A rejoinder to Dr Muiz Banire, SAN: Setting the record straight – Dr. Muiz Banire

A week ago, I published a piece in this column titled, “In Defense of Akande, Osoba and My Role as Advocate in the Lagos Assembly Case( See my column in the Daily Sun of 6th March 2025 https://thesun.ng/in-defence-of-akande-osoba-and-my-role-as-advocate-in-lagos-assembly-case/ )”. Purportedly in response to the said intervention, De Renaissance Patriots Foundation, on Monday the 10th of March, 2025 in a widely publicized reaction on social media, joined issues with me on the subject.

Ordinarily, I do not dignify such interventions that are based on no premise or evidence but conjectures with responses, but for the fact that the issues involved affect innocent third parties and also put, not only my integrity in question but also the credibility of the column. In addition, generally I do not engage my elders on the pages of newspapers or any other media nor do I trade words with them except where warranted by truly setting the record straight. It is in this context that I am constrained to make some factual disclosures of what transpired in the meetings leading up to the botched reconciliation.

Unlike in the account given by the group, this is an eye witness account which is the best evidence at all times. Let me warn ahead that I am even still not making full disclosures as information in this regard is on a need-to-know basis. I know that generally, Nigerians are heartless and have no conscience, but I chose to be an exception. It is in this context that I am relating the following information on what transpired in the reconciliatory process. By way of recall, I had, in the last column, categorically stated that the two elder statesmen, Chief Bisi Akande and Aremo Olusegun Osoba, neither volunteered to be partakers in the resolution of the conflict, nor were they recruited by the President to execute the assignment. As I correctly stated in the last conversation, they were sought after by Lagos stakeholders, largely populated by Lagos indigenes. I do not intend to bore you with further details again. Secondly, that the duo never came with a solution but sought the guidance and prognosis from the Lagos stakeholders.

Essentially, therefore, I had taken the posture that at no point, to my knowledge,did the duo compromise the interest of Lagos indigenes. My thesis in the referenced intervention was simply that despite the intervention of the duo, Lagos indigenes’ interests constituted the fulcrum of their focus. As part of my disclosure, the conclusion reached, consequent upon the various deliberations, is to have the two contending Speakers resign seriallywhile paving way for another member to emerge as Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, preferably an indigene. This was the arrangement before the belligerency of the now ‘re-elected’Speaker, Mudashiru Obasa.

The implementation of the arrangement was to be triggered with the withdrawal of the suit filed by Mudashiru Obasa. As at the point of departure, both parties had tendered their resignation letters to different personalities, which for security reasons, permit me to outstep.

These were conclusions reached over that weekend with the withdrawal of the suit expected to take place during the week, not later than the Friday of the week when the suit was to come up. Few days after the truce, we will all recall that,rather than the suit being discontinued, what was witnessed was the ‘invasion’ of the House of Assembly by the then embattled Speaker, Mudashiru Obasa.

That event, on its own, was demoralizing for the team that had worked for almost a month to reach that point. It was a big blow and major setback to the resolution of the crisis. Notwithstanding the aberration, the team was still hopeful until a truce was purportedly reached by the members of the House independent of the elder statesmen as well as even the legal team of the aggrieved members. That ‘ugly’ truce ultimately led to the honest resignation of the Honourable Speaker Miranda, while the ‘reelected’ Speaker emerged. What follows subsequently is now history but suffice to state that at no time nor point did the duo of Akande and Osoba demand the resignation of the then Speaker Miranda. The resignation requested then was to meet the political exigency of zoning and no more, and it was to affect both contenders. No doubt, there is anelement of betrayal and dishonesty in the execution process. This is rather shameful but certainly not the handwork of the two elder statesmen that were equally embarrassed and humiliated by the development. My contention, therefore, in the lastedition of this column is that we do not continue to kick a dead dog.

Certainly, whoever is treacherous in the circumstances will surely earn the repercussions at the end of the journey. Nemesis will certainly one day catch up with such a felon. If a person thinks that he can exploit the system in such a manner and escape, he must be clowning. The truth is that no empire or dynasty lasts forever. Eeyan kan o de le lo ile aiye gbo, as the office always survives the occupier. The ‘reelected’ Speaker can continue in office till eternity if he cares, but the reality, by way of admonition, isthat it is always best to leave the stage when the ovation is loudest. I have gone this far in response to the first query of my Lagos indigenous elders, essentially denouncing the assertion that it was the scheme or decision of the duo of Chief Bisi Akande and Aremo Osoba that forced the resignation of Miranda as Speaker in order to reinstate Mudashiru Obasa.
Far from it I say! It is indeed the decision of the membersof the House, definitely after their wills, I presume, must have been sapped, and possibly the GAC, the latter of which I cannot confirm. I was part of that process and I am here speaking categorically as to the correct version of the state of affairs. Thus, there is no misrepresentation of facts in this, and whichever source a contrary opinion emanates from, cannot be true. I challenge such source to openly come out to deny my position.

