Connect with us

General

Cleric Begs Court to Force EFCC to Probe Oshiomhole

Published

on

By Dipo Olowookere

A human rights activist and anti-corruption crusader based in Benin City, Edo State, Bishop (Dr) Osadolor Ochei JP, has dragged the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to a Federal high court sitting in Abuja.

The case has the EFCC and former Governor of Edo State, Mr Adams Oshiomhole, as first and second respondents.

The law suit is at the instance of EFCC’s refusal to attend to a well detailed petition of the Applicant (Bishop Osadolor) to the 1st Respondent dated 28th October, 2016 and published in the Daily Sun Newspaper of 7th November, 2016, together with other national newspapers, bothering on economic and financial crimes against the immediate past governor of Edo State.

In a motion ex-parte, the applicant, Bishop Ochei, is praying the court to as a matter of urgency compel the EFCC to commence the investigation and prosecution of the former governor in pursuant to Sections 6(b) & (h) and 13(2) of the EFCC Act, 2004.

The Applicant in his suit said he has complained to the 1st Respondent (EFCC) about allegations of corrupt practices as well as economic and financial crimes against the 2nd Respondent (Oshiomhole), on a number of occasions, without eliciting any response or interest from the 1st Respondent in this regard. The 1st Respondent failed to examine and investigate the said allegations upon such reports to it.

Bishop Ochei said that the 1st Respondent owes Nigeria and Edo State a duty to unearth the truth by meticulously investigating these allegations to ascertain the extent of complicity and culpability of the 2nd Respondent with respect to these allegations levelled against him.

The motion exparte filed by the applicant’s counsel West Idahosa & Co. stated the Respondent’s legitimate means of income as Governor. The 1st Respondent did nothing about the said petition. The petition and its annexures are attached as Exhibit “A”, while the satellite images of the compound, fence, and existing building are attached as Exhibits “A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6”.

That on 4th November, 2016, the Applicant sent a petition to the 1st Respondent against the 2nd Respondent’s corrupt practices while he served as Governor of Edo State. Amongst the allegations made against the 2nd Respondent by the Applicant are the following:-

That the Applicant repeated the allegation that the 2nd Respondent built a sprawling mansion worth more than N10 billion in his home town known as Iyanho, Edo State. The said building was constructed by Verissimo, a South African Architectural outfit. The said house of the 2nd Respondent has swimming pools, water fountains, multiple theatres for cinema and live performances, huge event halls, bridges, manmade lake, lodges of different sizes amongst others. The said cost of building the mansion is well outside the 2nd Respondent’s legitimate income. The 2nd Respondent’s lifestyle and extent of the said property were not justified by his sources of income. The Applicant’s petition is attached as Exhibit “B”, while the reminder from the Applicant is attached as Exhibit “B1”.

That the 2nd Respondent bought a property along Okoro-Otun Avenue, G.R.A., Benin City owned by Edo State Government while serving as Governor of Edo State in an insider deal without due process and in abuse of his oath of office. The Okoro-otun property acquired by the 2nd Respondent was originally given to University of Benin as a gift by Edo State Government. The 2nd Respondent, while a dispute was pending in Court between University of Benin and Edo State Government, forcibly acquired the property for his personal use. The 2nd Respondent has since erected a structure with an underground apartment, roof-top swimming pool, another giant structure worth more than N500 million which is far beyond his legitimate income. At the time of the sale, the open market price of that magnitude of property and in that such high-brow location was about N100 million. This transaction took place while the 2nd Respondent was Governor of Edo State and he bought the said property for just N23 million via an Access Bank cheque.

That the 2nd Respondent authorized and awarded the highly inflated contract and payment within a relatively short time for the construction of 168 hostels rooms in Edo State University, Iyamho for the sum of N1.88 billion. The average cost per room translates to N10 million for each hostel room. This contract was awarded to the firm of A & K Construction Limited without compliance to due process. Similarly, the 2nd Respondent authorized and awarded the highly inflated contract of building the Teaching Hospital of the said University for the sum of N12.2 billion without compliance to due process. The Memorandum of Approval by the 2nd Respondent is attached as Exhibit “C”.

