News
UNN Faculty of Law Leaves Over 70 Graduates in Limbo, Prioritizes 2022 Finalists for Law School Admission

UNN Faculty of Law Leaves Over 70 Graduates in Limbo, Prioritizes 2022 Finalists for Law School Admission
By: Michael Mike
The Faculty of Law at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), has announced that some of its 2021 graduates will not be attending Law School, despite their legitimate qualifications.
Out of the 217 graduates from the 2021 Law Class who were cleared of any outstanding issues and officially graduated in November 2022, only 147 have been selected to proceed to the Nigerian Law School.
The decision to leave about 70 legitimate graduates behind has sparked outrage as the faculty intends to give preference to 73 members of the newly graduated 2022 final year class, who just defended their undergraduate projects two weeks ago. This 2021 class was originally set to graduate in 2021, but due to incessant strikes, their graduation was delayed to November 2022, resulting in a prolonged study period of 6+ years for a degree that should take 5 years.
Following the conclusion of the 2022 ASUU strike that lasted from February to October, the faculty rushed the 2021 graduates to complete their degree program in a little over one month to meet the Law School’s resumption dates in January 2023. Despite the tight timeline, the faculty failed to prepare the results of the 2021 Law Class for Law School on time.
Adding to the controversy, rumours circulate that an administrative waiver might allow the 2022 law class, who just finished their exams in July 2023, to gain priority admission to the Law School, leaving legitimate graduates waiting for another year without any proper explanation.
The impact of this decision has been devastating for the affected students. With no guarantee of admission in the future and their dreams of attending Law School shattered, they are left in a state of limbo. Additionally, many of these graduates are ineligible for the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) program, which further jeopardizes their career prospects.
One of the reasons behind this controversial decision is the administrative waiver that will allow the 2022 law class, who recently finished their exams in July, to secure priority slots for Law School admission. This move has raised questions about fairness and the lack of communication from the faculty towards the affected graduates.
The consequences of this decision are far-reaching. Students who have already spent six to seven years pursuing their law degrees are now at risk of losing another year, with no guarantee of admission to Law School in the future. Furthermore, these graduates are ineligible for the Nigerian Law School due to not having first-class or second-class upper degrees and may have to forego pursuing their careers as lawyers entirely.
The faculty’s criteria for selecting 73 students from the 2022 finalists, out of a class of over 340 students, remain unclear, leaving many in the dark about their fate. Graduates with extra years of study are also deeply affected, as they find themselves excluded from Law School despite meeting the quota expected by the Nigerian Law School.
In response to this situation, concerned individuals and alumni have called for equitable treatment, emphasizing that priority should be given to the first in time, and that students who have graduated with second-class lower degrees have successfully excelled at the Nigerian Law School in the past.
As of now, about 70 law graduates remain displaced from attending the Nigerian Law School, and the faculty has provided no explanation for this decision or any reassurance regarding future opportunities.
The Faculty of Law’s actions have stirred unrest and raised serious questions about fairness and transparency in the selection process for Law School admission. Graduates and supporters are urging the university’s administration to reconsider this divisive decision and provide a clear plan for addressing the concerns of the affected graduates.
The fallout from this controversy has the potential to create further chaos within the Faculty of Law at UNN, with many anxiously awaiting resolution and accountability from the authorities involved.
UNN Faculty of Law Leaves Over 70 Graduates in Limbo, Prioritizes 2022 Finalists for Law School Admission
Crime
Troops neutralise three terrorist kingpins in Sokoto ambush

Troops neutralise three terrorist kingpins in Sokoto ambush
By: Zagazola Makama
Troops of Operation FANSAN YAMMA (OPFY) have neutralised three notorious terrorist kingpins during a successful ambush operation in Sabon Birni Local Government Area (LGA) of Sokoto State.
Zagazola Makama report that the operation was conducted on July 25 between Mallamawa and Mazau villages in the Tsamaye/Mai Lalle District of the LGA.
During the operation, the troops neutralised the terrorists identified as Kachalla Nagomma, Gurmu and Ali Yar Daribiyar, and recovered three AK-47 rifles with magazines and a motorcycle.

