Naijacomedy: A legit ingenious and traditional entrepreneurial laughter within the digital ecosystems and jurisprudence

 

https://doi.org/10.20935/AL4113 

Nollywood, the Nigerian audiovisual industry is among the world’s biggest film industries currently. Globally, Hollywood of the United States and Bollywood of India occupy the first and second position hierarchically in terms of cinematic impact. One of the derivatives creations of the classical Nollywood is the birth of a subset industry-comedic, which this paper refers to as Naijacomedy. This short paper seeks to analyze the intersection of a strong copyright regime and indigenous creativity using traditional and ingenious Nigerian comedy, that began initially from a place of sheer recreation and entertainment but has become a niche entrepreneurial brand as a focal take-off point in the discussion on an African creative industry.

Introduction

Nollywood filmmakers in the beginning of the millennium produced blockbuster comedy-themed movies.[1] Commercially this genre of movies became successful and well received by the public.[2] Most of the actors with comedic skills that acted in Nollywood films started solo careers in stand-up comedy and later developed DVD production of their stand-up comedy.[3] Mainstream Nollywood industry created a platform for Naija[4] comedians (Nigerian comedians) to show case their talents commercially.[5] Naijacomedy has developed into a stand-alone Nigerian cultural entertainment industry.[6]

Nollywood, for example, propelled the comedic career of Nkem Owoh.  He is one of Nollywood’s renowned comedians, who had a role in Rattlesnake, an early (classic) Nollywood film.  Nkem Owoh later veered into stand-alone comedy films like, the blockbuster Osuofia in London.[7] Nigerians received the stand-alone comedy films with enthusiasm and this genre gained popularity within diaspora audiences outside Nigeria.[8] Naija comedy sketches mostly rely on traditional folklore, current affairs, and gossip about Nigerian entertainment celebrities and public figures.[9] These comedians generally perform in Nigerian Pidgin English, an indigenous form of Nigerian spoken English.[10]

Naijacomedy Threads Nollywood’s Path

The Nigerian comedy industry initially adopted the straight-to-video (STV) format like mainstream Nollywood industry in its distribution methods but quickly switched to online and other digital forms of distribution.[11] The STV format of distribution exposed Naija comedy’s creative works to audiovisual piracy.[12]  Just like in the early days of Nollywood films, pirates openly hawked on the streets unauthorized copies of Naija comedy audiovisual works and streamed online-unauthorized contents of comedy sketches.[13]

Some comedians learnt from the endemic piracy associated with the informal distribution system in Nollywood and switched to theatrical distribution in the form of live stand-up performances.[14] The theatrical live performances did not improve the negative impact of the piracy of Naija comedy sketches, as several bootlegged copies of the stand-up performances showed up on the streets.[15] Film pirates took advantage of Nigeria’s lax copyright enforcement regime.[16] Nigerian copyright law does not protect Naija comedy performances effectively from unauthorized reproduction and distribution of its work.[17]

A common phenomenon in Naija comedy is the incident of direct or indirect copying of comic works by other comedians.[18] Most comedians reproduce comic acts of others without proper license and attributions.[19] Cases of copyright infringement of Nigerian comedy are ubiquitous. For example, Nigerian comedians often reproduce Akpos, a popular urban metaphor for wittiness in their comic act without attribution.[20] The actual originator and proprietary owner of the Akpos brand of comedy is unclear.[21]

Akpos sketch of comedies seems to derive its origin from indigenous culture and folklore of southern Nigerian communities.[22] However, where a comedian creates an original act from an Akpos themed- sketch, such derivative work on its own may be copyrightable.[23] On a recent visit to Nigeria, I watched a comedic performance of a well-received Akpos sketch.  Thereafter, other comedians performed an unauthorized version of same Akpos sketches without modification as if it belonged to the public domain.[24] The unauthorized comedic sketch later floods the Internet without the permission of the original creator of that derivate.[25]

How Nigerian Copyright Protects Comedy

The Nigerian copyright law protects comedy as an artistic work and probably as a performance and audiovisual/cinematographic works.[26] Naija comedy stand-up sketches in audiovisual forms enjoy copyright protection as cinematographic works.[27] Under the Nigerian copyright law, a comedy should be