Furthermore, I never said that Miranda was asked to resign while Obasa was to bereinstated. This is a clear misquote of my position for which I shelve any demand for apology as the authors are my elders, I presume. The truth remains that if what eventually transpired deviated from the position of the duo, the blame cannot be laid at their doorsteps. The scenario I suspect my people are avoiding is that captured in the Yoruba proverb that tiowo eni o ba i tii te eeku ida, a kii beere iku t’o pa baba eni which literally translates to mean when you’re not armed with the handle of the sword in your hands, you do not seek to avenge the death of your father. The indigenous interest is under severe pressures from all burners. As I remarked above, the two contenders were meant to resign, and indeed resigned. It is simply that Obasa is now playing smart and nothing else. Even, if as reputed in the public space that the President is his fortress, I believe that as a good disciple, he must avoid any act or omission capable of dressing the President in a wrong garb or robe. A well-groomed disciple watches out for the interest of his boss and acts accordingly. He must never put, nor tempt his leader to be in a precarious position. His continuous intransigence is suggestive of different postures and interpretations.

The kind of confidence he exhumes or radiates on the outcome of the pending suit, and the insistence on continuing the suit despite the re-election, smack of discomfort and suggest volumes. It is a pregnant act. Just as I was about reacting to this rejoinder, the social media was agog with stories of confirmed judicial victory, targeted at neutralizing his initial removal and erasing the history of Meranda ever being Speaker. The truthor otherwise of this I cannot confirm but suffice to say that, eni aiye n ye ko rora, nitori pe ile n yo. The matter is sub judice and therefore I am unable to comment further.
All I can say is, we wait to see! As for the composition of the GAC alluded to, I was just being conservative with the proportion or percentage of eighty percent, it is actually more than ninety percent, most of whom are supposedly persons of substance and influence. If therefore they allowed themselves to be subdued by the minority, who is to be blamed? Chief Akande or Aremo Osoba? I cannot even find any reason for their being subdued, at least at the meeting I witnessed. Cowards die many times before their deaths but the valiant never tastes of death but once, so says Shakespeare. While this is generally applicable, in this instance, we are talking about a sizeable number of indigenes in the said GAC being over seventy years in age. What is left to be afraid of? Whether you speak the truth or not, you will ultimately die. Why not speak the truth at once. I am certainly not persuaded by the insinuation of their being subdued.

We can tell that to the birds. My expectationis that the bunch are truly those that should be called out and not the innocent mediators. On the Central Mosque issue addressed in the rejoinder, I will refrain from being provoked to trade words with the Lagos elders. I am not too sure they truly appreciate the import of my submission in that regard. All I solicited for is that they take preemptive step in abating the crisis. This calls for no drawing of daggers. It is simply either we are concerned, or indifferent. No more. I believe the authors are allowing their emotions to becloud objectivity in the discourse. All I can say here is that I wish the group well.
Finally, I seem to have been justified that the authors are oblivious of the occurrences surrounding the subject matter when theyfailed to appreciate the role I am playing in the present litigation, which certainly is not different from what is being advocated in the rejoinder. As I opinedearlier, in the defence of my indigeneship, I am not too sure that the Lagos elders are suggesting that Imisrepresent facts and cease to be courageous to tell the truth. I believe an average indigene is a man of integrity who, in the midst of adversity, will not only speak his mind, but the truth. This much I owe our forefathers and the unborn generations. I have refused to derail from this ideal. If my intervention is seen as offensive to the interest of the indigenes, that will be quite unfortunate but the truth remains constant. In all the averments in the rejoinder, I have not seen any shred of evidence, nor eye-witness account referred to, hence the canvassed positions are largely speculative and disturbing. My counsel to our elders is that we must refrain from asserting that which we do not have any evidence to back up. On the way forward, I absolutely share your sentiment and position. If anything, the Lagos indigenes must be watchful of, it is the ongoing legal tussle vis-a-vis that abrupt indefinite adjournment by Obasa, appearing to be a dangerous coincidence, and nothing more! The future will bear this out! I am glad that the authors appreciate that I do not run away from struggles, and Lagos indigenous struggle is no exception. I still remain my humble self doggedly believing in the protection of the Lagos indigenous interests. It may well be that my way and means do not align with the group. This is regrettable.Approaches can always differ, but assuredly, we are together is the struggle. In our struggle, I believe, integrity must remain our watchword and we must always be circumspect of fifth columnists.