in the matter of Faith” (Holy Qu ran 2:256).

Although Muslims are enjoined to invite people to embrace Islam and spread Islamic teachings, they are not enjoined to do so by force or through terrorism or through abduction. It is the obligation and duty of Muslim community to enjoin its members to shun wickedness and evil (Holy Quran 3:110). Islam recognizes that all human beings are brothers and sisters. That they are descendant from one father and mother and therefore should not be killed. According to Holy Quran 5:3, “Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression”.  Islam teaches that no harm should be done to the civilian population during a war or conflict. The instruction of the Prophet (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) on this is this, “Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman”, “Do not kill the monks in monasteries” and “Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship”. Once upon a time during a certain war, the Prophet (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) saw a corpse of a woman lying on the ground and he said, “She is not fighting. How then came she to be killed?”. From this it could be easily deduced that civilian population who are not involved in war or any strife should not be killed.

From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that your killings and abduction are against the teachings of Islam and the Prophet. He who fights against Allah will incur the wrath of Allah the Almighty. My dear Boko Haram; fallen is Northern Region, a region once renowned for its touches for lighting up darkness, now becoming the dwelling place of demons. The sepulchral silence and mourning darkness that has eclipsed Borno State  is so palpably intimidating and frightening. Maiduguri is now the “city of blood”, a beehive of every foul spirit and hateful bird, a citadel of horrendous crimes, evocative of the crimes that led to the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah and the old Roman Empire. Among the sins which led to the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah and the old Roman Empire were great harlotry, unbridled violence, killings of human beings and self-indulgence. However before the terrible punishment could befall Sodom Gomorrah and the Roman Empire the people of God inhabiting those places were told to flee them. In the same fashion, some Northerners including the Northern elites are fleeing the North today to escape the punishments that would descend on the North as a result of your idolatrous absolutism.

My dear Boko Haram; remember that one of the most powerful prayers that Allah answers quickly is the prayer of innocent children. Now the abducted Chibok girls are praying that the blood of children that has been split in the North would come back upon the North so that the North will know no peace and progress until the blood split in the North is avenged. Violence begets violence. Murder begets murder. Abduction begets abduction

Therefore to  avert the incoming wrath, let the abducted Chibok girls regain their freedom forthwith. Then sheath your sword. Put an end to your violence. The obligation to avoid inflicting physical or psychological harm on others is a cardinal ethical principle in Islam. For the Prophet (blessings of Allah and peace be upon him) said, “He who causes harm will be harmed by Allah and he who acts in a hostile manner will be treated in a hostile manner by Allah”( Jami al-Tirmidhi, No. 1306)




It is surprising that in a world where freedom and human rights are held as condiciones sine quibus non  to peaceful co-existence, the war against the person and dignity of women seems to be thriving and annoyingly its  is growing unchecked.

Almost every week we hear of inhumane acts committed against women in the world, ranging from rape, assault, murder,  etc simply because they are women.

Last week Friday there was a shooting rampage in Isla Vista, Calif by Elliot Rodger’s and the reason for this, is his perceived idea that girls reject him. In his words he says:

“I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me but I will punish you all for it,” the killer warned, according to a transcript of his now-removed YouTube video, “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution.” “It’s an injustice, a crime because I don’t know what you don’t see in me, I’m the perfect guy and yet you throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men instead of me, the supreme gentleman. I will punish all of you for it … On the day of retribution, I am going to enter the hottest sorority house at UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up, blond slut I see inside there.”

Also, yesterday a  25 years old Pakistan pregnant woman identified as Farzana Parveen was stoned to death by nearly 20 family members for marrying a man against the families decision.

Arranged marriages is the norm among conservative Pakistanis, and it is on record that  hundreds of women are murdered every year in so-called honor killings carried out by husbands or relatives as a punishment for alleged adultery or other illicit sexual behavior.

Also we know of Meriam Ibrahim who was sentenced to death in Sudan for refusing to denounce her Christian faith. She has been in prison for over 4 months shackled to the floor of a cell.

At the point of her sentence she was  pregnant but she gave birth to a beautiful baby girl yesterday morning.

Back home in Nigeria we are aware of the over 200 secondary school students who were kidnapped last month by Hoko Haram.

These inhumane treatments  infringe on women’s inalienable rights.

