 You're welcome back. Right now, we're returning to revisit the verdict yesterday in the Supreme Court that declared that President Bola Tingbu is the authentic president of Nigeria, and that is final, because that was the Supreme Court judgment. And we have a legal practitioner who has joined us this morning to look at that verdict, as it were, and the way forward for Nigeria and Nigerians, and also the legal system, if we have the time to cover that as well. Mr. Babatunde, Jinnodu is a legal practitioner who has joined us. Good morning and welcome to the program, Mr. Jinnodu. Thank you. Good morning. Okay. Yesterday was a defining moment. It was a decider for Nigeria, and the president has been affirmed to have been the one that was elected, and he is the president of Nigeria, long and short of it all. I would like to know what you felt about the judgment and all the intricacies behind it. Thank you very much. I will follow in the election petition matter in court from the presidential election tribunal, and then I was opportune to follow the decision or the judgment of the election tribunal at the court of appeal when it was read or televised. I was not expecting anything different to be done by the Supreme Court, considering the surrounding circumstances, because if we look at the history of this country, and they are using the Supreme Court obtaining a presidential election in the history of this country, even in the case of Avulov as a Shagari as old as it was, that even despite the fact that there were glaring circumstances or facts that would have made the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Avulov, because still obeyed the election of Shagari in that case. So now in this instance case of Matikul and Bola-Tinibu at the presidential tribunal at the court of appeal, so we see that the whole thing has been done in a way that it won't allow the court to freely intervene, because one of the things that I've noted is that such cases that is very, very very technical like this and affect the whole country should have been done and decided before swearing in the precedent. So when you've had a presidential election as an office, it has made a lot of decisions that affect the country. Now for you to now come back and reverse such a decision would be very, very difficult. So one of the things that we need to resolve or look at going forward in this country is how to determine election petition tribunal matters, especially the presidential election tribunal matter before the president or whoever Annick has declared the winner is sworn in. So that will enable the court to really do justice. I was discussing with one of my senior colleagues this morning and he was telling me what do I expect? Do you think the Supreme Court judges will obtain the election of President Blame Tinibu that if they do that, that they will not get to their houses? You can imagine. It is very funny, but it is just the truth. But when somebody is not having the mantle of leadership, yet people can look at him straight to the face and tell him the truth and know you are not elected. But now it is difficult to tell Tinibu that the election that brought you in is mad with irregularities with a lot of what do they call it? A lot of irregularities and the rest. So it is very difficult for the judges to do that now. So that's one of the things that I have noted. So I was not expecting something different because of the way the whole thing has been from the beginning. So this is history in Nigeria. So until we have very, very seedless in this country to face the reality, amend the constitution and the Electoral Act again. That's the Electoral Act of 2022. Let us amend it for that. So accommodate the time frame within which the presidential election prison tribunal would attend to the case brought before it. One of our senior advocates of Nigeria, Mr. Bakoba, was talking about how it is possible for this kind of case to be determined within maybe a week. There's nothing too much for such a thing to be done. Fire your briefs and everything. And then the court will look at it. It's not something that you take the 180 days or whatever before they can determine. No. It's something that can be done within and it can be done in other positions of the world. That such a thing will be determined within one week. I think it happened in Kenya or there about. So we need to be seedless in this country to address such a thing and be seedless with it until then we won't get it right. That is just my take, sir. Are you saying that if it were not a presidential election petition, it could have gone somewhere else and not the judgment that we saw yesterday? Well, it is possible. There are a lot of, you should have seen in the history of Nigeria, a lot of election of governors that have been obtained by the tribunal. So it is that one. It's all over the place. Marek Bershola and Oshun State was brought in by the decision of the court. So it has been done. That is the case of Marek Bershola versus O'Yenola. So it has been done in several cases that the court, the tribunal would bring in people that were supported or that were deemed to have won the election. The court would bring them in even though there has been a governor that has been sworn in already. So it is still easier at the stage of the state election. But a federal election that affects the whole country, it is very, very difficult. Somebody is already sworn in as the commander in chief of armed forces. Who has the whole control? He has the whole information about the country. You can't just throw him like that. It's a very sensitive thing. It's a very, very sensitive thing. You can't just throw him out like that because it can lead the country into chaos or unrest. Although it shouldn't