[f]ixed in any definite medium of expression now known or later to be developed from which it can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated either directly or with the aid of any machine or devices...[28]

for it to be eligible for copyright protection.[29] Therefore, if Naija comedians spent effort to make an original joke or comedy, copyright will avail the work.[30] The prevailing copyright originality standard in Nigeria is the sweat of the brow doctrine.[31]

Naija comedy online, memes, and other forms of digital-cultural arts are generally in few words, short digital-doctored graphics or short phrases.[32] Short phrases and single words generally lack the originality elements to secure copyright protection.[33] Therefore, traditional copyright may not avail the new forms of tech-savvy creators of cultural and indigenous digital literary works of authorship.[34] Generally, copyright does not protect short phrases or few words except the expression qualifies for an original authorship.[35] Trademarks may protect certain distinctive phrases and short words.[36] However, the focus of this paper is about copyright regimes.[37]

No More A Laughing Matter

Legal scholars have debated the effectiveness of copyright law in protecting comedic works and doubt its economic benefits in protecting creativity.[38] These scholars claim that the high cost of a lawsuit for copyright infringement for an emerging comedian makes it counterproductive.[39] Some scholars suggest industry norms and codes as cost effective way of enforcing comedic copyright.[40] In Naija,  a comedian can license his rights to a copyright management organization (CMO) to enforce copyrights on her behalf. Such CMO can lessen the financial burden of private lawsuits.

The emergence of digital production of comedy on social media and the Internet has increased revenue for owners of websites but left the comedy creators shortchanged.[41] Nigerian comedians have continued creating works despite joke theft and the lack of an effective legal regime.[42]  In the developed comedy industries, the entrenched community norm regulating joke theft has enabled an economically successful comedy industry.[43]

The U.S. comedy industry has instituted social norm systems that prohibits comedians from publicly performing stand-up jokes or sketches, which belongs to others.[44] It is doubtful in the era of digital distribution of visual content on the Internet how effective the norms of the U.S. comedy industry can protect infringement of comedic works outside the geographic jurisdiction of the United States.[45]

Further, most copyright scholars contend that copyright fails to protect comedy because of the influence of idea-expression dichotomy doctrine.[46] Since copyright protects expressions of ideas, it is difficult to protect jokes that are mostly idea centered.[47] The core of this argument is that the expressions of a comedy are limited.[48] The protection of ideas with limited means of expression contradicts the fundamental essence of copyright.[49] Therefore, Is Naija comedic expressions limited? This author avers that the Naijacomedy and comedians have creative and limitless means of expressing their craft judging from the contents available online.

Nigerian comedians have expressed concerns about the high rate of unauthorized performance of their comedic acts online and in live stand-up performances.[50] Naija comedy without legal protection may capitulate under the weight of copyright infringement.  For example, Atunyota Akporobomerere known with the stage name Alibaba, one of Nigeria’s foremost comedians of the Nollywood era emotionally appealed to the former Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan on national television for government intervention to save the comedy industry from copyright pirates.[51]

The amendment processes of the Nigerian copyright laws have commenced and the critical stages of Two-readings of the different versions of Copyright Amendment Bills before the Nigerian National Assembly is concluded.[52] The proposed new Nigerian copyright laws have not catered for comedy in any specialized way within its provisions. However, as a creative work comedy is statutorily copyrightable.[53]

Comedic Creativity in the Nigerian Digital Space

Contemporary Naija comedy mostly rely on audiovisual and digital platform for its production and distribution. Under Nigerian copyright law, the available defense for copyright infringement of Naija comedy works may be the fair dealing, “pastiche” (a literary concept included in the Nigerian copyright law), and parody.[54] The Nigerian copyright law makes parody a fair dealing exception for copyright infringement.[55]  Nigerian copyright case law on parody as fair dealing is either unreported or unavailable.  Nigerian courts should adapt the jurisprudential reasoning of other common law jurisdictions like the U.K. and the United States when deciding cases of Nigerian comedy copyright.[56]