That the 2nd Respondent authorized and approved the diversion of N1.2 billion approved for the construction of a new accident and emergency ward complex and renovation of existing structures in the Central Hospital, Benin City for the payment of additional 10% advance payment to A & K Construction Limited for the construction of the Teaching Hospital of the University of Science and Technology, Uzairue (also known as Edo State University, Iyamho, without compliance with due process and against public interest. The Memorandum of Approval of the said diversion is attached as Exhibit “D”.

That the 2nd Respondent borrowed N25 billion from the capital market through the issuance of bonds. He purportedly paid the first N6 billion to Hitech Construction on March 2, 2011 and listed several roads as part of Phase One of the Storm Water Project to include Adolor College road, Textile Mill road, and a host of others. These roads are largely abandoned with little or no work done by Hitech Construction Company. The gullies created as a result of initial work have become major sources of flooding in Benin–City. More than six persons have been killed by this artificial flood.

That the 2nd Respondent authorized and awarded the construction of the 7.2 kilometer Ogba/Airport Road, Benin–City to Servetek Construction Company Limited for construction of drainage structures and dualization from Ring Road to Ogba River Bridge for industry record setting sum of N4.4 billion which translate to N611 million per kilometer without compliance with due process.

Following disputes with the company on how the money was to be shared amongst stakeholders, the company refused to work further and the contract was terminated. It was re-awarded to Setraco Nigeria Limited for over N12 billion, on the pretext that 17 Acres roads were to be constructed along the main Airport Road. It was later discovered that these access roads were re-awarded as stand-alone contracts with new cost tag. The contracts were awarded without compliance with due process.

That the 2nd Respondent authorized and awarded the construction of the Emergency/Accident Unit of the Central Hospital, Benin–City, to company for the sum of N2.7 billion and later reviewed same upwards to over N3 billion. The constructed building subsequently collapsed killing the owner of the company, Dr. Stefano De La Roca and confidant of the 2nd Respondent. The contract was thereafter re-awarded to another company, SCL without penalizing the previous company for the poor work done and thereby causing serious financial loss to Edo State. The said SCL is also one of the companies that constructed the Lord of the Manor Proto-type mansion and adjoining premises of the 2nd Respondents at Iyamho in Edo State.

That in 2012, the 2nd Respondent initiated and authorized the approach to the World Bank to secure a loan of $225 million under the First Edo State Growth and Employment Support Credit project with identification number “P123353”. The World Bank paid Edo State Government $75 million as initial payment and another $75million as second installment, despite massive protest by Edo people.

The said second installment which was domiciled in Access Bank was largely transferred to private off shore accounts and round tripped to the detriment of Edo State.

That the 2nd Respondent authorized and approved the counterpart fund scheme between Edo State Government and Bank of Industry with each party providing N250 million each. This agreement was reached in December, 2009. From the enquiries made by Applicant only N41.6 million was disbursed. The balance sum was diverted for personal gain and to the detriment of Edo State residents.

That the 2nd Respondent received over N500 million as security votes. These funds were diverted to proxy accounts according to available records. For instance, One Chief M.A. Kadiri collected sums of money approved by the 2nd Respondent and totaling about N42 billion. In December 2014, 2nd Respondent approved N700 million which was collected by the same Chief M.A. Kadiri on grounds of urgent security challenges when there was no security threat to justify the purported use of such an astronomically huge amount of money. The said funds were collected by Chief M.A. Kadiri for the benefit of the 2nd Respondent and to the detriment of the residents of Edo State. Copies of memoranda showing some of the receipts by Chief M.A. Kadiri, as approved by the 2nd Respondent are attached as Exhibits “E1-E4”, copies of some of the approvals are attached as Exhibits “E5-E11” and copies of payment vouchers are attached as Exhibits “E12-E22”.

That the 2nd Respondent approved the purchase of vehicles at ridiculous prices from Sata Motors Limited, a company owned by one Gani Audu who was also a Personal Assistant to the 2nd Respondent without compliance with due process and in abuse of the office of Governor of Edo State occupied by the 2nd Respondent. The vouchers are attached as Exhibits “F1, F2 & F3”.

That the 2nd Respondent purportedly acquired properties in United States of America, South Africa and Dubai worth billions of Dollars and far in excess of his legitimate income while serving as Governor of Edo State.

