By Saifullahi Attahir

On April 1, 1953, late Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto and the last Premier of Northern Nigeria, delivered a pivotal speech in the House of Representatives in Lagos. He articulated the region’s concerns about hastily embracing self-government by 1956, emphasizing the need for careful consideration and preparation.”

Sardauna presented compelling reasons why Northern Nigeria couldn’t be rushed into advocating for self-government by 1956, as documented in his own book, ‘My Life’.”

This reflection seeks to uncover the underlying causes of our challenges and differences, aiming to pave the way for a sound and sustainable future for all. Nigeria’s complexities are not unique; countries like India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Kenya, South Africa, and the United States offer valuable lessons in navigating similar issues.”

“We from the Northern Region have never intended to hinder the progress of any other region. We also acknowledge that regions demanding self-government for themselves alone are not inherently wrong, as each community is best suited to judge its own situation. Therefore, we believe the people of the North are the best judges of their own readiness for self-government, and we cannot commit to a fixed date without fully considering the implications. The destiny of the North rests with its people, and we must proceed with caution.”

“We of the North desire a form of self-government that will not lead to future regret. It would be unwise to set a date for self-government without carefully considering Nigeria’s current state. While we politicians often speak of Nigerian unity, we must acknowledge the complexities that exist.”

Sixty years ago, Nigeria as we know it today did not exist. Instead, the region comprised numerous large and small communities, each with distinct outlooks and beliefs. Despite the introduction of British rule and Western education, these diverse communities have yet to form a cohesive unit. Nonetheless, the British can be credited with bringing these disparate groups together, laying the groundwork for a unified nation.”

A significant milestone was reached with the introduction of the Richards Constitution in 1947, marking the first time Northern and Southern representatives sat together to legislate for a unified Nigeria. This development came 25 years after Southern representatives began participating in legislative discussions in 1922.

The 1947 Constitution was slated to last nine years, likely to give the North time to adjust. However, after just two years of experience under that Constitution, it was revised, and now we have a new one that’s barely a year old. I must note, Mr. President, that motions like the one I’m attempting to amend seem designed to undermine the positive inter-regional relationships that the current Constitution is fostering.”

“While motions like this may be expressions of opinion, I believe they can only serve to cause harm and ill-feeling. The outside world already views Northern Nigeria as conservative and backward, and some Southern Nigerians’ past utterances have reinforced this perception. Before committing to such matters, we must seek the mandate of our people. As representatives, it’s our duty to consult those we represent on major issues like this, ensuring we voice the views of the nation.

If Honourable Members from the West and East speak to this motion without amendment, representing their people, I must emphasize that we from the North have not been given such a mandate by our people.”

“No Honourable Member can fairly criticize Northern Legislators for rejecting this motion, which arbitrarily sets a date for national self-government. We’re working diligently towards self-government, despite our late start in adopting Western education. Our goal is to build a strong, lasting foundation for development. Given Nigeria’s current state, the Northern Region will not rush into decisions that might have dire consequences.”

Unless we define our goals clearly, both internally and externally, our demand for self-government may not be taken seriously. We’ve seen groups demand self-government without careful consideration. However, accepting self-government requires a thorough understanding of its implications, ensuring no region imposes its will on others.

Any country embracing self-government must do so with full awareness of its implications, eliminating the risk of one section imposing its will on others. I propose this amendment as a more suitable approach to discussing self-government at this stage, without concern that its passage would automatically bind all regions.”

“On the contrary, a private member’s motion is meant to provide an opportunity for the member and others to express their views on a subject, as I mentioned earlier.”

Countless motions won’t achieve self-government for a divided Nigeria. We can only demand and attain self-government when its meaning is fully understood by all citizens. Let’s thoroughly discuss the implications and reach a consensus among the leaders of all three Regions. This is our primary objective, and by achieving it, we’ll demonstrate our readiness to handle the significant responsibility that comes with self-government. Only then can we safely demand self-government.”

Speeches like this showcase the speaker’s depth of knowledge, clear conscience, and remarkable ability to forecast the future while demonstrating genuine concern for their constituents. In my opinion, Nigeria, particularly the North, might have been rushed into independence prematurely.

Attahir is the President of the National Association of Jigawa State Medical Students. He can be reached via [email protected]

By Somadina Eugene-Okorie Esq

In the rapidly evolving intersection between technology and creativity, one fundamental misunderstanding is becoming dangerously widespread, and it is the belief that a person can claim legal copyright ownership over content, be it music, movies, articles, or any other expressive work generated through artificial intelligence.

This notion not only misrepresents the intent and scope of copyright law but also opens the floodgates to legal liability, particularly for copyright infringement and misappropriation.The question is deceptively simple: Can one claim copyright over a body of work generated using artificial intelligence?

Now, as a patent and copyright law expert, the unequivocal legal and philosophical answer is no.

This article therefore undertakes a detailed examination of above subject, and is grounded in statutory interpretation, international legal developments, and a proper understanding of how AI functions.

1. Copyright: A Protection of Original Human Expression

At the heart of copyright law lies a central tenet which is originality. The legal doctrine is not concerned with mere novelty or surface-level uniqueness; rather, it seeks to protect expressions that are the product of human intellect and effort. It is this personal investment of creative labour that qualifies a work for copyright protection.

Under Section 2 of the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022, only works that satisfy specific conditions are eligible for copyright. These include literary works, musical compositions, artistic works, audiovisual works, sound recordings, and broadcasts.