In the United States, courts have defined parody as when “[A]n artist for comic effect or social commentary, closely imitates the style of another artist and in so doing creates a new work that makes ridiculous the style and expression of the original.”[57] The United States courts have further granted parody a fair use exception in copyright infringement cases based on the four factors set out under the U.S. Copyright law.[58] All four factors in the fair use provision for parody in the U.S. law are not bright-line rule but a guideline that the court uses on a case-by-case basis.[59]

Naija comedy unlike the U.S. comedy industry does not reside in intellectual property’s “negative space” because the Nigerian laws grants legal protection to its comedy.[60] Rather Naija comedy industry struggles under the negative weight of poor copyright enforcement and film piracy.[61]  Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, coined “IP negative space” to refer to creative and innovative works or industry like fashion and tattoo that thrive successfully without the protection of IP law.[62] Naija comedy is not thriving because the enforcement of the Nigerian law at the basic level is poor.[63] On the backend of entrepreneurial pursuit piracy threatens the comedy industry in Nigeria.[64]

Conclusion

Would industry comic norms effectively control comedian copyright? Perhaps in a developed industry with sophisticated institutions to moderate and regulate such regimes.[65]  In Naija, an effective and properly organized CMOs for the audiovisual content creators may be the panacea. Furthermore, Naija comedians should engage competent and subject matter experts in digital licensing and general licensing rights to engage in creative transactions on their behalf. A CMO can lessen the financial burden of private lawsuits because of its capacity to fund litigations. The Nigerian creative regimes should enable and promote entrepreneurial laughter so that this art form will continue to humorize the current economic hardships. While at the macro-level creating economic benefits for Naija comedy.

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Jonathan Haynes, “New” Nollywood: Kunle Afolayan, 5 Black Camera 53, 61-66 (2014).

[2] Id.

[3] Onome Okome, Reversing the Filmic Gaze: Comedy and The Critique of Postcolony in Osuofia in London in Global Nollywood, The Transnational Dimensions of An African Video Film Industry 146-156 (2013).

[4] Naija: the word has acquired a life of its own to denote and refer to the Nigerian culture, persona, character, identity, and person. However, social media and the millennials’ usage of this coinage Naija have become a fashionable trend and gained acceptance globally.

[5] Okome, supra note 4

[6]  This author first introduced Naijacomedy in his SJD Dissertation (2018); see further Samuel Samiai Andrews, Reforming Copyright for a Developing Africa, 66 J Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 1, 28-29 (2018).

[7] Norimitsu Onishi, Nigeria’s Comics Pull Punch Lines From Deeper Social Ills , New York Times, (December 5, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/world/africa/nigerias-comics-pull-punch-lines-from-deeper-social-ills.html?_r=0.

[8] Id.

[9]Id

[10]Id.

[11] Okome, supra, note 4.

[12] Norimitsu Onishi, Nigeria’s Booming Film Industry Redefines African Life, New York Times, November 15, 2021  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/world/africa/with-a-boom-before-the-cameras-nigeria-redefines-african-life.html?_r=0.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Andrews, supra note 7

[17] Copyright Act (2004) Cap. (28), § 6 (Nigeria).

[18] Ngozi Emedolibe, The Nigerian Comedy Industry, NATIONAL MIRROR NIGERIA November 15, 2021, http://nationalmirroronline.net/new/the-nigerian-comedy-industry/ (describing the paucity of laws and policy to protect comic acts in the digital platforms from being infringed and for protecting copyrighted comic acts on the digital platforms and further reporting further the comments of Ali Baba a veteran Nigerian comedian on the lack of copyright regime to protect Nigerian comedians).

[19]Id.

[20] James Yeku, Akpos Don Come Again: Nigerian Cyberpop Hero as Trickster, 28 J. AFR. CULT. STUD. 245 (2016); see generally Akpos Jokes, http://www.akposjokes.com/

[21]Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Copyright Act (2004) Cap. (28), § 26 (Nigeria).

[24] Emedolibe, supra, note 19.

[25]Id.

