Ogbuku Receives Award Of Excellence For Commitment To Gender Equality
Bayelsa Starlets Academy Knows NLO League One Opponents
… Yenagoa Picked As NLO League One Centre
Bayelsa Starlets Football Academy, affiliated to FC Barcelona of Spain,will battle thirteen teams across the South South region in the Yenagoa centre in the Nationwide League One.
Starlets who took part in the just concluded Bayelsa United/Prosperity Cup pre-season tournament have been in an intensive preparation engaging in quality friendly matches ahead of the NLO Season.
According to a release by the league body, five Yenagoa-based sides will go head to head with each other in the Yenagoa centre with the rest of the teams coming from Rivers, Delta, Edo and Akwa Ibom State.
The five Bayelsa-based sides are 2026 Prosperity Cup semi finalists, Mountain of the Lord Deliverance Ministry (MLDM FC), Bayelsa United Feeders, AJ Inter Soccer FA , Bayelsa Football Academy and Bayelsa Starlets Academy.
Other participating teams in the centre include; Winsome Feeders FC of Delta, Benedi United FC of Rivers, Dolphin ACA FC Rivers, Impact YWAM FC, Rivers Obago FC of Rivers, Iwere FC Delta, Junosa FC Edo State and Uchenna Kanu Football Academy of Akwa-Ibom State.
The NLO will commence on Saturday, 15th August, 2026 at the Samson Siasia Stadium, Yenagoa.
Reacting to the development, Deputy Director General of the Prosperity Cup, Mr. Perela Aboro remarked that the competition would provide another platform for the lads to showcase their potentials.
Aboro, who noted that the NLO continues to be a key component of Nigeria’s football calendar, serving as a pathway to domestic leagues, national teams, and European opportunities expressed confidence that the lads would give all the teams in the group a run for their money due to the team’s level of preparation.
Mr. Aboro asserted that NLO has become more attractive to high-net-worth individuals and businesses seeking prestige, maintaining that the league has become a launchpad for the development of players.
”I am happy that the NLO will be starting on the 15th of August, 2026. As you are aware, the NLO is a league that provides opportunity to give young players the platform for greatness” he stated
”For Bayelsa Starlets, I am confident that the lads will put up a very good display because the team is blessed with an abundance of talents and experienced technical adviser, Edema Fuludu, Mr Aboro added.
Also Assistant Coach, Freeborn Onome said the just concluded Bayelsa United/Prosperity Cup pre- season tournament has shown what they intend to face when the league commences, stressing that the technical crew was leaving nothing to chance ensuring that the lads compete favourably with their peers.
Exercise Your Civic Responsibility, NDDC Urges UNIUYO Students
Clearing Misconception about the Jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court over Human Trafficking- Fatai Abiodun Esq
Fatai Abiodun Esq
Recently, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Jos Judicial Division, presided over by Hon. Justice Ibrahim Galadima, convicted Victoria Ugwu, Rita Agboeze (Satty) and Prophetess Glory Nwachukwu for trafficking children and sentenced them to two years’ imprisonment and ₦250,000 fine each.
This is not the first time the Industrial Court would be sentencing a convict on a human trafficking offence. In Attorney-General of the Federation v. Magnus Iheanacho Suit No. NICN/ABJ/162/2013. Magnus Iheanacho was prosecuted over the taking of a 12-year-old girl, Eucharia Uka, from her parents under the pretext that she would assist in caring for children in his household. The original prosecution had commenced before the Federal High Court, but the matter was transferred to the National Industrial Court on 23 May 2013 pursuant to an order of Justice A. Abdu-Kafarati, of blessed memory, in light of the jurisdictional position at the time. Justice Lifu subsequently heard the matter at the NICN. Justice Lifu expressly connected the case to the constitutional jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court. In discussing the child abuse involved, he referred to section 254C(1)(i) and (5) of the Constitution, observing that the sexual abuse constituted child abuse criminalised by the constitutional framework and the convict was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
In Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Ogierakhi Joyce Amenze (a.k.a. Mama Blossom), Suit No. NICN/BEN/1C/2021, Justice Adunola Adewemimo of the National Industrial Court, Benin Division, convicted the defendant for trafficking-related offences. The case involved the recruitment of adult women for prostitution in South Africa.
Similarly, in FRN v. Fatima Joy Odiri Joseph, NICN/BEN/1C/2022, the defendant, Fatima Joseph, was prosecuted by NAPTIP for trafficking two 14-year-old girls from Benin City to Burkina Faso for prostitution. The prosecution’s case was that she recruited the two girls of 14 years old in Benin City and facilitated their movement to her brother in Burkina Faso, where they were to be sexually exploited. This places the case squarely within the protective purpose of the trafficking legislation and the constitutional concern with child abuse and human trafficking.