That on December 31st 2014, the N.N.PC. paid $54.9 million to Edo State Government and its Local Government Councils as contributions to Power Sector “Special Sector Intervention Fund”. That the money did not reflect in the income of the State till date was never captured by an Appropriation Act for the State. There is no place in Edo State where any project was built with funds from the so-called special Sector Intervention Funds. The said funds were merely diverted for the private use of the 2nd Respondent. Copies of the NNPC statement of transactions showing withdrawals from the Excess Crude Account and disbursement to Edo State are attached as Exhibit “G”.

That the petition of the Applicant to the 1st Respondent contained weighty allegations bothering on corrupt practices that ought to have been investigated given the effect of corruption on the stunted socio-political and economic growth of Nigeria to the detriment of all persons resident therein.

That the 1st Respondent owes Nigeria and Edo State a duty to unearth the truth by meticulously investigating these allegations to ascertain the extent of complicity and culpability of the 2nd Respondent with respect to these allegations.

That by the Applicant’s letter dated 28th October, 2016 and received by the 1st Respondent on 04/11/16, the attention of the 1st Respondent was drawn to the allegations made against the 2nd Respondent by the Applicant. The 1st Respondent failed or neglected to invite the 2nd Respondent for investigations into the said allegations.

That failing the said invitation of the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent for investigations, the 2nd Respondent began to boast openly to his kindred that he was untouchable and that no anti-corruption agency of government would dare investigate him.

That in the Applicant said petition to the 1st Respondent, the Applicant laid out the allegations against 2nd Respondent and requested the 1st Respondent to investigate the said allegations. The Petition was published in the Daily Sun edition of Monday, November 7, 2016. The copy of the Newspaper publication is attached as Exhibit “H”. Copies of other newspapers are attached as Exhibits “H1, H2, H3 & H4”.

That following the said failure of the 1st Respondent to investigate the allegations against the 2nd Respondent, the Applicant wrote a reminder to the 1st Respondent and same was received by 1st Respondent on 13th December, 2016. Thereafter, one Barr. Eze of EFCC called the Applicant on telephone on 5th January, 2017, requesting for evidence to support the petition. On 9th January, 2017, the Applicant sent the documentary evidence and analysis of evidence done by him to the 1st Respondent by DHL with tracking number 6888917195. The said document was delivered to 1st Respondent on 12th January, 2017 at 09.01am and was received by one Daniel Tsamiya. A copy of the reminder is attached as Exhibit “I”.

That despite the said petition and the reminder sent by the Applicant to the 1st Respondent, demanding that it performs its duty by investigating the allegations against the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent did not investigate the 2nd Respondent or even reply the Applicant’ letters.

That consequent upon the refusal of the 1st Respondent to investigate and prosecute the 2nd Respondent, the Applicant has no option than to approach the court of law for an order mandating the 1st Respondent to perform its statutory duties as required by law.

That the Applicant is an indigene of Edo State who is entitled to enjoy the benefits of good erosion / flood control, good roads, adequate security coverage and other rights flowing from their residency in Edo State and citizenship of Nigeria; which they have been denied as a result of the corrupt activities of the 2nd Respondent.

17. That the Applicant is a fulltime clergy man, being a Bishop of the Divine Heavenly Vision International Ministry Inc., Benin City. He lives on offerings from the church and has no earnings upon which he can be taxed. His church does not engage in any form of business whatsoever.

18. That the Applicant is a dutiful citizen of Nigeria who is committed to the performance of his duties to the nation in order to make positive contributions to the advancement, progress and well-being of the country.

19. That the Applicant, pursuant to his constitutional duties to render assistance to appropriate and lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order sent several petitions to the 1st Respondent complaining about the economic and financial criminal activities of the 2nd Respondent in his capacity as Governor of Edo State from 2008 to 2016. The Applicant did not receive any positive response from the 1st Respondent despite petition, reminder, documentary evidence and numerous visits to the headquarters of the 1st Respondent with respect to the said petitions.

20. That the said petitions are in public interest and are supported by ample documentary evidence. The petitions did not seek any particular method in which the 1st Respondent was to do its job other than to invite the 1st Respondent to investigate the allegations made against the 2nd Respondent.