[26] Copyright Act (2004) Cap. (28), §1(2) (a) (Nigeria); Copyright Act (LFN) (2004), Cap.28 §.23 (d) & §§26-28 (the current Nigerian copyright law defines performers’ rights to include the exclusive right of a creative to control the “[r]eproducing in any material form ...'' of her work); Another important copyright in comedy is the literary rights in scripts for the jokes. The writers of the jokes or who have acquired license to the script have copyright in the resulting comedy or its performance; Rebecca Tushnet, Performance Anxiety Copyright Embodied and Disembodied, 60 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y 209-248 (2013); The distribution and production of contemporary Nigerian comedy works in audiovisual and as cinematic works will qualify it for copyright protection under artistic and literary works.

[27] Copyright Act (2004) Cap (28), §§ 6 & 26 (Nigeria).

[28] Copyright Act (2004) Cap. (28), §1(1) (b) (Nigeria).

[29] Id.

[30] Id.

[31] Offrey v Ola & Ors Hos/23/68 (1969) (Nigeria) (holding that copyright would exist in each product if that product is the result of some large or real expenditure of mental or physical energies of the producer and the laborers skill was not aa negligible or common place one); see e.g. Raconteur Productions Limited v Dioni Vision Entertainments Limited and others, FHC/L/CS/401/2017 FHC/L/CS/401/2017 (Nigeria).

[32] Justin Hughes, Size Matters (or Should) in Copyright Law, 74 Fordham L. Rev.575 (2005).

[33] Id.

[34] Connor Moran, How much is too much? Copyright Protection of Short Portions of Text in the United States and European Union After Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades, 6 Wash. J. L. Tech. & Arts 247 (2011); Farhad Manjoo, State of the Internet: The Post-Text Future is Here (You Read That Right), New York Times (November 19, 2021),  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/09/technology/the-rise-of-a-visual-internet.html

[35] Hughes, supra note 33

[36] Barton Beebe, The Semiotic Analysis of Trademark Law, 51 UCLA LAW REVIEW 621 (2004); Graeme B. Dinwoodie, What linguistics Can do for Trademark Law, https://works.bepress.com/graem­_dinwoodie/44/ (November 20, 2021).

[37] Catherine Seville, Trademarks, 57 Int’l & Comp. L. Q 955-67 (2008).

[38] Dotun Oliar & Christopher Sprigman, There’s No Free Laugh (Anymore): The Emergence of Intellectual Property Norms and the Transformation of Stand –Up Comedy, 94 V. L. Rev. 1787 (2008) (stating that copyright laws do not effectively protect jokes or comedy); see also Elizabeth M. Bolles, Stand-Up Comedy, Joke Theft, and Copyright Law, 14 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 237 (2011) (citing Foxworthy v. Custom Tees 879 F.Supp.1200 (N.D. Ga. 1995 as the effectiveness of copyright law to protect comedy or jokes); see e.g., Trevor M. Gates, Providing Adequate Protection for Comedians’ Intellectual Creations: Examining Intellectual Property Norms and “Negative Spaces,” 93 Or. L. Rev. 801 (2015) (commenting that comedy industry continues to thrive without copyright law strong support).

[39] Bolles, supra note 39

[40] Gates, supra, note 39

[41]Id.

[42]Id.

[43]Id.

[44] Foxworthy, 879 F. Supp. at 1204.

[45] Jeremy A. Schachter, That’s My Joke… Art…Trick: How the Internal Norms of IP Communities Are Ineffective Against Extra-Community Misappropriation,12 Va. Sports & Ent. L. J. 63 (2012).

[46]Id. at 1802-1805.

[47]Id.

[48] Bolles, supra note 39 at 244-252.

[49] Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).

[50] Jordan Abiola, Alibaba Spits Venom as Regards The Piracy in Nollywood and Nigeria in General, (November 16, 2021), https://www.360nobs.com/2015/03/ali-baba-spits-venom-as-regards-the-piracy-in-nollywood-and-nigeria-in-general-must-read/; see also  https://youtu.be/WrNAzjB_jLQ (describing the weak legal protection policy safeguard comedy acts in the digital platforms from being infringed and further reporting  the comments of Ali Baba a veteran Nigerian comedian on the lack of copyright regime to protect Naija comedians).

[51] Id.