However, following the recent convictions of Victoria Ugwu, Rita Agboeze (Satty) and Prophetess Glory Nwachukwu in Jos Division, there appears to be a misconception among some members of the legal profession that the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, being principally associated with labour and employment disputes, lacks jurisdiction to try offences of human trafficking. This position overlooks the constitutional transformation of the Court’s jurisdiction by the Third Alteration to the 1999 Constitution.
I had this argument with a colleague of mine in law School when he posited that the National Industrial Court is a labour court with only civil jurisdiction. I quickly drew his attention to the Constitutional provision that grants the court criminal jurisdiction, with the understanding that few universities in Nigeria offer Labour law as a course in the Law faculty. This has a significant impact on the issue of understanding of NICN under the current dispensation. The first point of contact for many lawyers on issues bordering on trafficking is the Federal High Court without looking attentively to the issues as to the fact of the case. The Third Alteration to the Constitution became a game changer. Special thanks to the founding fathers.
The father of the modern National Industrial Court, Justice Babatunde Adejumo (Rtd) posited that the jurisdiction of the modern NICN cannot be determined solely by reference to its historical identity as a labour court or by the pre-Third Alteration limitations of the National Industrial Court Act. Justice Adejumo succinctly stated that where the Constitution expressly places matters such as child labour, child abuse and human trafficking within section 254C(1)(i), and section 254C(5) expressly confers criminal jurisdiction in causes and matters arising from the constitutionally assigned subject matters, the Court possesses the constitutional competence to exercise that jurisdiction, subject always to the particular charge falling within the prescribed constitutional subject matter.
The President of the National Industrial Court, Justice Benedict Kanyip posited that the Court’s jurisdiction should be determined by the subject matter of the dispute, rather than mechanically asking whether there is a conventional employer–employee contract. Justice Kanyip’s broader approach to section 254C supports the proposition that the provision must be read according to its actual constitutional language, rather than according to the historical name of the Court.
It is important to state that Section 254C(1)(i) expressly confers jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court in matters “connected with or related to child labour, child abuse, human trafficking or any matter connected therewith or related thereto.”
Human trafficking is therefore not merely an incidental matter to labour disputes but an expressly recognised head of the Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. The recent decision in The People of Plateau State v. Victoria Ugwu demonstrates this position, as the Court upheld its jurisdiction to entertain a charge of human trafficking under section 13 of the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015.
In Mr. Afamefuna Nwankwo v. Onitsha South Transport Company Ltd & Ors, Suit No. NICN/EN/23/2020, judgment delivered 6 August 2024, Justice Oluwakayode Arowosegbe gave a broad interpretation of the constitutional transformation brought about by the Third Alteration. His Lordship observed that the NICN’s jurisdiction is not confined to conventional employer-versus-employee disputes. In discussing the constitutional provisions, Justice Arowosegbe stated that the inclusion of child labour, child abuse and human trafficking in section 254C(1)(i) demonstrates the expansive character of the jurisdiction conferred on the NICN by the Third Alteration Act.
However, the decision in The People of Plateau State v. Rita Agboeze (Satty) equally demonstrates that the constitutional jurisdiction should not be interpreted as conferring unlimited criminal jurisdiction over every offence created by the TIPPEA Act. The proper approach is to examine the precise offence charged and determine whether it falls within the subject matter expressly assigned to the National Industrial Court by section 254C. The debate, therefore, is not whether the National Industrial Court is a “labour court” incapable of trying criminal offences, but whether the particular criminal charge falls within the constitutional boundaries of its jurisdiction.
In The People of Plateau State v. Victoria Ugwu, NICN/JOS/CR/2/2025, the defence relied on section 36(1) of the TIPPEA Act, arguing that jurisdiction over offences under the Act was vested in the High Court. It therefore contended that bringing the human-trafficking charge before the NICN was improper. The Court held that once human trafficking is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of section 254C(1)(i), section 254C(5) supplies the constitutional basis for the Court’s criminal jurisdiction over that subject matter. His Lordship’s conclusion was unequivocal: “Human trafficking, particularly where children are involved, falls squarely within the constitutional remit of this Court.”
Justice Galadima did not treat trafficking simply as the physical movement of a person from one place to another. His Lordship’s approach identifies three broad components: an act – recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt; a prohibited means – threat, force, coercion, deception, abuse of power or payment; and an exploitative purpose – the intention that the person be exploited.