anyway, but because some things are not in place. So the best thing that could have been done in such a, let me use the word volatile country like Nigeria, because when the volatile country, anything like this, the country can explode. So in such a, in what could have been done in such a circumstances that before the sworn in date of May 29 quickly conclude the election petition tribunal, even up to the Supreme Court, let them hear it quickly, grant it accelerated hearing. So that it should be concluded within a week or two weeks. Then everybody will know it's our fate. And then we move on. Not when the country, the president is, and even it's not even good for the, for the weather has won the election because it won't even have a free mind or it won't be focused to concentrate on the things that it should do as the president of the country for that period, you know, during which the matter was in the tribunal. So it's a loss to be to be answered. So we need to really deal with some things if we're ready as a country. All right. So in our electionary process, I also listed some things as a solution to the problem we are facing at the moment. And one of these, one of which is what I've mentioned that election pageant should be concluded before swearing in, you know, there's no, and there's a need to amend the constitution to that effect. Because if you don't amend the constitution and you go and do that, it may lead, it will cost another legal chaos and all that. So the country needs to be amended and all the electoral act. So then the issue of electronic transmission of results should not be a secondary source. Like their neck is claiming now, but a primary source. What is the answer of constituting a rave when you know that if you are not going to make it a serious thing to deal with in the first place? And that was the reason why most of we, Nigerian youth, troop out, you know, in our numbers to go and vote because we believe that, oh, we are going to be seeing our results on our screen. But now look at what has happened in the tribunal and even in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court even made mention that the rave, the result on the rave would not have had any influence on the election in the first place. That is the one that was transmitted, the one that was collated, that the court, you know, that there's evidence that the court would deal with. It's not too good. Then why spending millions or why wasting our money on the rave on the transmission of results? Then why did the National Assembly waste a whole lot of sessions discussing, you know, discussing about transmission of results and even some of them were going to toilet and some of them were running away. If you know that you are not going to make use of it or you are not going to reckon, it wouldn't be reckoned with in the first place or the long run. Why did the waste attempt to do that? So the whole thing looks like to me like a fraud by Heineck, not by anybody but by Heineck. Heineck has just defolded Nigerians with what they have done. Why did you tell us that you are going to transmit the election? Why would a transmission be different or not be reckoned with with what was collected? And part of the problem why the Heineck and Nigerians raised the usual of a lottery transmission was because at the coalition centers or at the respective polling units, results are being changed before they get to the Heineck coalition centers in the respective states. You are mentioning some of the things that Heineck has to do and what needs to come into our electoral process. We'll go back to that but now you talked about speeded dispensation of justice, finishing these cases before the swearing in of anybody at all even if it's a councilor, we should finish it before the person is sworn into office because it will make new friends and have so much influence to influence whatever the judgment will be. But it seems as if through the layman's eyes that the legal system in Nigeria is wired in such a way that it is against speedy dispensation of justice especially when it comes to a sensitive case. Yes, someone stole a pot of soup and justice will come swiftly and he's sent to jail for five years but someone who has been seen to have embezzled a lot of money will not go and collect a perpetual injunction that he should not be prosecuted so it delays everything. Like in this case now so many things were delayed until the time frame given for deciding this matter elapsed. So how do you think it will be possible to have these swift cases or to treat these cases as swift as you're talking about before the swearing in of whoever is said to have one? Because I still don't understand why someone will be will be given perpetual injunction not to be investigated if you are a suspect. If you are clean, get investigated and let people get over with it. So why does the court even allow perpetual injunctions or any injunction at all when you can easily just clay yourself? As it is, it is always said that the law is a tool for the rich and then is an axe or an arm to the poor. Now it is not always the case. However, I'm not saying that it is totally a very wrong statement but it is not always the case. There are some circumstances whereby speedy dispersion of justice is achievable and such circumstances are politically expedient matters like this. So in such a matter that you know that it will affect the populace and a lot of faith, you know, future of people are, you know, tied to such matters, it is possible to achieve speedy dispersion of such matters. So however, the other leg of it that you are talking about that some people will go and commit a small crime and they are quickly punished and sentenced around the end. The big man would commit with