21. That the Applicant is specially aggrieved by the failure of the 1st Respondent to act on the said petition for the following reasons:

As a result of the mis-use and abuse of public funds by the 2nd Respondent, the road leading to the Applicant’s house and other roads in the locality remained untarred despite several requests from the Applicant to Edo State Government to do so and the said government continually claimed that they had no sufficient funds while 2nd Respondent was busy expending public funds on his expensive lifestyle, including acquiring mansions all over the world at costs outside his legitimate income. Several letters from the Applicant’s community to the 2nd Respondent requesting the development of the said community are attached as Exhibits “J1, J2, J3 & J4”.

The failure to tar Applicant’s road and other roads in the locality has led to frequent repairs on Applicant’s car and loss of valuable time due to frequent visits to mechanic workshops. The same is applicable to others who reside in the area. The receipts of repairs of Applicant’s car are attached as Exhibits “K1, K2 & K3”.

The Applicant and many other ordinary citizens had a hard time gaining access to medicare as the Central Hospital in Benin City which 2nd Respondent claimed to have spent billions of naira of public funds on was not equipped and remained non-functional. Applicant and others had to practically beg for contributions to receive medicare from private hospitals.

These reasons prompted Applicant to carry out an enquiry into how 2nd Respondent’s spent public funds belonging to Edo State and Applicant found out that 2nd Respondent was not prudent in the use of such funds and frequently diverted funds meant for the development and security of the State to private use.

The Applicant found out that the 2nd Respondent wasted hundreds of millions of naira on chartered flights, when public facilities in the State were abandoned and the public denied the benefit of these facilities. Copies of the approved vouchers for some of such chartered flight expenditure are attached as Exhibits “L1 – L13”.

The 2nd Respondent spent millions of naira for choice drinks when major public facilities like roads, hospitals and schools were in dilapidated conditions. Copies of the approved vouchers for the purchase of soft-drinks are attached as Exhibits “M1-M22”.

That the failure of the 1st Respondent to act on the Applicant’s petitions gave the impression that public officers are entitled to use public funds arbitrarily and outside public good.

That the failure of the 1st Respondent to act on the Applicant’s petitions was contrary to Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which enjoins the State to abolish corrupt practices.

That the failure of the 1st Respondent to act on the Applicant’s petitions has enabled the 2nd Respondent’s successor in office, Godwin Obaseki, to largely continue with the 2nd Respondent’s arbitrary and corrupt use of public funds.

That the Applicant would continue to suffer lack of access to good roads, medicare and other government subsidized essential facilities due to the failure to investigate the Applicant’s petitions against the 2nd Respondent and prosecute him accordingly by the 1st Respondent in other to serve as deterrent to other public office holders in Edo State.

That the Applicant as a dutiful citizen is desirous of ensuring that the war against corruption which is founded on the 1999 Constitution is fought without regard to a suspect’s political affiliation or class. The 2nd Respondent is an APC Stalwart and is taking advantage of his membership of the ruling party to influence the 1st Respondent from doing its job.

That the 1st Respondent has investigated similar petitions against public officers of opposition parties and prosecuted them for lesser offences.

That since then the Applicant who is resident in Benin City has repeatedly visited the office of the 1st Respondent in Abuja to no avail. Even in April, 2018, the Applicant visited the 1st Respondent’s said office for a feedback and was snubbed as usual.

That the Applicant being a citizen of Nigeria interested in the Rule of Law, the Supremacy of the Constitution and the enforcement of existing laws has instituted this action to ensure that the 1st Respondent appears before this honourable court to explain why the very strongly worded petition, backed with facts and a prima facie case were not treated by the 1st Respondent despite the duty imposed on it by the law to do same.

Dipo Olowookere is a journalist based in Nigeria that has passion for reporting business news stories. At his leisure time, he watches football and supports 3SC of Ibadan. Mr Olowookere can be reached via [email protected]

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

General

FG Boosts Civil Servants’ Pay with New Allowance Review

Published

on

civil servants nigeria

By Adedapo Adesanya

The federal government has approved a sweeping increase in peculiar allowances and other welfare benefits for civil servants, aimed at improving take-home pay and boosting morale across the public service.

