Nigeria has lost one of its foremost nationalists and elder statesmen, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, who passed away peacefully at the age of 96.

The leader of the Pan-Yoruba socio-cultural group, Afenifere, breathed his last on the morning of Friday, February 14, 2025, at his residence in Lekki, Lagos State.

His family confirmed the news in a statement, expressing gratitude for his long life dedicated to the service of God, the nation, and humanity.

“With a heart full of gratitude for a selfless life spent in the service of God, the nation, and humanity, we announce the passing on of our beloved patriarch, Chief Samuel Ayodele Adebanjo. He died peacefully this morning at his Lekki, Lagos home at the age of 96,” the statement read.

The revered elder statesman is survived by his 94-year-old wife, Chief Christy Ayo-Adebanjo, as well as children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

His family described him as a tireless advocate for truth, equity, and justice, noting that he remained committed to the struggle for a truly independent and progressive Nigeria until his final moments.

Plans for his funeral are currently being discussed with friends, associates, and various interest groups across Nigeria and beyond.

The family assured that details of a befitting burial would be announced in due course.

A condolence register has been opened at his residence in Lekki and his country home in Isanya Ogbo, near Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State.

Born on April 10, 1928, in Isanya Ogbo, Ogun State, Adebanjo was a lawyer, journalist, and nationalist who played a significant role in Nigeria’s political evolution.

He initially pursued journalism before traveling to the United Kingdom to study law. He was called to the English Bar in 1961.

His political journey began in 1943 when he joined the nationalist movement as a Zikist, following the ideology of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe.

However, by 1951, he had aligned himself with the Action Group’s youth wing and became a close disciple of Chief Obafemi Awolowo.

Throughout his life, Adebanjo remained a vocal advocate for good governance and democracy.

In the 2023 presidential election, he and Afenifere openly supported Peter Obi of the Labour Party, reinforcing his lifelong commitment to justice and fairness in Nigerian politics.

Chief Ayo Adebanjo’s passing marks the end of an era, leaving behind a legacy of courage, activism, and unwavering dedication to the Nigerian cause.

The National Assembly has passed the 2025 Appropriation Bill, approving a total budget of ₦54.99 trillion to fund government activities for the fiscal year.

The budget, titled A Bill for an Act to Authorize the Issue from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation, was approved following extensive deliberations on its allocations and potential impact on economic growth, debt servicing, and infrastructure development.

Announcing the breakdown, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, who also serves as Chairman of the National Assembly, provided the key figures:

• Statutory Transfers – ₦3.65 trillion
• Debt Servicing – ₦14.32 trillion
• Recurrent (Non-Debt) Expenditure – ₦13.06 trillion
• Capital Expenditure – ₦23.96 trillion

The largest allocation, ₦23.96 trillion, is directed toward capital expenditure, covering infrastructure, healthcare, education, and security.

However, the allocation of ₦14.32 trillion for debt servicing has raised concerns over the country’s growing debt burden and its long-term financial sustainability.

The Enugu State House of Assembly has passed a motion urging security agencies, particularly the Nigerian Police and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), to stop the indiscriminate and random searches of individuals’ mobile phones in the state.

The motion, sponsored by Rt. Hon. Chima Obieze and co-sponsored by Hon. Okechukwu Mbah, Hon. Iloabuchi Aniagu, Hon. Engr. Amuka Williams, Hon. Jane Eneh, Hon. Osita Okoh, Hon. Chukwuma Ekwueme, and Hon. Johnson Ani, highlighted the growing violation of citizens’ privacy rights by security operatives.

According to Obieze, the practice directly contravenes Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy, stating that:

“The privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected.”

He also pointed out that both the Police Act and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act set legal boundaries on searches and seizures, emphasizing that:

“It is thrice important that even in the enforcement of laws, the rights and dignity of citizens are not only observed but adequately protected.”

Obieze further referenced Section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2011, which prohibits unauthorized access to personal information, stating that:

“A public institution shall not disclose personal information about an individual… unless the disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal obligation… or with the consent of the individual.”

Additionally, he cited Section 19 of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, which makes unauthorized access to computer systems or networks—including mobile phones—an offense:

“A person who intentionally accesses a computer system or network without authorization… commits an offense.”

The lawmaker emphasized that:

“The Police Act and the Nigeria Police Force Regulations do not explicitly authorize the police to invade citizens’ privacy by searching their phones without a warrant or consent.”

He also clarified that while the EFCC Act empowers the Commission to investigate economic and financial crimes, it does not provide blanket authority to violate citizens’ privacy outside legal procedures.