still public phone and yet he can be in court for years. It is part of the problem of the judicial system that we are facing and that is why we need to make, we need to advance in it and embrace technology. All right, if we look at some jurisdiction for instance, you don't need to go to court physically before you get things done, via Zoom and just like we're having a Zoom interview now and some other platform. Court matters are being, you know, dispensed with, they have been tried, they have been court proceedings have been held on Zoom and other platforms. So thereby leaving out the issue of coming to court in Abuja, traveling to Abuja to go and do a case and all that, except there is a very, very, you know, cogentries to go to go and do a physical session and all that. So those are the things that we need to embrace in this country. Then the issue of long-hand writing by the judges also is another thing that delays matters and all that. So because some judges still do long-hand, they still write, you know, with pen and other, but in legal state for instance, there's been an improvement in the high court system whereby there are people who assist the judge to do the writing and he doesn't do, he or she does not do much writing and all, so it aided speedy dispensation of justice. So however, the fact that a person who is in, who is a big man that has a case in court or a case, an investigation at AFCC as an injunction and all that doesn't mean that the judiciary system is the cost of it. There are some things that even these agencies, they go out of their way, they act in an extrajudicial manner and they need to be courted. Such a person can go to a court and file enforcement of fundamental rights to stop the court from further harassing in Moha and you would agree with me, sir, that in this country some agencies are used as a, as a, as a dog to, you know, to which other people that have, that belongs to other political sects in the country. So that is still happening. So in that, in that circumstance, they also need the court to also come and shield them so that the AFCC or wherever, whichever police or whatever agency or CPC will not continually harass them. So and the court in that instance will not say that they should go, they should not disturb them at all. No, the court will only say if you have a case against this person, file a case against him in court rather than keeping him in detention for so long or beyond the required period of time or rather than harassing him continually and arrest. So that is it. What in this instance case now is a case that affects all of us as a nation that affects our progress as a nation. Just like the case of the, uh, narrowly designed, you all know, you know what happened to that case. We all witness what happened. So the court in that case was like the, the saving grace and imagine if that case had been adjoined till 30 months and people still keep on killing themselves. In fact, if that case had been handled by the Supreme Court on time and judgment given within one week of that policy by the CBN, those that have, those that died in Nigeria wouldn't have died. If the court had quickly within maybe four days, the, you know, the, the, the lawyers filed their complaint to the court, they filed their, their briefs to the court and then the court added the matter and gives a pronouncement within a week or within a few days before people will start going to the street to kill themselves. So these are the things we're talking about, about the essence of speedy, you know, trial or discretion of justice. And look at this present case now, there are some things that could or would have delayed the matter, you know, I'm not part of the, the, the, the lawyers in the matter. Then, uh, the, Tino Buon of the, uh, petitioners, he went to, to get some documents from Chicago State University, which he wants to bring before the court. And that's the, under his due to discourse entirely. So now the Supreme Court would not likely entertain such, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, documents because the court is not acting as a court of first instance. The Supreme Court under section, uh, 232 of the constitution as its original decision, which is between, uh, matters between a state and a state or a state against the federal government. If there's any issue of law or fact that, you know, cause that there's a grievance between a state and the state, an enabled state or any other state and the state against the federal government. That is when the Supreme Court has original decision as the court of first instance, instance. But now when the court is sitting as an appellate court, the court will not listen to separate, you know, another day that you didn't file in from the, uh, from the, from the court of first instance, from the trial court because we're not likely entertaining it. However, there's a place of equity and fairness, you know, and where we, we, then there's another clause in one of our prayers, we normally make in court, we call it the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Then we're trying to invoke the court to enlarge its powers, to look away from laws or whatever, and use its own power, its own conscience to do something. So in that, in that instance, that is where I believe the, the, the, the petitioner was trying to invoke that the court should look, waive anything that any legality and receive this evidence, which is very, very crucial, uh, to this matter. But the court, you know, didn't look at it. Although I've not read the full, uh, an idea. I was not able to, you know, to, to, to, to look at the televised, uh, proceeding or judgment now. But however, I will still go through it. I, I once I get to the office, I will, I will definitely