[52] Chijioke Okorie, Slow and Steady Wins the Race? -Nigeria’s Copyright Amendment Bill is Finally before the National Assembly, IPKat <https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/07/slow-and-steady-wins-race-nigerias.html> accessed November 19, 2021(This Bill an Executive Bill sponsored and recommended by the executive arm of the Nigerian government. There were two versions of Bills before the Nigerian National Legislature to amend its copyright laws).

[53] Copyright Act (2004) Cap. (28), §1(2) (a) (Nigeria).

[54] Copyright Act (2004) Cap. (28), Second Schedule § (b) (Nigeria); Xiyin Tang, That Old Thing, Copyright…Reconciling the Postmodern Paradox in the New Digital Age,39 AIPA Q. J. 71, 87-88 (2011) (distinguishing pastiche as a parody that has lost its sense of humor).

[55] Copyright Act (2004) Second Schedule (Nigeria).

[56] Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (holding that courts must decide whether the work violates copyright using fair use factors in 17 U.S.C. §107).

[57] SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.,136 F. Supp.2d1357-1371-72n. 7 (N.D. Ga).

[58] Campbell, supra note 55 at 580-81 (holding that parody is not presumptively a fair use except it fulfils the provisions of  17 U.S.C. §.107 which states the four factors to be: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work).

[59] Harper & Row Publishers Inc., v. Nation Enters. 471 U.S. 539, 587 (1985).

[60] Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman, The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design, 92 Va. L. Rev. 1687 (2006) (defining negative space to mean an industry that grows without the exclusivity and monopoly granted by IP laws).

[61] Channels Television (Nigeria), The Alibaba Piracy Question to Nigerian President (April 5, 2015), https://youtu.be/7Yza0iSc008.

[62] Elizabeth L. Rosenblatt, A Theory of IP’s Negative Space, 34 Colum. J. L. & Arts 317, 322 (2011).

[63] Channels Television (Nigeria), supra note 62

[64] Id.

[65] Trevor M. Gates, Providing Adequate Protection for Comedians’ Intellectual Creations: Examining Intellectual Property Norms and “Negative Spaces” 93 Or. L. Rev. 801 (2015) (commenting that comedy industry continues to thrive without copyright law strong support).

Dark October: why intellectual property may not protect nor shield your grief

 

By Samuel Samiai Andrews

Recently a Nollywood movie, ‘Dark October’ produced by Linda Ikeji, depicting a true life event that occurred in South-South Nigeria some years ago became a subject of controversy and emotional public commentary. The movie depicts a tragic true-life event, which happened in Aluu, a community in Rivers State of Nigeria. Four students of a university were murdered by a group of community vigilantes. Reports claim that the families of the victims of the killing objected to the release of the movie because of the sensitivities involved and the exacerbation of existing grieve. The controversy centered on fact that the producers of the movie did not get the consent of the victims’ families before releasing and or producing the movie. Although, principal thematic focus of my research focuses on how the film industry of the Global South should take advantages of (digital) copyright to impel its entrepreneurial, creative and economic rights’ growth. The counterfactual thematic bent of this piece is one of the exceptions where the lack of a law indirectly becomes advantageous to the filmmaker in the emerging digital industry. 

Nollywood’s continuous trodden path signals an emerging economic force. Therefore, its vision and trajectory of achieving effective outcomes for stakeholders demand proper understanding of the legal and economic contours for success. I am using the movie, Dark October, as a take-off point for illuminating an unexplored but significant connecting dot of socio-legal fundamentals of a successful film industry. Copyright does not protect ideas, emotional-social rights, news events and civic commentaries. A legal scholar, Andrew Gilden, published an informative and educative paper on why intellectual property law may not be suitable for protecting images, likeness and privacies of deceased love ones. I have attempted in this article to continue the discussion on the death-copyright theme by narrowing my focus to the making of a Nigerian movie that depicts a tragic event, which memories could aggravate the grief of victim’s families.  