The announcement was made on Friday by the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Didi Walson-Jack, during a press briefing in Abuja, where she outlined key reforms endorsed by the Federal Executive Council (FEC).

According to Mrs Walson-Jack, the review affects workers under both the Consolidated Public Service Salary Structure (CONPSS) and the Consolidated Research and Allied Institutions Salary Structure (CONRAISS), ensuring a broad-based impact across all cadres.

She said the revised peculiar allowances have been structured to reflect across all grade levels, resulting in a meaningful increase in earnings for both junior and senior officers.

In addition, the government approved an upward review of several key allowances, including duty tour allowance (DTA), estacode, and book allowance.

Mrs Walson-Jack noted that virtually all allowances listed under the Public Service Rules have now been revised.

A major highlight of the reform is the approval of 100 per cent Duty Tour Allowance for civil servants attending approved training programmes, regardless of whether travel is involved.

Beyond salary-related adjustments, the government also introduced a new exit benefit scheme for retiring civil servants under the Contributory Pension Scheme. The scheme provides 100 per cent of a retiree’s total annual emoluments as an exit package, in addition to their pension, effective January 1, 2026.

Mrs Walson-Jack described the move as a step toward ensuring dignity in retirement, stressing that no public servant should leave service without adequate financial support.

The government also confirmed the operationalisation of the Employee Compensation Scheme, designed to provide financial protection for workers who suffer job-related injuries or death.

The reforms come amid growing calls from labour unions for improved welfare, as rising living costs continue to put pressure on workers. Analysts say the combined measures could significantly enhance financial stability for civil servants and improve overall productivity in the public sector.

Continue Reading

General

Surrogacy Laws in Ukraine: What Every International Parent Must Know Before Starting the Process

Published

on

surrogacy

One of the primary reasons international couples choose surrogacy in Ukraine is the country’s clear and well-defined legal framework. Unlike many nations where surrogacy exists in a legal gray area or is outright prohibited, Ukraine has codified the rights of intended parents, the obligations of surrogate mothers, and the procedures for establishing legal parenthood.

Understanding these laws is not just advisable but essential. Proper legal preparation ensures that your parental rights are protected, that the process runs smoothly, and that your child’s citizenship and documentation are handled correctly from day one.

The Legal Foundation of Surrogacy in Ukraine

Surrogacy in Ukraine is primarily regulated by two pieces of legislation: the Family Code of Ukraine and the Civil Code of Ukraine. The most significant provision is Article 123, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code, which states that when an embryo conceived through assisted reproductive technologies is transferred to another woman’s body, the married couple who initiated the procedure are recognized as the parents of the child.

This provision is remarkably protective of intended parents. It means that from the moment of embryo transfer, the intended parents are considered the legal parents. The surrogate mother has no legal claim to the child, and there is no requirement for an adoption process or court hearing to establish parenthood.

Additionally, Article 139 of the Family Code reinforces the principle that the surrogate cannot contest the parentage of a child born through a surrogacy arrangement. This dual-layer legal protection is one of the strongest in the world and is a major reason why surrogacy in Ukraine is so attractive to international couples.

Who Is Eligible for Surrogacy in Ukraine?

Ukrainian law sets specific eligibility criteria for intended parents. To qualify for a surrogacy program, you must meet the following requirements:

Marital status: Both partners must be legally married. Ukraine requires a valid marriage certificate, which must be translated into Ukrainian and apostilled.

Medical indication: There must be a documented medical reason why the intended mother cannot carry a pregnancy. This could include uterine abnormalities, repeated IVF failures, recurrent pregnancy loss, or other reproductive health conditions.

Heterosexual couple: Under current Ukrainian legislation, surrogacy is available only to heterosexual married couples. Single parents and same-sex couples are not eligible at this time.

Genetic connection: At least one of the intended parents must have a genetic connection to the child. This means that either the eggs or the sperm (or both) must come from the intended parents. Donor gametes may be used for one component if medically necessary.

The Surrogacy Agreement: Legal Protection for All Parties

Before any medical procedures begin, a comprehensive surrogacy agreement must be executed between the intended parents and the surrogate mother. This legally binding contract is a cornerstone of the process and covers several critical areas.