Obieze stressed the need for professionalism and civility among security operatives, stating that:

“While we commend the efforts of our law enforcement agents in the state, it is equally important that we insist that they employ the highest level of professionalism and civility in carrying out their duties. The fundamental rights of our citizens and constituents must be ranked first. No citizen deserves to be humiliated, intimidated, or brutalized in the name of law enforcement without a reasonable and traceable point that they have directly or indirectly been part of a criminal activity.”

The lawmakers, after deliberation, approved the following resolutions:

1. Call on the Nigerian Police, Enugu State Command, the EFCC Enugu Zonal Office, and all other security agencies in the state to immediately desist from the random and indiscriminate searching of individuals’ phones.
2. Direct the Enugu State Commissioner of Police to educate and sensitize his officers on the need to respect citizens’ right to privacy.
3. Call on civil society organizations, human rights groups, and the Enugu State Executive Council to establish mechanisms that support victims of privacy violations and ensure that citizens’ rights are protected.

Seventy-six years after the brutal killing of 21 coal miners in Enugu by their British employers, families of the deceased have taken legal action, seeking justice and compensation for the atrocities committed against them.

The suit, filed at the Enugu State High Court, names the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), the British Government, the Federal Government of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, and the Head of the Commonwealth as respondents.

The 21 unarmed coal miners were killed in 1949 at the Iva Valley Coal Mine after British Superintendent of Police F.S. Philip allegedly ordered officers—both British and Nigerian—to open fire on them for protesting poor working conditions.

Mazi Greg Nwachukwu Onoh, acting on behalf of the families and dependents of the slain miners, instituted the case based on the court’s approval under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009.

The plaintiff argued that the colonial police’s use of deadly force against peaceful, unarmed miners was a severe violation of their right to life under both domestic and international laws in place at the time.

He further described the killings as “an egregious act of state-sanctioned murder, extrajudicial killing, and a flagrant abuse of human rights.”

According to him, the massacre was not only unlawful but also a disproportionate response to a legitimate industrial action.

He maintained that the use of state force to silence labour grievances constituted torture and inhuman treatment, which was prohibited by British colonial laws at the time.

The families, in suit No. E/909/2024 before Justice O.O. Onovo, are demanding:

• A formal acknowledgment of liability by the respondents for the unlawful execution of the 21 coal miners.
• An official apology from the British Government for the extrajudicial killings.
• Comprehensive compensation for the families and dependents of the deceased miners.
• A judicial declaration that the massacre was a gross violation of the right to life and an abuse of state power.
• A binding order compelling the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to engage diplomatically with the British Government to secure justice, in line with the Magna Carta 1215 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

When the case came up in court on Thursday, it was observed that none of the respondents had filed a response.

Consequently, the Counsel to the Federal Government requested more time to prepare their defense.

Justice Onovo adjourned the matter to April 15, 2025, for a definitive hearing.

Speaking to reporters, Counsel to the Applicants, Professor Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), described the case as a landmark legal battle aimed at holding both the British Government and Nigerian authorities accountable for their failure to deliver justice for one of the worst massacres in colonial African history.

“The outcome will be a defining precedent in post-colonial justice, state liability for extrajudicial killings, and the enforcement of fundamental human rights violations,” he said.

When asked why it had taken so long for the families to seek justice, he noted that they may not have been properly advised or ready to pursue legal action earlier.

“It is not about how long but how well. When it comes to the right to life, there is no prescription time.

“Unfortunately, maybe the families were not well advised or aware of their rights, and I also understand that efforts were made at a point, but they were abandoned along the line. But now, some persuasive advocates have decided that it is about time to remedy this injustice.

“I think the time has come for the British and Federal Governments of Nigeria and all who are on the side of humanity to respond to the cry for remediation of the families and relations of these deceased miners. That is why we are in court,” he said.

He emphasized the sacredness of human life, insisting that no authority has the right to take it without due process of law.

The Magistrate Court in Ado-Ekiti, the capital of Ekiti State, has struck out the defamation case filed against lawyer and activist Dele Farotimi by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Aare Afe Babalola.

Farotimi was arrested on December 3, 2024, in Lagos by operatives of the Ekiti State Police Command following allegations that he defamed Babalola.

The case stemmed from a 14-count charge accusing Farotimi of defaming the renowned lawyer and founder of Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti (ABUAD), in his book Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System.

In the book, Farotimi alleged that Babalola influenced the Supreme Court to secure a fraudulent judgment in favor of his clients.

During the hearing, the prosecution, led by Mr. Martins A. Akala, sought the court’s permission to withdraw the charges against Farotimi, stating that the directive to do so came from police authorities.

The defence team, led by Adejare Kembi, did not oppose the prosecution’s request to discontinue the case.

After hearing from both sides, Magistrate Abayomi Adeosun ruled in favor of the prosecution’s application and subsequently struck out the case.