AGF Fagbemi’s tenure has been consequential,  By Emmanuel  Onwubiko

Around the 22nd of January 2022, Mr. Earl Timothy, a thinker penned a piece on the redefination of Leadership vis-a-vis analysing leadership values from the perspective of  the new normal and then he posed a significant question thus: what is the new leadership approach?

This profoundly excellent thinker then gave the following views: “Over the past months, a new leadership style has begun to appear. This new practice to leadership reflects the uncertainty of the pandemic epoch, and it comes with two elements that seem conflicting but bring them all together.

First is the capability to handle immediate threats in unpredictable times. Second, coming up with strategic development when everything we know has changed, and the stakes are incredibly high.

In the traditional sense, he argued that business leaders often had the comfort of focusing on either of the two. Still, today with the disturbing crisis, leaders must be aware and balance these elements to manage their way through the present day while planning for long-term goals.

Today with the support of technology, many leaders of the business world can cope up with the shift of the industry culture. A good example is working remotely. Many companies adopted this development and got rid of their brick-and-mortar transactions.

The writer did not want to leave any of the ingredients of charismatic leadership to semantic doubts when he further asked thus: What is the importance of leadership in modern times?

He then stated that leadership is critical to any business or organization because they provide guidance and help the other members understand its goals and plans. But being a good leader does not stop there. There are more aspects that they can bring in this present time
Vision:
A business leader should provide a roadmap outlining the steps and resources a company needs to succeed. Developing a business vision and communicating it with the whole team is part of their obligation as being a person with authority.
Communication:
Leaders, managers, and executives should always have to maintain clear communication, but today it should come in a more straightforward and at the same time transparent way. Nowadays, leaders should step down and do more employee engagement. Becoming visible does not mean physically being with the team. An online meeting is enough to create an established presence.

Flexibility:
In the midst of the crisis, it taught that management and leaders of companies must continue learning and developing new skills in order to
gain a better understanding of the current situation. As mentioned above, a good example is giving the employees an option to do remote work or get rid of the 9 am to 6 pm cultured working hours and give them a flexible working schedule instead.

There is therefore no gainsaying the fact that Nigeria’s justice landscape has always been a palimpsest; older rulings and entrenched practices faintly visible beneath fresh inked opinions and sudden judicial interventions.

Since his appointment, Prince Lateef Olasunkanmi Fagbemi (SAN); Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, has been at the centre of several legal fulcrums that not only resolved technical disputes, but also reshaped institutional relations across the federation: between the centre and states, between anti-graft agencies and their critics, and between the Republic and powerful international claimants. For critics and admirers alike, the measure of any law officer is not the volume of statements delivered from podiums, but the lasting jurisprudence forged in the courts. On that score, Fagbemi’s tenure has been consequential.

This is not an exercise in hero-worship. Rather, it is a sober assessment of a public lawmaker-lawyer who steered the federal government through several high-stakes legal battles; victories that carry constitutional, fiscal and reputational consequences for the nation. Some of these rulings settle technical arguments; others resolve foundational questions about fiscal federalism and the capacity of the state to defend its purse and reputation. Taken together, they reflect an Attorney-General who understands that law is both a shield and a scalpel: a shield for the public treasury and sovereign dignity, and a scalpel to excise institutional flab and legal ambiguity.

Two of Fagbemi’s most consequential interventions came before the Supreme Court and concerned the architecture of governance and the integrity of anti-corruption institutions. On July 11, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a decision in Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & Ors that fundamentally altered the fiscal relationship between states and their local governments. In effect, the Court (acting on the Federal Government’s originating summons) recognised local governments as the third tier of government with a right to direct access to statutory allocations rather than being perpetually dependent on state governments to pass on those funds. The ruling instructed that allocations to local governments be paid directly to them and that states should not siphon or unduly manipulate those funds. This decision is not merely administrative; it breathes life into constitutional commitments about grassroots governance and financial autonomy.