Sources told Zagazola that the terrorists and their foot soldiers were in the area to collect ransom and illegal levies imposed on residents when they were ambushed by the troops.
The source said the operation has triggered widespread relief and jubilation among residents of Mai Lalle, Tsamaye, Rimaye and nearby communities across Sabon Birni and Goronyo LGAs.
“These terrorists have long tormented the communities with killings, kidnappings and extortion, so this success is a huge morale boost for the people,” the source added.
The troops have continued to intensify kinetic and non-kinetic efforts in synergy with other security agencies and local vigilante groups.
The military has urged members of the public to continue providing credible and timely information to assist the troops in sustaining momentum against criminal elements.
Troops neutralise three terrorist kingpins in Sokoto ambush
News
Amnesty International must stop defending dangerous falsehoods in the name of free speech

Amnesty International must stop defending dangerous falsehoods in the name of free speech
By: Zagazola Makama
Once again, Amnesty International has taken a predictable but deeply troubling stance, this time, condemning the lawful detention of a social media influencer, Ghali Isma’il, who is facing charges over a false and provocative video announcing the death of Nigeria’s sitting President. In its hasty and one-sided statement, Amnesty labeled the Department of State Services’ (DSS) action as “a clear demonstration of abuse of power.” This knee-jerk condemnation reeks not only of bias but of a dangerous disregard for the responsibility that comes with free speech.
It’s important to remember that the Nigerian authorities are acting within the bounds of the law. Ghali Isma’il appeared before a competent magistrate and is being tried for spreading false information an issue of concern to public safety and stability. The viral video claiming the President’s death by poisoning, however unfounded and provocative, point to the need for responsible speech, especially in a period when misinformation can quickly escalate tensions or cause panic.
Let’s be clear: no one is above the law. Isma’il was not whisked away to a secret cell. He was arraigned before a competent magistrate court in Abuja and is being tried according to the laws of the land. The charges spreading false information with intent to cause public alarm and inciting disaffection against the government are not political fabrications.
They are legitimate concerns, especially when tied to a video falsely claiming that President Bola Tinubu had died after being poisoned, and presented with an air of certainty that could spark panic in a country already battling complex security and economic challenges.
If this is what Amnesty International classifies as “freedom of expression,” then the organization must clarify where it draws the line between speech and sabotage. Are we now to accept that individuals can publish death hoaxes about national leaders and peddle wild, fabricated conspiracy theories under the guise of digital activism? Would Amnesty extend this same compassion if the target were a leader in Europe or America?
Is it truly free speech when falsehoods threaten public order or incite unrest? Would Amnesty International hold the same stance if similar misinformation targeted leaders in other parts of the world? These are complex issues with no easy answers, but it is crucial that we weigh the right to expression against the potential harm caused by reckless or deliberately false content.
Let us also not forget that this is not Ghali Isma’il’s first brush with dangerous disinformation. He has repeatedly posted bizarre claims including that former U.S. President Donald Trump was compelling Nigeria to repatriate terrorists into the country and quoting the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Yusuf Tugger, who never mentioned such in his interview. Yusuf said they are ex- convict from Venezuela but Ismail, said they are “Terrorists” . When does free speech become reckless speech? When does falsehood become a threat to national peace and cohesion? This calls for a measured discussion on when speech crosses into dangerous territory especially when it influences public perception and stability.
Moreover, one must ask: where was Amnesty International when ISWAP terrorists released gruesome videos of mass executions? Where was Amnesty when bandits kidnapped and murdered citizens or when IPOB loyalists torched police stations and killed security personnel? The silence or muted response from Amnesty International in those cases raises questions about consistency and priorities. Their silence in the face of these atrocities is deafening. Yet, whenever the Nigerian state acts to preserve order and prevent chaos, Amnesty rushes in with a press release always siding with the provocateur.
Ultimately, the right to free speech must be exercised responsibly. Supporting lawful limits when speech could threaten national peace isn’t a contradiction to human rights but a recognition of their importance in a complex society.
Amnesty International faces an important question: will it stand as a defender of genuine human rights and democratic stability, or does it risk becoming a platform that inadvertently enables disinformation that jeopardizes it?
This double standard is becoming increasingly apparent to Nigerians. The right to free speech must be protected, yes but it must also be exercised with responsibility. Defending lies that threaten national unity under the cloak of human rights advocacy is not activism; it is sabotage.
Amnesty International must decide: is it here to protect Nigeria’s democracy or to shield those who exploit social media to endanger it?
Zagazola Makama is a Counter Insurgency Expert and Security Analyst in the Lake Chad Region
Amnesty International must stop defending dangerous falsehoods in the name of free speech
News
Abuja property mogul raises alarm over FCTA’s MoU with developers