go through it today. And the point is this, the Supreme Court shied away from that document and all that. And that even delayed the process again, going to get fresh evidence. And that's where the issue of prelation, uh, matters comes in. So the court would have rowed in just like it proved in the, uh, in the, in the, uh, court of appeal, that depression, election, pressure, tribunal, that there are some matters that are pre-election matters. So what the court is trying to say is that, come, we go, you can't just come in and wake up and bring anything to the Supreme Court. There's something that should have been dealt with even long ago before you come here. So, but however, my own opinion among the school of thought that, that should not be a clog to doing justice or a kind of, uh, bottleneck to the dispension of justice. That at any point in time, if there's any cogent father can be brought before the court in such a sensitive matter like this, that determine the spiritual of our youth and even our unborn children, then the court should be open to do justice beyond legality and, uh, any other thing. Oh, well, okay. Now that means we know that it is not 100% that nothing can be turned out to the, um, Supreme Court when it comes to sensitive matters or any matter at all. There's still that window, right? I just want to understand that. There's still a window that it's possible that they cannot do something. They should, you see, it depends on our, on our, on our justices of the Supreme Court. There's, there should be a window to allow documents to be brought. But however, the, the, the hazard I can do to the legal profession is that if that is allowed or encouraged, then people would still want to abuse it. So ordinarily, as it is now, there is no window for such, except the court just want to do, use it, uh, the elasticity of its powers to say, okay, we are the Supreme Court and we want to do this. So the court can do it is not, is not, uh, illegal or abnormal, you know, or immoral for the court to do. No, you can, they can take in that evidence of what you call, they can take in the evidence that has brought in. But if the court shows not to take it in, then the court is limiting itself to the constitutional duty given to it. I didn't mean it has been a case between our legal state and the federal government, for instance. Ah, the fact, the case will not even go to the court of appeal in the first place because that's what a case should, should go directly to the Supreme Court. And wish it would not exercise its original jurisdiction as the first court and final court. Do you understand, sir? I do. Okay. Well, so, so, so, so that's just the bottom line of the whole thing. As it is, as it stands now, the Supreme Court cannot just take in fresh evidence and start like a trial court, like a trial court, because the Supreme Court is not in its appellate jurisdiction will not start bringing in, uh, uh, the witness to come and swear, to come and give evidence again. Do you understand? Even considering the number of cases that we have in the Supreme Court, the court does not have time to do all that. So the court on an appellate jurisdiction is just coming to review the trial process that has happened, whether from the trial, the high court down to the court of appeal, or whether from the court of appeal, you know, to the Supreme Court itself. So those are the things that, those are the instances where the Supreme Court would, uh, would only limit itself to the evidence that has been given from the trial court down to it, uh, the Supreme Court, and will not take in fresh evidence. It should just look at, oh, from the fact of this case, and what the trial court judge has done, or what the tribunal has done, is there any miscarriage of justice? So if there's none, the Supreme Court will not look at, it will not even enter, they will try the appeal. So, but in this instance case, Elijah Tsukua-Boga is trying to give the Supreme Court reason to stoke, to look at its side, and, and listen to, and admit the new evidence, you know, but even if we'll come to look at it, I, I, when I read the section 233 of the Constitution, the, the, that section states that the Supreme Court should not have, uh, uh, does not have original position over criminal matters. Although it has been argued that the usual forgery is not, uh, can be, can, can be lacking, cannot be totally lacking to a criminal matter and all that, as, as well as, as it concerns INEC or election matters. However, you know, what some, uh, some lawyers have also argued is that the best Elijah Tsukua-Boga can, at Tsukua-Boga can get is to wait for, if there's any falsification of, uh, you know, resort, uh, certificate, or even, uh, line on hoax, you know, uh, or anything, any false declaration on hoax by, uh, President Palamech, you know, the, the, the only thing Elijah Tsukua-Boga can get is to wait for the next four years when the, the immunity that the president has now would have elapsed, they filed a criminal procedure, they're proceeding against him. But now, assistance, those things are truly could have been dealt with before the, uh, the election. But is that, is that not a problem? Is that not a problem? Because, uh, the next election will happen when the president is still on seat. At least that's what happens. Exactly. Yeah. There's no vacuum. That's, that's one of the, that's one of the, your opening statement was that you, when you're swearing somebody, like we say in Nigeria, I don't untie Gabby that there's no way of removing him. So how can that even work? So then if he, if he contests again, you know, using the same resort and all that, which are still claiming or contesting against it, uh, then it means that, uh, it means that you have to wait for