Why does this matter? Because the fate of local governance in Nigeria has long been hostage to political expediency. For decades, state executives in many parts of the federation assumed unfettered control over council resources, often dissolving elected councils or refusing to remit allocations. The Supreme Court’s pronouncement (obtained after the Federal Government’s legal challenge) is a judicial correction of that persistent imbalance. It mandates a recalibration of fiscal responsibility and, if enforced, could encourage accountable local administration and attenuate the centrifugal tendencies that hollow governance at the grassroots. But as with any court-led reform, a judgment is only as effective as the institutions and political will that follow it.

Another watershed came in November 2024, when the Supreme Court dismissed a sweeping challenge by a group of state governments to the constitutionality of the nation’s principal anti-graft statutes and agencies; notably the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU). The states had contended that the establishment and powers of these agencies were invalid; the Court, in a unanimous decision, held otherwise. By affirming the legislative competence of the National Assembly to enact those laws and confirming the agencies’ jurisdictional reach, the apex court removed a sledgehammer that could have crippled Nigeria’s anti-corruption architecture. For an Attorney-General charged with defending the public interest, the decision validated the constitutional scaffolding upon which the fight against financial crimes rests.

These two rulings; fiscal autonomy for local governments and the constitutional firmness of anti-graft agencies, are doctrinally distinct but practically connected. Both address the perennial problem of institutional capture and the misuse of public resources. The former curbs state-level discretion over local funds; the latter shields national anti-corruption mechanisms from localized legal assaults. In each case, the AGF positioned the Federal Government as a litigant-conservator of national order, and the apex court largely sided with that posture.

Beyond domestic constitutional battles, the AGF’s office has also played a decisive role in defending Nigeria’s external sovereignty and fiscal interest against predatory international claims. The decade-long Process & Industrial Developments (P&ID) litigation offered an existential test. A multi-billion-dollar arbitral award; which, with accrued interest, threatened to bleed Nigeria’s external reserves and invite the seizure of national assets was eventually found to have been procured by fraud. The successful challenge to the enforcement of the award in the United Kingdom has been hailed as one of the greatest legal reversals in recent memory. Not only did the government avoid an unprecedented financial calamity, it also reclaimed monies that had been lodged in connection with the dispute. This outcome was not accidental. It was the product of sustained litigation strategy, forensic coordination among agencies and dogged representation by Nigeria’s legal team under the watch of the AGF. The Ministry of Justice publicly chronicled how careful litigation and tenacity delivered a recovery of a $200 million bond and a further $10 million award linked to the P&ID saga.

That P&ID victory matters on three levels. First, it demonstrates that a middle-income country, when determined, can defend itself against sophisticated legal ploys and dubious investors that weaponize international arbitration. Second, it underscores the importance of institutional collaboration (between the AGF’s office, investigative agencies and expert counsels) in mounting a credible defense. Third, it sends a salutary message to would-be litigants that the enforcement of an award is not a foregone conclusion when fraud is at its core. For the AGF, the case was not simply about winning a legal argument; it was about protecting national wealth and signalling resolve.

Complementing the P&ID restitution is an ongoing, tangible reclaiming of assets. In briefing the House Committee on Justice during the 2025 budget process, the AGF confirmed the repatriation of over $110 million in recovered assets from a number of countries; funds linked to prior corrupt enrichment and, in some instances, the proceeds of state capture. The recovery, which included sums traced to high-profile corruption investigations, reinforces the idea that legal mobilization can yield real fiscal returns for the treasury and communities harmed by grand corruption. That repatriation is not just cash on a ledger; it is reparative capital that can be channeled to public goods if prudently managed.

Fagbemi’s involvement in high-profile domestic prosecutions and fraud investigations (such as stepping into the Petro Union matter) further illustrates a proactive posture by the AGF’s office. In March 2025,the Attorney-General led senior counsel to represent the Federal Government at a Supreme Court hearing in the Petro Union case, a saga where allegations of forged instruments and contrived judgments sought to extract roughly £2.556 billion (with attendant interest) from the state. The intervention showed an institutional recognition that sometimes the appearance of a court judgment is itself a vector of fraud, and that the AGF must counteract such instruments with the full weight of federal advocacy.