Grieving and lP

This piece focuses on the discussions among Nigerian intellectual property (IP) practitioners, and enthusiasts, on how IP regimes particularly copyright may intervene to regulate, protect and enforce the rights of victims in event of death. Losing a family member in a gruesome or natural circumstance evokes complex emotions and hurt. Therefore, recreating the events that led to such death may heighten pains and irreparable emotional harm to the grieving family. On the other hand, creators like Nollywood filmmakers have statutory rights to make films about current affairs, news events and societal commentaries. In fact, filmmakers have some may even argue, constitutional rights to express themselves creatively. The creative rights guaranteed by Copyright laws and other IP regimes struggle to balance its significance with socio-moral obligations at large.

In my legal research work around the subject of Nollywood and copyright jurisprudence, particularly the paper, Reforming Copyright Law for a Developing Africa, I had concluded after empirical and doctrinal work that the Nigerian copyright law, though robust lacks the bite to support a cinematographic industry of the digital era. Hopefully the recently enacted amended Copyright Act 2023 (Nigeria) will bring that bite for creators’ right security. In another recently published paper, Developing a Copyright Curriculum for Nigerian Universities for the Creative Digital Space, I also reiterated the need for Nollywood and the supporting creative institutions, including the academia, to rethink their growth strategies beyond legal defensive and enforcement tools, to include knowledge capacity for its stakeholders-filmmakers and  public audience and non-litigation tools. Why? because the fast pace entrepreneurial incidences of a creative industry of the digital era abhors time wasting and distractive commercial disputes. Nigerian creative industries including Nollywood should enhance the adoption of transactional alternative methods of reducing social and economic conflict resulting from filmmaking.

Other IP regimes that may come into discussion are moral rights and trademark. Under the Nigerian new copyright law moral rights protect paternity (attribution) and integrity (reputational) of a creator’s work. The creator of a work has the moral right to object to derogative, corruptive and mutilative handling of his-her work. The creator of a work also has the right to demand that her work be attributed to her. Facts available in public domain does not show that the victims of the unfortunate events in Aluu were creators of that event that led to their untimely passing. There’s no derogatory usage of their creations depicted in the movie. Therefore, the issues of moral right seem remote in the scenario. Is trademark right implicated in the Dark October controversy? probably not! Trademark could have been implicated if members of the public are potentially confused in connecting the names or images of actors in the movies with the names or images of the deceased depicted in the movie (if the deceased images were registered trademark).

Filmmakers’ obligation

In other climes attempts have been made to extend the traditional objectives of IP beyond rewarding creativity economically, making information available to the public for further derivative creative works, to a  shield to enforce privacy rights and other unrelated innovative and creative endeavors. So far in the human-experience related cases, the courts have been reluctant to accept the sword or shield posture of copyright law for those who assert it. Mostly because of the defense of fair use or fair dealing or the statutory exceptions, limitations and exclusions, which the law grants as a defense to copyright infringement. Fair dealing, as it is known under Nigerian law are statutory defenses available to anyone who may be accused of infringing on other’s copyright. Reportage and commentary on news events are captured under the fair dealing excuses.

The screenplay in Dark October translated and highlighted a news-event. This film may be regarded as a commentary on societal ills. The creativity that birth this film comes from the copyright author-owner. In a cinematographic creative work, the Nigerian law describes the copyright author-owner as the person who makes the arrangement, probably funding and bringing to virtual life the outcome that the public accesses. Can the families of the deceased exercise legal rights under the Nigerian law to prevent the release or production of Dark October? Probably not, and legally unlikely. However, issues of grieving a loved one cannot be put on a straight jacket because only the deceased families know the extent of the hurt.

Succor outside the law

IP law is not set up to cure such emotional complexities arising from death. Privacy laws like image rights or publicity right could have availed the deceased families if actual images (photographs) of the deceased and their private life or confidences were raised in the movie. In this case, Dark October has not put the deceased images in bad light, nor used their images in any untoward manner. I do not find where the deceased names or likeness are exploited for commercial value by the producers of Dark October. The commercial exploitation of names or likeness of someone forms the classic spheres of publicity right laws. Publicity and image rights laws doesn’t protect issues of current affairs or news events.

