ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo brought humour to the 60th birthday celebration of the Olota of Ota, Oba Professor Abdulkabir Obalanlege, as he jokingly promised to attend the monarch’s 70th birthday while asking to be excused from the 80th.

Obasanjo, who is 89, made the remark while speaking in Yoruba at the anniversary celebration held in honour of the traditional ruler.

The former president recalled calling Obalanlege earlier in the morning to pray for him before turning his attention to the monarch’s future milestone birthdays.

“Kabiyesi, I called you this morning and prayed for you,” Obasanjo said.

He then calculated his own age in relation to the monarch’s next major birthday celebrations, telling the gathering that he would be 99 when Obalanlege clocks 70 in 10 years.

“I’m here celebrating your 60th birthday. I’ll join you for your 70th birthday in 10 years,” he said.

However, Obasanjo joked that attending the monarch’s 80th birthday celebration 20 years from now might be beyond his reach.

“But for your 80th birthday, which is 20 years from now, ẹ yonda mi (you’ll excuse me); you’ll celebrate that one the way it pleases you,” he added.

The comment drew laughter from dignitaries, traditional rulers and other guests who gathered to celebrate the Olota’s diamond jubilee.

The celebration also featured a notable display of Yoruba cultural respect when Fuji musician, King Wasiu Ayinde, popularly known as K1 De Ultimate, prostrated fully before Obasanjo after coming on stage.

The gesture further added to the cultural significance of the event held to mark Oba Obalanlege’s 60th birthday.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The judiciary has been thrown into mourning following the death of Hon. Justice Umaru Atu Kalgo, JSC (Rtd.), CON, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and distinguished jurist whose judicial career spanned several decades.

Justice Kalgo reportedly died at about 3:00 a.m. on Tuesday after a prolonged illness.

A resident of Kalgo community, who requested anonymity, said the retired Supreme Court Justice was buried at about 2:30 p.m. in Sokoto in accordance with Islamic rites.

His death marks the end of a distinguished legal career spanning nearly five decades, during which he contributed to legal practice, judicial service, law reform and the development of Nigerian jurisprudence.

Born on May 12, 1937, in Kalgo, present-day Kebbi State, then part of the old North-Western State, Justice Kalgo began his education at Elementary School, Kalgo. He later attended Middle School Sokoto, Middle School Birnin-Kebbi and Government College, Zaria, between 1953 and 1958.

He subsequently pursued legal studies at the Institute of Administration, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria; the Council of Legal Education, London; the College of Law, Holborn, London; and the Nigerian Law School, Lagos. He was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1965.

Justice Kalgo began his public service career as an Administrative Officer in Northern Nigeria before moving into legal practice in government service. Between 1965 and 1972, he served as State Counsel and later rose to become Deputy Solicitor-General of the North-Western State.

His judicial career began in 1974 when he was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Kano and North-Western State. He subsequently served on the Sokoto State High Court Bench.

On January 1, 1981, Justice Kalgo was elevated to the position of Chief Judge of Sokoto State, a position he held until 1988.

In February 1988, he was appointed a Justice of the Court of Appeal, where he continued to contribute to the development of Nigeria’s appellate jurisprudence.

A decade later, on November 25, 1998, Justice Kalgo reached the pinnacle of his judicial career when he was elevated to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

He served on the apex court until his statutory retirement at the age of 70 in May 2007.

During his years on the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court benches, Justice Kalgo delivered and participated in numerous judgments covering constitutional, civil and criminal law. His contributions formed part of the body of judicial precedents that continue to influence Nigerian jurisprudence.

Beyond the courtroom, the late jurist played significant roles in national law reform and constitutional development. He served on the Constitution Review Committee between 1987 and 1988, participated in the Constituent Assembly between 1988 and 1989, and was a member of the Law Revision Committee for the Laws of the Federation in 1990.

His public service therefore extended beyond adjudication to the broader development of Nigeria’s constitutional and legal framework.

Justice Kalgo was also recognised for his contributions to national service and was conferred with the national honour of Commander of the Order of the Niger, CON.

His passing brings to a close the life and career of a jurist whose professional journey took him from public administration and government legal service through the High Court and Court of Appeal to Nigeria’s highest court, leaving behind a significant legacy in the country’s legal and judicial history.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

President Bola Tinubu has filed a challenge in a US court to prevent the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI and DEA from releasing records linked to allegations of drug trafficking.

The records are being sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan, who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against several US government agencies seeking documents relating to investigations involving Tinubu.
Greenspan’s requests include the FBI’s entire file on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records concerning the period between 1992 and 1993.
The case also involves an alleged record connected to a 1993 civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States involving about $460,000 linked to Tinubu.
Tinubu has denied wrongdoing.

According to the 16-page court documents shared with Channels Television by his lawyer and legal team, Christopher W. Carmichael, Victor P. Henderson, and Oluwole O. Afolabi, on Saturday, Tinubu argued that the release of the records could infringe on his privacy.

“Submitted in that proceeding, did not reveal the details of a possible criminal investigation (or its results) involving Intervenor. Other than by speculation or labels, Plaintiff does not point to an existing public record that contains details of a governmental criminal investigation or findings about Intervenor. (DE 85-3, No. 16.)

“The purpose of Plaintiff’s motion is to obtain such information because it is not public. Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument that the limited disclosures in connection with the forfeiture negates all privacy interests is not consistent with precedent. The Supreme Court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest in an entire file or document being produced, even where there are “scattered” disclosures of information from that same file. See Reporters Committee, 489 U.S. at 764-67 (“our cases have recognized the privacy interests inherent in the non-disclosure of certain information even where the information may have been public at one time.”).
“While some information may appear in portions of public records, an individual still retains a privacy interest in the details that remain undisclosed.

Applying Reporter’s Committee, this Court explained that an individual retains a privacy interest even if they were previously publicly associated with criminal activity. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Justice, 898 F.Supp.2d 93, 104-05 (D.D.C. 2012).

“Other decisions have likewise described the fact someone was under investigation as “distinct” from the contents of the investigative files. See Electronic Privacy Info. Center v. United States Dept. of Justice, 18 F.4d 712, 719 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (“Although the names of – 6 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 7 of 16 Trump campaign officials appear in public portions of the Report, they retain a privacy interest in ‘avoiding disclosure of the details of the investigation.’”)
“Regardless of the prior disclosure in the forfeiture proceeding, Intervenor retains a privacy interest in potential disclosure of the investigative files sought by Plaintiff”, the document read in part.

“Plaintiff’s motion critiques the FBI’s search efforts, the DEA’s Vaughn Index, segregability, document specific withholdings, and the applicability of exemptions to deceased individuals and confidential sources. All of Plaintiff’s other critiques should be viewed in the context of Plaintiff’s overarching goal.

“Plaintiff’s filings, overwhelmingly, demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with Intervenor’s “name on them.” (See supra pgs. 1-3, 10, and 11.) Any other issues should – 14 – Case 1:23-cv-01816-BAH Document 98 Filed 08/28/26 Page 15 of 16 not allow Plaintiff to access documents that should otherwise be withheld or redacted under Exemption 7(C) or the Privacy Act.
“If this Court finds that Plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with Intervenor’s “name on them.”
“Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, Intervenor requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allow the redactions or withholdings made by the FBI and DEA to stand”, Tinubu’s legal team further argued.