Atiku Bagudu Is The Problem Not The Samoa Deal

By Lanre Adewole

YAKUBU Chonoko Maikyau, Silk and President of the Nigerian Bar, days back, leapt into the defence of his client and long-standing friend, Minister of Budget and Economic Planning, Atiku Bagudu over the LGBTQ question in the controversial $150 billion European Union loan package, better known as the Samoa Agreement. The Bar leader confirmed he was contracted by his minister-friend to vet the deal before Bagudu signed on behalf of Nigeria.
Maikyau may be using the NBA platform but his close association with Bagudu dates to the governorship years of the ex-Abacha fixer, when the now-senior lawyer, a minority from the famed Zuru Emirate was up-and-coming in the legal community. Despite his people being allegedly the most-marginalised in Kebbi State, Maikyau has somehow sustained his bond with Bagudu, a blue blood of the ruling Muslim/Fulani North, constantly accused of oppressive attitudes towards other ethnic groupings, particularly minority Christians up North.

Their long-running bromance should be a confirmation that friendship could trump ethnic primordial, especially one founded on true brotherhood but it beggars belief that a supposed purist in Chonoko, who endlessly heckles any semblance of wrongdoings, would keep years-long cuddle of Bagudu, a self-confessed fixer who on record, forfeited $160 million plus deportation to Nigeria, to avoid jail term in the US. Chonoko’s puritanical activism should not be on convenience basis, railing when an unloved is involved and hailing when a sweetheart is devolving. That is crass opportunism and hypocrisy.

At the Federal Executive Council meeting on Wednesday, the official scamper to salvage the Samoa debacle was in full throttle. The summary of the deliberation claimed that the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, backed Chonoko’s claim that nothing in the Agreement was expressive enough to suggest support for the “rainbow” community. As a team, the collective support of all FEC members, is given but the earlier position of the country’s number one legal officer was that he had not read the Agreement. That revelation by the gentleman showed the Samoa package didn’t pass through his office and table, despite the age-long wisdom of past administrations vetting practically all legal businesses through the office.

By Chonoko’s admission, Bagudu favoured his opinion and that of his “friends” within NBA, over and above the office and man, vested with the constitutional responsibilities of saving Nigeria’s face, legally, when the chips are down. Bagudu likely snorted at due process of doing governments business, because he knows the President is fond of him.

If the President of the country, would pause an appointment because a minister isn’t happy, despite the President having the power to hire even without the recommendation of the minister, then that minister must indeed, be special. That is what is currently playing out between Mr. President and the Minister over a pending appointment and the orbit of the President is seething because of the unusual deference. Maybe it is all about 2027. But what is Bagudu’s political weight in a state where after serving two terms as governor, he was trounced in a mere senatorial race by a spent-force former governor. But the President may be seeing what isn’t obvious to outsiders.

At the FEC meeting, there was no rebuke for Bagudu for side-stepping due process, to land the Agreement in deeper mess than whatever damage Daily Trust media and its alleged ethnic and religious collaborators and champions have allegedly done to it. The NBA president and his lawyer-friends vetting the Agreement, isn’t even the problem. Since Oputa panel, the legal capacity of Maikyau, had been noted by close watchers. Even the former Ekiti AG, Wale Fapohunda, SAN, has got some pedigree, minus his relational issues. But whatever the duo did on the Agreement couldn’t have been sufficient to come to that good-to-go conclusion. The Ministry of Justice, no doubt, has greater human and jurisprudential resources and capacity for deeper insight.

It would be silly for anyone to be simplistic with an agenda as frayed as LGBTQ when the western promoters are unrelenting, in their desire to railroad Africa into it. The simple fact that the issue was a central theme of the initial Agreement is the red flag on the original intent of those who packaged the Samoa deal. How on earth would anyone think the promoters would just literally hand over the cash and walk away empty-handed on their gay desire, because “some African and European countries protested the inclusion of the LGBTQ term”. Of course, it has been tagged as the “s3xual and reproductive equality” provision in the Agreement. At least to be on the safe side, in vetting the Agreement before signing, language experts should have been involved, for a better judgement. Chonoko and Fapohunda never said they hired one. Maybe the Justice ministry, as a government agency and not a pressure group, would have been able to access such expert opinions without paying a dime through inter-ministerial cooperation. But Bagudu appears to love “consulting” and it has to stay in “family” and with “friends”.

It is very obvious the Tinubu administration is desperate to save the deal, using legal calisthenics. While jurisprudential gymnastics won’t wish away the original intendment of EU and the certain future pressure on benefitting African countries to enforce “gender and sexual” equality, at least a second legal opinion should not hurt the pride of the administration beyond the current face-saving panic.

That is why I will be inviting those with clearer heads in the administration to consider the legal opinion of the National Association of Catholic lawyers, Lagos chapter, though its conclusion may not sync with the desire of the central government. The intervention is reproduced here;

“We, National Association of Catholic lawyers, Lagos Chapter, after meticulously and carefully going through the Samoa Agreement signed by Nigeria of 28th June 2024 unequivocally faults the signing and state as follows:

*That articles 2.(5), 29.(5), 36.(2), 88, 97 of Samoa Agreement are in fragrant violation of section 14 (1) (2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution, Same-S3x Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2014 and Articles 2, 8, 17, 18, 28, 29 of the African Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights (Ratification Enforcement) Act, CAP 10 which have been become part and parcel of the Nigerian law.

