No man’s land: Rhodes-Vivour condemns Obasa’s proposed law to protect Lagos indigenes

Forum 11 months ago

No man’s land: Rhodes-Vivour condemns Obasa’s proposed law to protect Lagos indigenes

Labour Party governorship candidate in Lagos State for the 2023 elections, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour has slammed the Speaker of the House of Assembly in the state, Hon Mudashiru Obasa for proposing to make laws that will protect the property rights of indigenes.

Vanguard reported earlier that Obasa revealed in his acceptance speech that Lagos is Yoruba Land, and its lawmakers will enact laws to protect the indigenes even if it means reversing the existing laws.

Reacting to the new development on Thursday via a Twitter post, Rhodes-Vivour said the Speaker will divide Lagos residents along ethnic lines with his proposed law.

He said: “By considering this regressive bill, the Speaker disregards the spirit of the Nigerian Constitution and perpetuates a discriminatory system that divides our society along ethnic lines.

“The proposed bill undermines the principle of private ownership and could severely affect investment, economic growth, and overall prosperity in Lagos State. By considering such legislation, the Speaker is sending a damaging message to local and international investors, discouraging their participation and confidence in the state’s economy.”

He also stated that the law would discourage the participation of local and foreign investors in Lagos economy.

He then urged the Assembly that would “protect heritage, historical sites, and traditional institutions from political vandalism.”

He also said, “The speaker of the house announced his intention to make laws to protect indigenes. ‘They will reverse the reversible’ I believe that the time for this ethnic dog whistling must come to an end. With an election that ripped our social fabric, it is time for healing.

“We expect a policy that compensates indigenes for lands seized by the government, education bursaries, and inclusion of an independent traditional institution in governance. Not threats to property rights enshrined in the constitution.”