We have to shout from the roof tops- both males and females- that women have a

Right to life

Right to religion

Right to marry a husband of their choice

Right of expression

Right to be woman

Right to have children

Which ought to be recognized, respected, protected and defended

We all have to, in our little way to fight for the rights of women, these affected women may not be our mothers and sisters, but if we love and respect our mothers and sisters then we should realize that they are all the same and they too need our love and support.

Martin Luther King Jr once said, “our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter

The war against women matters lets not keep silent.

Late Honourable Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, Nigeria’s Socrates”

justice oputa


By Joshua Nwachukwu

When Hon. Justice Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa died I was shocked, bitter and felt orphaned, because like some of my other role models I never got the chance to see him and express my admiration for him. While Oputa was alive, he eulogised a lot of persons, at his death, I thought who would be worthy of rendering a eulogy worthy of a man of such calibre. It is not an easy task because one cannot write about Justice Oputa without using superlatives.

In the judicial realm, where many people know Justice Oputa from, he was a judicial activist with no fear or favour, neither did he owe any one any apology. In the legal profession he excelled among his peers which earned him the title, Socrates a nickname first given to him by Justice Bello, former Chief Justice of the Federation or as some would prefer Lord Denning of Nigeria, his ratio decidendi and obita dictum were grand, grandiose and grandiloquent, that is why they are widely quoted, notable is in the case of Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos State, where he observed that “the law is no respecter of persons, principalities and powers.”

The title of Socrates was for no reason, he was truly a philosopher, a lover of wisdom, he had an unquenchable hunger for knowledge that is why he studied several disciplines namely economics, history and law, he was nursed in and drank from the fountain of Achimota College, London University and Gray’s Inn, as expected of an intellectual he was a great lover and promoter of good education, this made him despite tight schedules to deliver several lectures  to law students, Catholic students, women, fellow knights, fellow jurists, Old Boys association, Bar Association and lost more.

He was also a great advocate of the return of the legal profession to its glorious days, where lawyers were gentlemen and really learned in history, literature, Latin and philosophy. To him, learning cannot be without literature, because literature is a compendium comprising the literary culture, literary production of the literary professions. As such for one to be truly learned, he/she must be deeply read, erudite, showing profound knowledge of men and events. This was the link with Lord Denning; their judgments always had that human touch of literary excellence and an eloquent display of the mastery of English language.

Also, like the English Master of Rolls, Lord Denning, he put his experience into writing for the use of posterity; his works include Modern Bar Advocacy (1973), The Law and the Twin Pillars of Justice (1981), Human Rights in the Political and Legal Culture of Nigeria (1998), etc.

He was also a personification of human virtues which he lived heroically, notably was his handwork, honesty, transparency and integrity, which enabled him to serve Nigeria in different commissions. He was the Chairman of the Commission of Enquiry into Revenue Collection in the East Central State, he was also Chairman of the Federal Government Enquiry into causes of scarcity of Petroleum Products in Nigeria, he was also a member of the Justice Coker Law Revision Committee, member of the Governing Council of University of Nigeria, Nsukka and obviously chairman of the popular Truth and Reconciliation Committee (Oputa Panel).

As a Catholic, he was not ashamed to practise his religion publicly. He understood perfectly like St. Thomas More the concept of unity of life. His life proved that harmony can exist and should exist between one’s professional, secular and religious duties.

Due to his literary prowess and great oratory he was always invited to give tributes or funeral orations at the grave side of his friends and colleagues. One striking thing in all his tributes I have read so far is his constant repetition that we are all actors, passing actors on an equally passing stage. We act and we fade away. But the important thing is that we should so act, and act so well that our live would be an inspiration, an echo and a light unto all; so that we leave foot prints on the sands of time, footprints that may serve as welcome beacons lights to guide the faltering footsteps of future generations.

Oputa was not Pecksniffian, he lived what he preached, and the tapestry of his life was woven neatly by the words he always repeated at graveside of his friends and colleagues. His corporeal frame is dead, but the example of his long, fruitful life and famous life will not die rather it will continue to echo and be a light of legal pre-eminence.

Oputa shared a special characteristic with God which is; the power to judge. We pray that as he stands in the witness box before the Almighty Judge he may enjoy the gift of Divine Mercy.