Justice Galadima rejected the proposition that “If the parents voluntarily gave the child away, there cannot be trafficking.” His lordship’s reasoning was that consent obtained through deception does not legitimise the underlying fraudulent conduct. The fact that a parent physically hands over a child voluntarily does not necessarily eliminate trafficking where the consent was induced by deception. This position is potentially an important precedent for future child-trafficking prosecutions.
In conclusion, the proposition that the National Industrial Court is merely a “labour court” incapable of trying human-trafficking offences is no longer sustainable when measured against the constitutional text, the judicial history of the Court and its developing jurisprudence. The more accurate legal question is not whether the NICN is a labour court, but whether the particular criminal charge falls within the subject-matter jurisdiction expressly conferred upon the Court by section 254C of the Constitution. On that formulation, human trafficking occupies a unique position because the Constitution itself expressly names it as a matter within the Court’s jurisdiction.
Fatai Abiodun Esq
A Legal Practitioner; Constitutional and Developmental Law Researcher writes from Abuja.
fatai.abiodun200709@gmail.com
NDDC Equips Akwa Ibom Women For Entrepreneurship
NDDC Empowers Women To Build Wealth With Skills, Entrepreneurship
Come To Niger Delta, NDDC Boss Urges Investors
Gov Diri Raises Scrabble Classic Prize Money
NDDC To Sustain Women’s Economic Empowerment
Nigeria, AfDB Push for African Control of Mineral Wealth: can a Unified African Framework Emerge?
By Fatai Abiodun Esq
According to the report posted by Thisday[1], Nigeria and the African Development Bank (AfDB) have renewed calls for African countries to take greater control of the continent’s vast mineral resources through local value addition, regional cooperation, strategic financing and ownership of mineral data to ensure that Africa derives greater economic benefits from its natural wealth.
The call was made at the Ministerial Forum on Critical Minerals, Value Chain and Beneficiation: Pathways for African Transformation, held under the auspices of the AfDB in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, where Nigeria’s Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dr Dele Alake, urged African mineral-producing nations to abandon isolated national approaches and embrace regional collaboration to unlock the full economic potential of the continent’s mineral resources.
Alake stressed that while the campaign for local beneficiation had opened new opportunities for economic independence, African nations must now develop practical strategies that would enable them to take full control of their mineral assets.
The above demand exposes the dichotomy between the Global South and Global North classification. Under International Development Law, the Global South-Global North binary serves an indispensable critical function by exposing enduring structures of colonial and economic domination. Yet as feminist, postcolonial, and decolonial scholars demonstrate, the binary also risks essentializing identities, obscuring internal inequalities, and reproducing the hierarchies it seeks to challenge.[2]
Nigeria and the African Development Bank (AfDB )’s renewed call for African countries to take greater control of the continent’s vast mineral resources is in line with the demand for a new binding protocol to the African Charter that would declare “extractive dependency” a violation of the right to development and require African states to adopt a unified bargaining framework.
This is not the first time a call of this nature would come to existence; Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana)[3] was perhaps the strongest advocate of African political and economic unity. Kwame, under his famous work, Africa Must Unite, argued that Africa would never achieve genuine development if individual states remained economically dependent on former colonial powers.
Kwame advocated for the creation of a United States of Africa, a common industrial policy, African ownership of natural resources, Continental economic planning and Rejection of neo-colonial economic structures.[4]
Julius Nyerere (Tanzania) believed African countries were too small individually to compete globally. He promoted regional integration, self-reliance, African socialism (Ujamaa), and industrial cooperation. He argued that exporting raw materials while importing finished products kept Africa permanently poor.[5]
Adebayo Adedeji[6] was a Nigerian economist, academic, and statesman whose work helped shape African development policy in the late twentieth century. Adedeji is best known for serving as Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) from 1975 to 1991, where he became a leading advocate for African economic integration and self-directed development strategies, arguing for development approaches tailored to African conditions rather than relying exclusively on externally designed structural adjustment programs. His ideas significantly influenced debates on economic policy across the continent.
One of the foremost Professors of law, Prof. Ahmed Garba, during one of his classes in International Developmental Law, advocated for home-grown solutions and opined that Africa should develop its own standards for the governance, extraction, processing, and commercialisation of its natural resources because externally imposed standards have often failed to reflect the continent’s unique developmental priorities and socioeconomic realities.
No doubt that Africa’s underdevelopment resulted largely from centuries of exploitation and unequal integration into the global economy. It is important to emphasise that exporting raw materials while importing manufactured goods entrenched dependency and was in violation of the right to development.