The agreement defines the rights and obligations of both parties, the compensation structure for the surrogate, medical care provisions during pregnancy, conditions under which the agreement may be terminated, and the procedures for establishing parenthood after birth. Ukrainian law requires this agreement to be notarized, and experienced agencies ensure that all legal requirements are met.

Working with an agency that has in-house legal expertise is essential for ensuring the agreement complies with Ukrainian law and addresses the specific needs of the intended parents. Agencies like Militta provide dedicated legal teams that handle all documentation, from the initial surrogacy agreement to the final birth registration.

For more details about how the legal and medical process works, visit Militta’s comprehensive surrogacy guide.

Birth Registration and Documentation Process

One of the most important moments in a surrogacy journey is the birth of the child and the subsequent documentation process. In Ukraine, this is remarkably straightforward compared to many other countries.

Immediately after the birth, the child’s birth certificate is issued by the local civil registration office (known as RAGS in Ukraine). The certificate lists the intended parents as the mother and father, with no mention of surrogacy or the surrogate mother. The surrogate’s consent is not required for this registration because Ukrainian law already recognizes the intended parents’ rights from the moment of embryo transfer.

After obtaining the birth certificate, the intended parents must proceed with several additional steps. The birth certificate must be apostilled and translated for use in their home country. They must then visit their home country’s embassy or consulate in Ukraine to register the child’s birth, obtain citizenship documentation, and apply for a passport or travel document for the newborn.

The timeline for this post-birth documentation process typically ranges from two to six weeks, depending on the home country’s embassy processing times. During this period, intended parents usually stay in Ukraine, and their agency provides accommodation assistance and logistical support.

Country-Specific Considerations for International Parents

While Ukrainian law is clear and protective, intended parents must also consider the legal requirements of their home country. Different nations have varying approaches to recognizing children born through international surrogacy.

Parents from countries within the European Union, for example, may need to go through additional recognition procedures depending on their specific national laws. Some EU countries, such as Spain and France, have historically been more complex in recognizing surrogacy-born children, while others, like Portugal, have clearer pathways.

Parents from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and China each face their own specific documentation requirements. A knowledgeable surrogacy agency will be familiar with the requirements of your home country and can guide you through the specific steps needed to bring your child home.

Surrogate Rights and Protections in Ukraine

Ukrainian surrogacy law also establishes protections for surrogate mothers. To be eligible, a surrogate must be between 18 and 35 years of age, have at least one healthy child of her own, and pass comprehensive medical and psychological evaluations. These requirements ensure that surrogates are making informed, voluntary decisions.

Surrogates in Ukraine receive compensation that is contractually guaranteed, along with full medical care throughout the pregnancy and a reasonable recovery period after birth. Reputable agencies ensure that surrogates are treated with dignity and that their health and wellbeing are prioritized throughout the process.

Surrogacy in Ukraine in 2026: Current Status and Safety

As of 2026, surrogacy programs in Ukraine continue to operate with full legal backing. The legal framework governing surrogacy has remained stable, and clinics in central and western Ukraine, particularly in Kyiv and Lviv, maintain their operational capacity.

Reputable agencies have implemented comprehensive safety protocols to protect all parties. This includes careful selection of medical facilities in secure locations, contingency planning for logistics, and continuous communication with intended parents throughout the process. International travel to Ukraine is facilitated through European transit routes, and agencies assist with all travel arrangements.

Frequently Asked Questions About Surrogacy Law in Ukraine

Can the surrogate mother change her mind and keep the baby?

No. Under Ukrainian law, the surrogate has no legal rights to the child. The intended parents are recognized as the legal parents from the moment of embryo transfer, and the birth certificate is issued in their names.

Do I need to go through an adoption process after the surrogate gives birth?

No. Unlike many other countries, Ukraine does not require any adoption proceedings for surrogacy-born children. The intended parents’ names appear directly on the birth certificate.

What documents do I need to start a surrogacy program in Ukraine?

You will typically need a valid marriage certificate (apostilled and translated), passports for both intended parents, medical documentation confirming the need for surrogacy, and a notarized surrogacy agreement. Your agency will provide a complete document checklist.

How do I bring my surrogacy-born child back to my home country?