All these courtroom victories and interventions  (local government autonomy, the EFCC validation, the P&ID reversal, the recovery of repatriated assets, and the Petro Union defense) form a pattern: when the state’s legal interests are threatened, the AGF’s office under Fagbemi has been willing to litigate high, litigate hard, and litigate smart.

But to offer praise without critical balance would be irresponsible. Several questions remain about enforcement, selectivity and the limits of legal victories in the absence of wider systemic reforms.

First, the Supreme Court’s LG autonomy decision is transformative on paper, but implementation is the real test. Courts can issue orders; politicians can ignore them. Already, the AGF has had to issue warnings about governors who undermine the judgment (even threatening contempt proceedings where state executives fail to comply) but the real litmus test will be sustained compliance across all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory. Judicial pronouncements must be converted into administrative systems: direct payments, transparent accounting, and penalties for diversion. Otherwise, the gains will remain juridical trophies rather than felt improvements in grassroots service delivery.

Second, the validation of anti-graft agencies by the Supreme Court removes one procedural obstacle, but it cannot alone cure operational weaknesses: understaffing, political interference, and prosecutorial inconsistency continue to undermine public confidence. The AGF’s role should be to work with other branches to strengthen institutions (from timely budgetary allocation to the appointment of competent investigators and prosecutors) so that the agencies can function within the law and with technocratic independence.

Third, the P&ID triumph is a salutary reminder of what good litigation can do; but it should not deflect attention from the fact that the original arbitral award arose from gross governance failures and alleged collusion across borders and institutions. While reclaiming assets and quashing awards may restore the national purse, the deeper lesson is the urgent need for rigorous contract management, oversight of foreign engagements, and preemptive legal review of international arrangements. A strong Ministry of Justice should not only respond to crises; it must also build systems that prevent them.

Fourth, there is the persistent critique of selectivity. The AGF’s office must be seen as an even hand, enforcing the law irrespective of partisan colour. For litigation to bolster the rule of law, it must avoid the perception that legal actions are instruments of political expediency. Transparency about criteria for intervention, timelines for prosecutions and public reporting on asset-recovery outcomes will help inoculate the AGF’s initiatives against charges of partiality.

Finally, the courtroom is a powerful site of statecraft, but it cannot substitute for political reforms. Fiscal federalism, anti-corruption efforts, and asset recovery achieve permanence only when anchored in transparent institutions, civic engagement and legislative reforms. Legal victories create a permissive environment for change; the hard work of governance (budgeting, procurement reform, local capacity building) must follow.

So where does Fagbemi’s tenure so far stand in the ledger of national service? If judged by the axis of high-stakes litigation — defending the state against predatory suits, securing precedents that protect anti-corruption architecture, and pressing courts to clarify constitutional responsibilities — the answer must be a qualified acknowledgment of achievement. The AGF has marshalled the tools of law to defend the public interest and, in several instances, the outcomes have been consequential.

But law is never an end in itself. Its virtue is realized only when judgments translate into better public services, when recovered assets refurbish schools and clinics rather than disappear into opaque accounts, and when empowered agencies prosecute without fear or favour. The Attorney-General’s courtroom cartography has redrawn important boundaries; now the executive, legislative and judicial branches must cooperate to ensure those lines actually hold.

In the final analysis, the Fagbemi era offers a useful truth: litigating for the public good can produce historic results, but even landmark judgments require the steady hands of policy, enforcement and civic vigilance to make those results durable. For a nation perpetually at the crossroads between promise and peril, that combination — legal muscle, institutional reform, and public accountability — is the only reliable compass.

*EMMANUEL NNADOZIE ONWUBIKO is the founder of the HUMAN RIGHTS WRITERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA and was NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF NIGERIA.