the next, if he secures another election, there is means that you have to wait till the next election because the immunity still spreads beyond four years if he's declared again the winner. So now that, and those are the things, uh, well, for me, this issue of, uh, Bola Metinobu's certificate saga has been run since, I think, uh, uh, uh, is in 2003 or there about when our, our guy, uh, uh, our guy brought it up, raised it and then the whole thing went to court and I don't know how it was, uh, how it was resolved again and the rest. So, but that matter was not concluded anyway then. So the issue of, uh, uh, of Bola Metinobu's new resort and some other things also the certificate and the rest has been known since when we returned to democracy, uh, in 1999, you know, because he was the one that became the governor of Lagos then and those issues have, you know, you know, come up then and he opt in now. So I believe that since 1999, opting now is enough time for, you know, even, even if it has not even happened, look at, um, since, since this election, since February, when the election was conducted, is enough time to have approached the, the, the, the, the court and, and, and, and, and suppin the Chicago State University to, to produce the resort, I mean, the certificate of, uh, Bola Metinobu are not waiting till now so that because when you are coming to the court, you'll be coming with all, all your weapon, all your bullets, but now the, a court has already decided and after then you now still sought to getting an evidence and bringing in and all that. So the court will not really listen to it and take it seriously. So, and those are the things. Well, it shouldn't be anyway, but that is the reason of our justices of the Supreme Court and we can't fault them because they are the final court and they are in full labor. They were still in junctions anyway, even in the US, uh, trying to stop the release of documents and all that and it was delayed until it got to one. It's not even a matter I want to go into right now, but one thing is clear. They need to be reforms in critical sectors, need to be reforms in the judiciary, reforms in INEC and reform even, even the mindset of the people. Let's start with the judiciary. What, what reforms do you think can come into the judiciary and make it better and more efficient? Just briefly, let's roll over these ones so that we can wrap up. Let's start with judiciary, please. Okay. Okay. Now the judiciary, some of the reforms that we have suggested, suggested is that the appointment of judges should be made free from political intervention as best as it could be. Now, when you have a judiciary that the judges, you know, have been appointed by the governors, you can expect them to come in and then see rule against the governor or maybe, and most, most times it is the high court judges that are promoted to this, um, uh, Court of Appeal and then some, if the HCT permits to the Supreme Court. Now, for instance, now imagine some judges that were appointed by President Obama, while he was governor of legal state, you know, within 1999, you know, run through the two terms. Now, if those judges have now risen up to the Supreme Court and air these matter counts before them, if you think that they want to, they want to do many things against their benefactor, you know, they wouldn't want to be, to do such a kind of thing. So those are the things that we need to, to, to, to guide against. The appointment of our judges needs to be politically free. It needs to be free from political intervention. Let it be separating that the National Judicial Council can handle all the state, uh, commissioners as it were. So these are the things that will make the judiciary to be very, very, you know, uh, firm. And then the judges can stand to the truth, regardless of whoever us is God. So those are the things that we need to add, uh, to, to address the appointment of the judges. And then even the, the attitude of will lawyers as well. There are a lot of lawyers that are the, we constitute a clog, you know, in the will of justice. We constitute the bottleneck in the will of justice. And that is why as much as possible, you know, I try to, to be careful, you know, in matters that haven't come before me. That's a matter that, you know, you don't have a course of action. You don't need to start bringing in, you know, legalities. There are, there are matters that will come before me. And I would advise, please, I will advise my clients, let's explore settlement. Let's discuss, you know, because this matter you may not really have. You may have some of us. You also have your thoughts here and there. Look at your thoughts. So, and I would, I would advise that the best thing to do in this instance is to, to, to explore mediation. Let us say, I will come bringing both parties together and discuss settlement and everybody as a win-win and then we are all happy and we go. So, I rather have some, some lawyers will say, okay, I don't worry, we'll be here. I will be filing these motions for you. We'll be here for five years. You know, just like I'm expressing in one of my matters in the court. So, we got judgment against somebody. And yes, the person is trying to bring in an appeal. So, to the glory of God, we're able to, to, to have that appeal, you know, not attended to by the court because we let the court know that this is just an attempt to delay justice. So, these are the things that we lawyers also cause. But it is what it is, lawyers who want to eat. Lawyers who want to take the cases that they have brought before them. But yet, we need reorientation about how we handle matters, you know, and let us take a, you know, clear from other decisions where things work better, you know, that we just go there. And