How do filmmakers avoid conflict or bring succor to victims of societal malaise and their families when their creativity tends to collide with people’s right to grieve? Transactional negotiation skills could be one of the ways to ameliorate any hiccup in the release or production of a creative work like a movie, particularly where legal remedies seem remote. Offering the deceased family as in the Dark October scenario tangible succor like dedicating the film to the deceased and including their names on the film acknowledging list of contributors, setting aside a part of the profit from the movie  to promote any social-charity causes the deceased were associated with in their life time or setting up a memorial to honor the deceased after consultation-agreement with their families are some of the alternative route to soothe a grieving family in this circumstance. Afterall IP isn’t just for monetizing creativity or innovation but also for promoting utilitarian causes and societal good.

*Dr. Samuel Samiai Andrews, a Professor of Intellectual Property law is currently a faculty in the College of Law, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Saudi Arabia.

 

 

 

Mr Umo Eno and the credibility Question-Akwa Ibom Governorship Race 2023

                                                                                                          

By now anyone reading this piece or familiar with public commentary would know that majority of Akwa Ibom State do not support Mr. Umo Eno’s (or is it Eno Umo) ambition to become the next governor of Akwa Ibom State. 

Apart from his scandalous kneeling down before Mr. Udom Emmanuel the current Governor to elicit ‘anointing’ and curry a free pass, which shows a sign of weakness and incompetence, the crux of my position in this piece is Mr. Umo Eno’s fraudulent acts of claiming phantom educational qualification as one of his qualifications to be a governor. 

This in my opinion and that of reasonable men and women of Akwa Ibom should be a serious signal that the State is about to be sold into another path of rudderless governance and its people inflicted to continuous suffering.

Let me start with what is actually in the public domain. Mr Umo Eno published his resume through his official campaign publicity-media team with false and misleading information that he graduated from St Francis Secondary School Eket and Victory Secondary School Ikeja with a GCE O level Certificate in 1981. This to me was the first sign of deliberate misinformation and fraud. 

How could someone who claimed to be competent and had capacity in human and material resources management draft such a poor and silly resume for public consumption.

For the record, under the Nigerian Constitution you do not need a GCE O’ Levels to contest for a governorship position. So why the cooking of credential? I, the author of this piece graduated from St. Francis Secondary School, Ikot Ataku Eket in 1982 with GCE O Level Diploma/Certificate. The same school Mr. Umo Eno claimed he graduated from in 1981. 

I know of a fact he never took any GCE exams in St Francis Secondary School Ikot Ataku Eket nor graduated therefrom. Actually, he dropped out. He is what we know in the streets and in the real world as a ‘Drop Out.’ Nothing actually corrosive being a drop out. 

But when you attempt to juice your status notwithstanding, you have succeeded in deceiving a lot of people using false and incorrect credentials to get to where you currently are-then there is a serious problem when you want to become the governor of Akwa Ibom State with same fraudulent resume. Then, I personally will have a serious commonsense collison with you because in Akwa Ibom I have a fundamental stake towards its development growth and wellbeing.

On to the acclaimed Victory Secondary School in Ikeja. Mr. Umo Eno has brought out a poorly engineered copy of a school certificate which has “Ikeja” as the place he took his GCE exams, not even the acclaimed Victory Secondary School Ikeja as depicted in his public resume. 

This document just on the face of it is laughable. So, my point is why would Akwa Ibom allow such a man, who is not even required to present a GCE certificate to be a Governor, but has taken such tenuous and amateurish sojourn to juice and cook up a false personality and credential so the people of Akwa Ibom will vote him in as a so called successful “entrepreneur.”

I challenge other gubernatorial aspirants to take on Mr. Umo Eno on his credibility and integrity. Akwa Ibom does not need a fraud and a ‘Manchurian’ Governorship candidate. 

The people of Akwa Ibom Have suffered enough lack and abuse from politicians. If our people must breath a free sense of emancipation from abject poverty and economic backwardness, Akwa Ibom should only present worthy and upright candidates from all the political parties.