Drawing on critical legal scholarship on neocolonialism, dependency theory advocate Samir Amin, and post-colonial international law expert, Chimni’s work on Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), there is a need to interrogate whether the new scramble represents a rupture from or a continuity of the 19th-century colonial scramble.[7]
While Alake and AfDB call for a unified framework for African countries to take greater control of the continent’s vast mineral resources is in order, the question is whether a unified African legal framework for resource governance could emerge under the Africa Mineral Strategy Group (AMSG), and the Africa Minerals Development Centre (AMDC), or do the structural asymmetries of global capital and geopolitics could render such efforts futile?
Also, how should a decolonial theory of international development law reconceptualise “sovereignty over natural resources” (UNGA Resolution 1803) in an era of extractive dependency and Great Power rivalry?
From the perspective of dependency theorists such as Samir Amin, the Lobito Corridor and TAZARA rehabilitation largely reproduce the structural features of the nineteenth-century colonial economy. Its apposite to stress that the original colonial scramble for Africa had three defining characteristics: extraction of raw materials for external markets, Construction of infrastructure designed primarily for export, and the Integration of African economies into unequal global value chains.[8]
TWAIL scholars such as B. S. Chimni had argued that formal colonialism has been replaced by structures of informal empire mediated through international economic law. The mechanisms have changed: investment treaties, Sovereign debt arrangements, Trade rules, Development finance institutions and Global supply-chain governance.
From this perspective, the new scramble is not territorial conquest but regulatory and economic control through legal instruments that constrain policy space and preserve asymmetrical bargaining power. The question becomes not who owns the territory but who controls mineral licensing, pricing, technology, financing, and dispute settlement.
The existence of the African Development Bank (AfDB), the African Union and the African Continental Free Trade Area creates institutional possibilities unavailable during colonial rule. The problem is not the absence of agency but whether African states can collectively exercise it.
The big question is, can a Unified African Framework Emerge?
The answer depends on whether Africa can overcome collective-action problems. This means that Africa’s ability to develop a common and effective strategy for managing its mineral wealth depends on whether African countries can work together instead of pursuing narrow national interests. Collective-action problems arise when countries have shared objectives but fail to cooperate because each prioritises its own immediate interests over the long-term collective benefit.
However, the proposed framework recognises that achieving unity is challenging because African countries differ in political priorities, economic development levels, governance capacity, legal frameworks, infrastructure, and short-term national interests. Some governments may prioritise attracting immediate foreign investment over long-term regional goals, while others may resist sharing strategic information or coordinating industrial policies.[9]
In conclusion, a unified African framework would enable countries to coordinate policies on local value addition, regional cooperation, strategic financing, and ownership of mineral data, thereby strengthening Africa’s bargaining power, promoting industrialisation, retaining more value within the continent, creating employment, and ensuring that Africa derives sustainable and equitable economic benefits from its natural resources.
While achieving continent-wide consensus may be challenging, the absence of unanimous agreement should not prevent progress. African states that are willing and prepared to pursue deeper economic integration, harmonised mineral policies, and common development standards should take the lead in forming a coalition of committed partners. Such a coalition can serve as a practical demonstration of the benefits of regional cooperation by promoting local value addition, coordinated industrialisation, and stronger bargaining power in global markets.
As these pioneering states begin to realise tangible economic gains such as increased investment, job creation, technology transfer, and higher revenues from processed mineral exports, other African countries are likely to recognise the advantages of participation and voluntarily align with the initiative. This gradual, example-driven approach reflects the principle of “variable geometry” in regional integration, whereby progress is led by willing members without being delayed by those not yet prepared to participate.
Ultimately, successful cooperation among a core group of states can create the momentum necessary for broader continental unity and advance Africa’s collective right to development.
Fatai Abiodun is a Lawyer, Developmental Law Researcher and Public Affairs Analyst
fatai.abiodun200709@gmail.com
08072464004
References
[1] https://www.thisdaylive.com/2026/07/27/nigeria-afdb-push-african-control-of-mineral-wealth-local-value-addition/
[2] The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Framework Document paras 39–56.
[3] Nkrumah K, Africa Must Unite (Heinemann 1963).
[4] ibid
[5] Nyerere JK, Freedom and Unity/Uhuru na Umoja (Oxford University Press 1966).
[6] Adedeji A, African Alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment Programmes for Socio-Economic Recovery and Transformation (AAF-SAP) (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa 1989).
[7] Carlos Lopes, Africa in Transformation: Economic Development in the Age of Doubt (Palgrave Macmillan 2019).
[8] Ake C, Democracy and Development in Africa (Brookings Institution Press 1996).
[9] ibid