After obtaining the Ukrainian birth certificate, you must register the birth at your home country’s embassy in Ukraine, obtain citizenship documentation, and apply for a passport or travel document for the child. This process typically takes two to six weeks.

Is surrogacy in Ukraine safe in 2026?

Yes. Surrogacy programs operate successfully in central and western Ukraine, with established safety protocols. Leading agencies like Militta have extensive experience managing programs for international clients and ensure the safety and wellbeing of all parties involved.

Ensuring a Legally Secure Surrogacy Journey

The legal landscape of surrogacy in Ukraine is one of the most favorable in the world for intended parents. With clear legislation that protects parental rights from the very beginning, a straightforward birth registration process, and no need for adoption proceedings, Ukraine provides a secure foundation for building your family.

The key to a successful surrogacy journey lies in thorough preparation and partnership with experienced professionals. By choosing a reputable agency with proven legal expertise, you can navigate the process with confidence, knowing that every step is handled in compliance with Ukrainian law and with your family’s best interests at heart.

Continue Reading

General

ADC Lawmakers Oppose Tinubu’s $516m Loan Request for Highway

Published

on

badagry sokoto highway

By Adedapo Adesanya

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) Legislators’ Forum has condemned the latest move by President Bola Tinubu to secure Senate approval for an additional external loan of $516,333,070 for the Sokoto–Badagry Super Highway project.

Mr Tinubu requested Senate approval for a $516.3 million syndicated loan to finance key sections of the Sokoto–Badagry Superhighway, a major infrastructure project under his administration’s Renewed Hope Agenda from Deutsche Bank.

The request, contained in a letter read during plenary on Thursday by the Senate President, Mr Godswill Akpabio, seeks legislative authorisation in line with Sections 16 and 21 of the Debt Management Office (Establishment) Act, 2011.

However, the opposition lawmakers said it is not only alarming but becoming of the Tinubu administration to make borrowing its default economic policy, with little regard for sustainability, accountability, or the well-being of future generations.

The forum, in a statement jointly signed by its chairman, Mr Uko Ndukwe Nkole, as well as leaders from each geopolitical zone, noted that while no responsible opposition undermines the importance of infrastructure development, the cost and conditions of such projects must be queried.

According to the ADC lawmakers, Mr Tinubu’s government has failed to convincingly demonstrate that its endless appetite for loans is guided by a coherent, transparent and economically viable repayment strategy.

“Instead, Nigerians are witnessing a troubling pattern; one where debt accumulation is prioritised over prudent fiscal management, innovation, and domestic resource mobilisation.

“Nigeria is already weighed down by a crushing debt burden, with debt servicing swallowing a staggering proportion of national revenue. Yet, rather than confronting this reality with discipline and reform, the Tinubu administration continues to plunge the country deeper into what can only be described as a looming debt catastrophe.

“Each new loan tightens the noose around the nation’s economic sovereignty, leaving future generations to pay for today’s lack of foresight.

“Even more disturbing is the timing of this request. As the nation inches closer to a major general election cycle, Nigerians are right to question the motives behind this borrowing spree.

“Is this truly about development, or is it another attempt to create avenues for political patronage and electoral advantage? History has taught us to be wary of last-minute, large-scale financial commitments made under the guise of national interest,” the statement read in part.

The ADC Legislators’ Forum insisted that the National Assembly must not act as a rubber stamp or a pro-group of President Tinubu in this matter.

It said the Senate, in particular, must rise to its constitutional responsibility by demanding full disclosure of the project’s financial details, procurement processes, cost-benefit analysis, and a credible repayment plan, as anything short of this would amount to a betrayal of public trust.

The lawmakers called on the administration to redirect its focus toward policies that can genuinely strengthen Nigeria’s economy; policies that promote productivity, industrial growth, job creation, and the plugging of revenue leakages.

“We must clearly state that governance is not a free ride without consequences. Those who make decisions today that endanger the economic future of millions of Nigerians must understand that a day of reckoning will inevitably come.

“The Nigerian people will demand answers, accountability, and justice for policies that have deepened hardship and mortgaged the nation’s destiny. Nigeria stands at a critical crossroads.

“We can either choose the path of responsibility, discipline, and sustainable growth, or continue down this perilous road of debt dependency and economic vulnerability,” the statement added.

Continue Reading

Trending