“That the notion of “gender equality” contained in the Samoa Agreement is a Trojan horse for deceptively legalizing LGBT, same-sex marriage, sexual orientation and abortion in countries.

“That the word “gender” is now given social construct, not biological construct. “Gender” connotes homosexuality, lesbianism, transgenderism and abortion. “S3x” means Male and Female. Gender means Male, Female, LGBT and transgenderism and abortion,

“This is why section 42 (1) of the Nigerian Constitution talks about “s3x” and not “gender”. “S3x” means “male” or “female” whereas “gender” connotes homos3xuality, lesbianism, transgenderism and abortion. Section 42 (1) of the 1999 Constitution stipulates that no citizen of Nigeria should be discriminated against on grounds of his or her s3x, ethnic group, place of origin, religion or political opinion. Nothing can be more apt than this. The section protects all women and men from discrimination on ground on their s3x, ethnic group, place of origin, religion or political opinion.

*Article 29 (5) of Samoa Agreement states:

“The Parties shall support universal access to s3xual and reproductive health commodities and healthcare services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.”

“S3xual and Reproductive health commodities, health care services and reproductive programmes” are nothing but euphemisms for abortion, abortifacients, LGBT services and education, teaching African kids masturbation, erection, touching in each other’s genitals etc in the name of Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE)

*Article 36. (1) of Samoa Agreement states

“The parties acknowledge that gender equality and women’s economic empowerment are essential and achievable…”

Article 36.(2) states:

“The Parties commit to the full and effective implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the outcomes of their review conferences and commit to s3xual and reproductive health and rights, in that context”.

“The EU on June 22 2022 defined this phrase to encompass LGBT, sexual orientation and gender identity

“S3xual and reproductive health and rights” also means the rights of individuals to have their sexual orientation and gender identity fully respected

EU countries have a nefarious agenda behind the language referring to the outcome documents of the review conferences of ICPD and Beijing. Finally, an advocacy manual funded by the Netherlands reveals this agenda in the following excerpt:

Outcomes of the review conferences: Both the International Conference for Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action and the Beijing Platform for Action have had regional review conferences where progress on implementing these agreements at the regional level was discussed. Importantly, the outcome documents of these review conferences are usually more progressive than those that come out of New York and Geneva, and have even included references to human rights, s3xual rights, LGBT rights, safe abortion, and other ‘sensitive’ S3xual reproductive human right issues.

Including a reference to the outcomes of these review conferences (or any other more progressive process) means that member states accept these outcomes, and therefore also the progressive language within them. For this reason, it is often difficult to keep these references in an outcome document.” (Choice for Youth & S3xuality, “The Advocate’s Guide to UN Language”)

So, any references to outcome documents of review conferences of ICPD and Beijing are intended to encompass the controversial regional and thematic reviews that were not negotiated by all UN Member States, and which openly promote CSE, abortion and the LGBT agenda. Certainly, this would indicate that such phrases should be avoided or heavily caveated as indicated in this section

*Article 97 of Samoa Agreement states:

“No treaty, convention, agreement or arrangement of any kind between one or more-member States of European and one or more OACPS Members shall impede the implementation of this Agreement”.

This is the supremacy Clause, meaning that the Agreement is superior to any treaty, convention or further agreement.

The Samoa Agreement violates Nigeria’s sovereignty. No provision for reservation

The Agreement makes African countries accountable to the EU

The Samoa Agreement has no Interpretation Section. This is why Namibia refused to sign it

The Agreement creates a “Council of Ministers” co-chaired by the EU which has power to make binding legal decisions that directly affect impact laws and policies of the 48 African countries

The Agreement referenced “human rights” 100 times without defining any of them

The explanation given by the Nigerian government for signing the Samoa Agreement is fundamentally flawed. Nigerian Minister of information published a commentary justifying the signing but chose deliberately not to publish the declaration that accompanied the signing. Contrary to the view of the Minister, Articles 2.(5), 29.(5), 36.(2), 88, 97 of Samoa Agreement are in fragrant violation of section 14 (1) (2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution, Same-S3x Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2014 and Articles 2, 8, 17, 18, 28, 29 of the African Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights (Ratification Enforcement) Act, CAP 10 which have been become part and parcel of the Nigerian law.

He who asserts must prove. If the Minister is asserting that the copy of the Samoa Agreement signed by the Nigerian government does not contain the aforesaid offensive Articles, he should bring it and show it to the public to see.

Nigeria should withdraw her signature from Samoa Agreement; or insist that a *PROVISO CLAUSE* be inserted into the Agreement to the effect that “Nothing or no term in the Agreement shall be construed as promoting LGBT, same-s3x marriage, Comprehensive S3xuality Education, abortion, transgenderism, sex education in schools in the countries that signed the Agreement”

Nigeria is a sovereign country, as are other African nations, the Caribbean, and the Pacific countries. We should not be dictated to by the European Union. We are no long under the tutelage of our former colonial masters. If the European Union decides to stop providing financial assistance to Nigeria due to our refusal to sign the LGBT agreement, so be it.

However, we cannot yield to the European Union’s cheap blackmail and sign the agreement.

We know Nigeria was under pressure from the very beginning to sign the Samoa Agreement, that pressure is from European Union. But we cannot compromise our philosophical and cultural heritage.