Abuja property mogul raises alarm over FCTA’s MoU with developers
By: Michael Mike
Managing Director, Abuja Technology Village Free Zone Company Limited, Yohana Dyelkop has raised an alarm over a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) purportedly signed by the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) and some property developers.
The businessman, who expressed this concern at a news conference on Saturday in Abuja, said he was worried by media reports about the said land development MoU.
He said media reports recently indicated that the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory had sealed an agreement with some local and foreign investors to develop 200 hectares of land in the Abuja Technology Village.
According to him, the reports specifically allege that the MoU has purportedly been signed between FCTA and two organisations, Mag International Links Limited and the National Agency for Science and Technology (NASENI).
Dyelkop said that government’s genuine efforts to attract foreign investment, especially property developers, was commendable but it was expedient to clarify that Abuja Technology Village has numerous plots across various districts.
He warned that his properties: Plots 22 and 23, C17 Industrial Area 2, Pyakasa Village, Airport Road, are located within the area earmarked for the allocation.
“Unless the MoU explicitly excludes these plots, any agreement covering them would be unlawful,” he stressed.
Dyelkop warned that the prospective developers should steer clear of his land as they are subjects of ongoing litigation, adding that cases of land grabbing and encroachment were rampant in the FCT.
According to him, his company has officially written to the parties involved expressing its concern about the MoU, warning them and the prospective investors to steer clear of his properties and avoid possible contempt of court.
“We are concerned about news reports regarding an MoU between the entities and the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) for the purpose of land development.
“Specifically, Plots 22 and 23, C17 Industrial Area 2, Pyakasa Village, Airport Road, are subject to ongoing litigation, with the Hon. Minister as a defendant.
“All parties have been served with a court order, and unless the MoU explicitly excludes these plots, any agreement covering them would be unlawful,” he added.
The real estate mogul, who is also the National Chairman of a political group, “Better Opportunities With Tinubu (BOWT) 2027, called for caution and respect for the rule of law to avoid denting President Bola Tinubu’s image.
Abuja property mogul raises alarm over FCTA’s MoU with developers
-
News1 year ago
Roger Federer’s Shock as DNA Results Reveal Myla and Charlene Are Not His Biological Children
-
Opinions3 years ago
THE PLIGHT OF FARIDA
-
Opinions4 years ago
POLICE CHARGE ROOMS, A MINTING PRESS
-
News1 year ago
EYN: Rev. Billi, Distortion of History, and The Living Tamarind Tree
-
Columns1 year ago
Army University Biu: There is certain interest, but certainly not from Borno.
-
ACADEMICS1 year ago
A History of Biu” (2015) and The Lingering Bura-Pabir Question (1)
-
Opinions1 year ago
Tinubu,Shettima: The epidemic of economic, insecurity in Nigeria
-
Politics2 months ago
2027: Why Hon. Midala Balami Must Go, as Youths in Hawul and Asikira/Uba Federal Constituency Reject ₦500,000 as Sallah Gift