I like what the court has been doing recently by even sanctioning lawyers that bring in frivolous cases and petitions, you know, like, like that. So, we're just trying to cause problem here and there, just like we experienced recently, recently, you know, during the election period, whereby some lawyers are just going to file some frivolous, get some, get some wicked injections to stop some things and cause problems, cause chaos and all that. And those kind of lawyers were sanctioned, and I think, you know, some, some, some months back or some years back. So, those are the things that we need to do. We need to, you know, you need a complete overhauling of the system, policing of the system, you know, within lawyers and within judges. So, that is, as it concerns the judiciary, sir. Yeah. So, what about INEC? Maybe we'll wrap up with INEC. Okay. For INEC, it's just so unfortunate that I, myself personally, am, I am disappointed in INEC. I have to be honest with you. I am disappointed in INEC. The reforms that INEC needs, most of them, they have been submitted to them and they have, and most of them were replicated in the Electoral Act, amendment of 2022, which was just amended by the, the, the, the past National Assembly. Now, if, which was, was all brought in, brought in the innovation of the, the bimodal verification system, the reverse, you know, an accreditation system. Now, if the issue of election tribal transmission, sorry, sorry, electoral transmission of results has been, you know, encouraged by the, the Electoral Act 2022, why did INEC not follow that judiciously? So, those are, there's no need for any, just a matter of seriousness that we need. There's no need to start running out reforms that INEC, INEC, INEC has been constitutionally reformed by the Electoral Act, amendment. Now, it is for INEC to just be serious and do what it owes Nigerians, what it, it constitutionally owes Nigerian people, the Nigerian populace to do, to give us a free and fair election, regardless of whoever is in power or whoever is not in power. Just let us know that my vote, that I went to vote, that I, you know, went to stay in the round, in the sun or in the rain to cast is not useless. That is not too much to ask for. A lot of people were injured on the, in February, you know, during the presidential election, they were injured and yet they still stood and they still risked their lives and what did they get for it? That the transition, that the one they could have trusted, which is one that they would transmit from the polling unit is a second resource. It's not something that should be reckoned with. It's not something that would determine the outcome of the election. You can imagine what the Supreme Court said. That is just it. So it's so, it's so, it's so terrible and terrifying that, you know, INEC did this to Nigerians. So there's really no refund that I would just suggest that INEC should act within the Electoral Act and the Constitution and give Nigerians a free and fair election, obey the directive of the, of the Electoral Act as regards electronic transmission of results. Don't make it an option or a secondary thing because that is the only thing that can make a election fair and fair. Not when somebody has gone to change the results in the paper and then come to the TV to start announcing a coalition. No. Let us know our results even before, before we have the election collated. Let us know what this World A, in this local government, the result of the APC, the result of PDP, the result of Labour Party and the rest. Now that the government starts waiting for somebody to start explaining three days on the television to start reading out. No. When 2023, we should, we should have gone beyond all this. Fine. I know everything has its own advantage that is advantage. You can talk of the issue of the electronic system being prone to hacking and the rest. But this in this Nigeria, how are the decisions doing it? As United States doing it. You can do it. You can ensure that we put a system in place that will be free from, or at least, if reasonable, so this will be free from anything that can come back, that can flood the system. And we can have this transmitted electronically. It's the best. And until we get that, my brother will not have a good, a free and fair election. That is the only thing that can restore sanity and sanctity in the Electoral, in INIC, and even the Electoral process generally. Okay. I would like to thank you for coming on the show this morning and helping us make sense to the topic we're discussing. Well, we congratulate the president, President Bola Tinugu, over the victory. And we look forward to a very fulfilling four years for Nigeria and Nigerians. Thank you to you and happy weekend. Thank you, sir. We've been talking with Babatunde, you know, do a legal practitioner. He joined us to talk about the victory, election victory of President Bola Akme Tinugu yesterday at the Supreme Court. So we sit back and this is time to build Nigeria as a group. All of us have a stake in Nigeria and we should do our bit wherever we find ourselves to make sure that Nigeria becomes a better place than it is now. Even better than we remember it to be when we bit our chest and called it the giant of Africa. It will take all of us to be able to make it work and become that once more. Like they say, a child is a product of the community. And it takes a whole community to train a child. It will take all of us to make Nigeria what we want it to be. That El Dorado is in our palm hands. So this is how we are going to wrap up on the show this morning. I'd like to say thank you to you on behalf of the entire crew of Breakfast on Plus TV Africa. My name is Yamgul Akge. Have a lovely weekend. Let's do it again on Monday.