However, Section 2(2) makes it explicitly clear that two essential requirements must be fulfilled:

1. Original character: In this context some effort must have been exerted in making the work to give it original quality;
2. Fixation: The work must be reduced into a tangible or perceptible medium from which it can be reproduced or communicated.

In the absence of these twin criteria, a musical or artistic work, regardless of its aesthetic appeal, cannot be deemed copyrightable under Nigerian law.

1. AI and the Illusion of Originality

Artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI, operates by ingesting vast amounts of existing data ranging from text, music, images, video, and code which are scraped from the internet and other digital repositories. It identifies linguistic, auditory, or visual patterns, then recombines them into content that appears novel. But appearance is not substance in law.

The machine does not create; rather it derives. It does not originate; it rather synthesizes.

And those notes, the implications are significant. Because the output of AI models is fundamentally non-original, being algorithmically assembled from pre-existing human work.Hence, such content fails to meet the originality standard of copyright law. Moreover, because these models depend on training data that often includes copyrighted materials, without obtaining licenses or permissions, AI-generated content are therefore not just unoriginal, but potentially infringing.

Thus, any person claiming authorship over such works is not just misunderstanding the law; they are possibly implicating themselves in intellectual property theft an act that is punishable before the law.

III. Artificial Works vs Copyrighted Works: A Fundamental Legal Divide

There is a legal wall of separation between copyrighted works and what we now call “artificial works.”

Copyrighted works:

• Are authored by humans.
• Bear the imprint of original thought.
• Reflect creative choices in expression, form, and structure.
• Can be clearly attributed to a person or group with identifiable intent.

Artificial works, by contrast:

• Are generated via algorithms based on patterns in pre-existing data.
• Lack personal creative input.
• Cannot be said to originate from any identifiable human author.
• Are inherently derivative and frequently simulate the work of real artists.

This dichotomy is not just theoretical; it is embedded in legal systems globally, including Nigeria, the United States, and the European Union.

1. A Precedence: Michael Smith and the First AI-Generated Music Fraud Prosecution

In a landmark case that underscores the danger of conflating AI output with original work, a North Carolina man Michael Smith was indicted in September 2024 by US federal prosecutors. According to the prosecution, Smith allegedly used artificial intelligence to generate “hundreds of thousands” of songs, which he then streamed via automated bots to fraudulently collect the sum of over $10 million in royalties since 2017.

This is according to the indictment unsealed by Damian Williams, a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and the FBI, which marked the first ever criminal case for AI-assisted streaming fraud. But more critically, Smith’s real offense according to the prosecution, wasn’t simply streaming artificial music, it was copyright fraud and infringement. Prosecutors argued that the AI-generated songs unlawfully utilized material derived from copyrighted content of existing artists, thus constituting theft under intellectual property law.

This case sets a precedent that is likely to reverberate globally. It sends a clear message that using AI to generate content that mimics or remixes copyrighted work is not innovation, rather it is infringement.

1. Nigeria’s Emerging AI-Creative Landscape: A Legal Vacuum with Consequences

Nigeria is not immune to the allure of AI. From AI-generated Afrobeats album released in 2023 to synthetic voiceovers in Nollywood scripts, to recent AI-generated movies, creators are increasingly inviting machines into the creative process. However, more disturbing is the fact that Nigeria currently lacks a detailed legal framework on AI-generated works, creating a dangerous grey zone.

But this legal lacuna does not render creators immune. As explained earlier, Nigeria’s Copyright Act 2022 is more than sufficient to prosecute individuals who lay copyright claims to AI-generated works. If it can be shown that such works were copied from existing copyrighted materials, liability attaches immediately, even if the copying was done by an AI tool.

Thus, artists, producers, and studios experimenting with AI must understand thatthe lack of express AI regulation is not a license to infringe. You may not be the original infringer, but by adopting and publishing the work as your own, you assume responsibility for any infringement therein.

1. Copyright is Not Registration, it is Originality

Many erroneously believe that securing copyright registration grants ownership. However, copyright does not arise from registration. It arises from human original creation. To this end, registration is merely evidentiary, used to assert and protect rights already earned.

Consequently, registering an AI-generated song with a collecting society or copyright body does not legalize the ownership. It only creates a false veneer of legitimacy, which can easily collapse under scrutiny in law.

As such, even if an AI-assisted song is “registered” and earns revenue through streaming platforms or publishers, the artist remains vulnerable to lawsuits or criminal charges once original creators can identify traces of their work in the AI output.

In Conclusion: Human Creativity Cannot Be Automated, And Neither Can Its Protections

The conversation about AI and intellectual property must not be driven by novelty or convenience, but by the legal and moral foundations of creativity. Copyright exists to encourage the labor of the mind and the spirit. It cannot be claimed over soulless patterns, no matter how harmonious they may sound.

Artists, content creators, and developers must therefore tread carefully. Embracing AI is not inherently wrong, but claiming authorship or ownership over what is essentially a machine-generated remix of human labour is not only a misreading of copyright law, it is an invitation to litigation, financial loss, and public scandal.

In the end, the law is clear: You cannot own what you did not originally create.

NB: This article is for educational and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For individual cases, consult a licensed intellectual property attorney.

Somadina Eugene-Okorie Esq, an Advocate, Intellectual Property/Business Solicitor, writes from Lekki, Lagos Nigeria