African Bar Association chieftain asks FG to withdraw Samoa Agreement


A Lagos-based lawyer and Chairman of the Human and Constitutional Rights Committee of the African Bar Association, ABA, Sonnie Ekwowusi, has urged the Federal Government to withdraw the controversial Samoa Agreement.

The ABA chieftain who gave the advice in a statement issued on Tuesday gave a couple of reasons to ground his position.

Specifically, Ekwowusi said signing of the agreement by Nigeria constitutes a threat to the sovereignty of Nigeria and Africa, adding that it further debases our democracy.

“Nigeria must unsign or withdraw from the Samoa  Agreement.

“Contrary to Minister Bugunda’s propaganda, the Samoa Agreement IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF NIGERIA.

“Why? Articles of the Agreement, especially 2.5, 29.5, 36.2, 88, 97, violate Nigeria’s laws, Nigeria’s sovereignty and African Charter on Peoples and Human Rights which Nigeria has domesticated,” he said.

It would be recalled that the decision to sign the agreement has been met with controversies over the claim of an LGBTQ clause.

According to reports, the agreement reportedly includes clauses that require underdeveloped and developing nations to support LGBTQ rights as a condition for receiving financial and other forms of support from advanced countries.

Named after the Pacific Island Samoa, where it was signed on November 15, 2023, the agreement is gaining traction despite opposition from many countries that uphold Islamic and Christian values and are sensitive to their cultural norms.

Reports of Nigeria’s ratification of the agreement emerged on July 1, when Abubakar Atiku Bagudu, the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning, confirmed the development at a European Union reception in Abuja.

However, Bagudu’s Media Assistant, Bolaji Adebiyi, clarified on Wednesday that the documents referenced by Bagudu during the EU reception pertained strictly to economic development and did not mention LGBTQ or same-sex marriage.

Reacting to the development in a statement on Tuesday, Ekwowusi posited that “Article 2.5 states: ‘The Parties shall systematically promote a gender perspective and ensure that gender equality is mainstreamed across all policies.’

“Nigerian delegates who participate in United Nations deliberations will readily attest that the phrase: ‘gender equality’ is a Trojan horse for deceptively bringing in all sorts of immoralities into a country. In any case, the appropriate word is “sex” not “gender”.

“This is why section 42 (1) of the Nigerian Constitution talks about “sex” and not “gender”. “Sex” means “male” or “female”. “Gender” connotes homosexuality, lesbianism, transgenderism and abortions.  

“Section 42 (1) of the 1999 Constitution stipulates that no citizen of Nigeria should be discriminated against on grounds of his or her sex, ethnic group, place of origin, religion or political opinion.

“Nothing can be more apt than this. The section protects all women and men from discrimination on ground on their sex, ethnic group, place of origin, religion or political opinion.

“But ‘gender’ is now given a social construct instead of a biological construct. ‘Gender ‘ no longer means two sexes – male and female – as we traditionally understand the notion to mean in Nigeria. It now includes homosexualism, lesbianism, transgenderism, animalism etc. So, away with ‘gender equality’.

“The phrase ‘gender equality’ is another euphemism for legalization of homosexuality, lesbianism, transgenderism and abortion. Why do sponsors of  homosexualism, lesbianism, transgenderism and abortion rights in Nigeria hide under euphemisms and dodgy languages such as ‘gender equality’?              

“Because the words homosexualism, lesbian transgenderism and abortion are repugnant in Nigerian and African  socio-cultural and religious settings, so the sponsors of these useless things in Nigeria use euphemisms and dodgy words to avoid incurring the wrath of the Nigerian people.

“Article 29.5 states: ‘The Parties shall support universal access to sexual and reproductive health commodities and healthcare services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.’

“Sexual and Reproductive health commodities, health care services and reproductive programmes are nothing but euphemisms for  abortion, abortifacients, LGBT services and education, teaching African kids masturbation, erection, touching in each others genitals etc in the name of Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE).

“Article 36. 1 states: ‘The parties acknowledge that gender equality and women’s economic empowerment are essential and achievable…’

“Article 36.2: ‘The Parties commit to the full and effective implementation of the Beijing Declaration and  Platform for Action and the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population  and Development and the outcomes of their review conferences and commit to sexual and reproductive health and rights, in that context.’

“Sexual and reproductive health and rights. The EU on June 22 2022 defined this phrase to encompass LGBT, sexual orientation and gender identity

“Sexual and reproductive health and rights also means the rights of individuals to have their sexual orientation and gender identity fully respected

“EU countries have a nefarious agenda behind the language referring to the outcome documents of the review conferences of ICPD and Beijing. Finally, an advocacy manual funded by the Netherlands reveals this agenda in the following excerpt:

“Outcomes of the review conferences: Both the International Conference for Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action and the Beijing Platform for Action have had regional review conferences where progress on implementing these agreements at the regional level was discussed.

“Importantly, the outcome documents of these review conferences are usually more progressive than those that come out of New York and Geneva, and have even included references to human rights, sexual rights, LGBT rights, safe abortion, and other ‘sensitive’ Sexual reproductive human right issues.

“Including a reference to the outcomes of these review conferences (or any other more progressive process) means that member states accept these outcomes, and therefore also the progressive language within them. For this reason it is often difficult to keep these references in an outcome document. (Choice for Youth & Sexuality, ‘The Advocate’s Guide to UN Language’)[1]

“So,  any references to outcome documents of review conferences of ICPD and Beijing are intended to encompass the controversial regional and thematic reviews that were not negotiated by all UN Member States, and which openly promote CSE, abortion and the LGBT agenda. Certainly, this would indicate that such phrases should be avoided or heavily caveated as indicated in this section

“Article 97 states: ‘No treaty, convention, agreement or arrangement of any kind between one or more member States of Europe and one or more OACPS Members shall impede the implementation of this Agreement.’

“This is the supremacy Clause, meaning that the Agreement is superior to any treaty, convention or further agreement.

“The Agreement violates Nigeria’s sovereignty. No provision for reservation.

“The Agreement  makes African countries accountable to the EU.

“The Agreement has no Interpretation Section. This is why Namibia refused to sign it.

“The Agreement creates a ‘Council of Ministers’ co-chaired by the EU which has power to make binding legal decisions that directly impact laws and policies of the 48 African countries.

“The Agreement violates chapter 2 of the Nigerian constitution and Articles  2, 8, 17, 18, 28, 29 of the African Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights (Ratification Enforcement) Act, CAP 10 which is a part and parcel of the Nigerian law.

“The Agreement referenced ‘human rights’ 100 times without defining  any of them.

“The Nigerian Minister of information published a commentary with all its errors  justifying the signing, but chose deliberately not to publish the declaration that    accompanied the signing. The Minister’s statement shows that he is very ignorant of the Articles of Samoa Agreement.

“Nigeria is a sovereign country, as are other African nations, the Caribbean, and the Pacific countries. We should not be dictated to by the EU.

“We are no longer under the tutelage of our former colonial masters. If the EU decides to stop providing financial assistance due to our refusal to sign the LGBT agreement, they may proceed to do so. However, we cannot yield to the EU’s cheap blackmail and sign the agreement.

“We know Nigeria was under pressure from the very beginning to sign the Samoa Agreement, That pressure is from Europe. Europe exerted similar pressure on their own, that is, Poland and Hungary who are protective of life and Family. This is what the recent EU Nigeria Summit was about. Offering a carrot to sell out our  sovereignty and Values.”

Share your story or advertise with us: Whatsapp: +2348179614306 Email:


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here