©Samiai 2022

*Dr. Samuel Samiai Andrews is a USA Ambassador’s Distinguished Scholar & Professor of Intellectual Property law

@Samiai: Whose god? Deaf or Dumb? The arrogance of the Nigerian Political Class-Part I*

 

I hardly comment on Akwa Ibom State politics because seriously I stopped taking these folks seriously. I am a bona fide Ibibio. My focus here is about Akwa Ibom State, Governor Udom Emmanuel (who happens to come from ONNA, the local government my parents hailed from) and so called “Faith leaders,” who gamble with God’s name and experts in spiritual transactions. These men use the name of God as a currency in their want of relevance and self-driven lucre. 

The subject of Psychology and Law, which I teach among other subjects have taught me certain unknowns of humanity. One of them is that humans deliberately test boundaries even when deep down the reality of the dangers and perils of the testing is well known to them. The recent display of arrogance by Governor Udom Emmanuel who like Napoleon of the relic Roman empire mounted and organized a political stunt of serious consequences in his public funded residence to proclaim his choice of Governor for Akwa Ibom States and loudly sending the “conquered” Akwa Ibom people a message of his preferred choice of a successor. 

I have read lots of his supporters claiming he has the right to make a choice or choose whoever he desires to support in an elective exercise. This line of defense to me is mundane and elementary. That is never the issue. In fact, he does not have the right to use State funded resources to make such announcement but that’s a legal issue we can do a symposium on. The fundamental danger here is the unintended consequences of a sitting and lame duck elected political leader to restrict political space against potential and well qualified political aspirants who should come out so that the generality of Akwa Ibom people in a democracy will make a choice. I do not know what roles Udom Emmanuel played to fight against the military rule in Nigeria but I know lots of us contributed with blood and sweat to win this so-called democracy we are limping-along with now. So why should the governor use the color of his office to intimidate and scare and deprive Akwa Ibom from choosing the best Governorship Candidate. 

I have refused to address this man that knelt his soul away in the pictures circulating all over the Internet because in my views he doesn’t have the capacity to lead a class room in an “Oluwole” elementary school neither the wherewithal of holding the prefectship of a community grammar school in my father’s village. I will come to him in a future piece if he survives the opposition that will floor and drown this so-called voice from god. 

So, let us attempt for a minute to think when this arrogance from sitting Nigerian Governors and elected political office holders started. To be fair to Governor Udom, he did not start this misdirected political behavior. He has only taken it to some brazen and sheer charlatanic levels. Why is the Governor afraid of fellow citizens of Akwa Ibom in his party who have clearly indicated their interest to be governor of Akwa Ibom State? These politicians are well qualified if you ask me. Whether some of them have the capacity to be governor is what Akwa Ibom people should be left to decide. So, Governor, my advice to you, which I am giving free here (others pay big money to get it) be humble now and recant your mistake. History will judge you harshly if Akwa Ibom implodes and I am afraid you may not have any one to blame. 

Former Governor Attah made similar mistake while attempting to impose his son in law on Akwa Ibom State. I can see he is one of your advisers in this journey to Golgotha. Governor Attah, Sir you are about to enter your 2.0 history recreation. Such history never forgives nor forgets so please Sir retrace this mistake for posterity to be kind to you. 

For the so-called “faith leaders” “faith fathers” I am sorry none of you fit that description. That is my judgement and I am entitled to it. Nothing you all did leading to and around this drama of the absurd have any characteristics of God or faith. We cannot be cowed nor pranked with make-believe transactional processes cloth as ecclesiastical encounters. 

Politics is the art of catering for one’s interest. Therefore, should the interest of Governor Udom, the so called “faith fathers” (I wonder why faith mothers weren’t there…shows how shallow these folks operate) and a few recurring political operatives of Akwa Ibom seasonal politics become more relevant than the interest of the generality of Akwa Ibom people, which is simply embedded in good governance: access to happiness for families, access to good employment and income, access to food and necessaries, security for property and persons and freedom to be humans. 

The entrenched political elite in Akwa Ibom Sate have failed its people for the past 15 years, there are minuscular tangible deliverables for the generality of the people of Akwa Ibom State. They should be all ashamed of themselves collectively and individually. Stay tuned…

*Dr. Samuel Samiai Andrews is a Professor of Intellectual Property Law & USA Ambassador’s Distinguished Scholar

© 2022