The Nigerian Association of Seadogs, also known as Pyrates, has called on the Federal Government to declare and treat herdsmen in the country as terrorists.

The group explained that declaring cattle herders in Nigeria terrorists had become imperative following their activities that had led to the death of scores of Nigerians.

NAS President, Arthur Boje, who made the call during a medical outreach organised by the association at Oro-Ochiri community in Rebisi town, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, said herdsmen were also responsible for the sacking of some communities in the country.

The medical outreach was part of the association’s programme to mark its Quarter 2 Pyrates Working Committee meeting.

Boje said, “We are not happy with the killings going on in parts of the country. There is no way you will be satisfied when your brothers and sisters are killed senselessly and the government is not doing enough to save the situation.

“What those herdsmen are doing is orchestrated. It is tactically planned. These are people that have infiltrated into the country, aided by some people on the ground and also sponsored by people here.

“They are terrorists and the Federal Government should treat them as such. They are not herdsmen; they are professional killers brought from outside into the country to cause havoc.”

By Mfreke-Abasi Udonkang 

Mfreke-Abasi Udonkang

It is becoming clearer by the day, that the Nigerian  government headed by President Mohammadu Buhari is a basket case.  The Presidency has woefully failed in its core constitutional responsibility to protect the lives and properties of Nigerians. This is due largely to the refusal of the President and Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Repubublic of Nigeria, the Chief Security Officer of the Federation to effectively confront and tackle the criminal activities of the dreaded Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association for the overall good of the country.


Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association is the group that is responsible for the genocide that is currently going on in the country especially in the the middle belt region and some parts of Southern Nigeria. The association is made up of militant Fulani herdsmen from the Northern part of the country, a group that has been named by The Global Terrorism Index as the fourth deadliest terror group in the world. 95 percent of their attacks target private citizens, reflecting the group’s primary concern over the ownership of farmlands.


In spite of the unremitting calls by concerned citizens of the country, on the government to arrest, investigate and prosecute the leaders of this group, who openly admitted to the killings in Benue State, the President is studiedly  dillydallying on it for reasons best known to him and thereby indicted himself of having compromised the security of Nigerians.


As a result of the studied silence and inaction on the part of the President, who is of the fulani extraction and who also has a verifiable historical antecedents of being an ethnic bigot, so many people in the country especially the Christians are of the opinion that President Buhari has an agenda of islamizing the whole country and this line of thinking is strengthened against the backdrop that all the security arms and agencies in the country are headed by the Fulani moslems, the Northerners, in flagrant violation of Section 14 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria  (As Amended ). 


Section 14 (3) of the Constitution provides thus: ” The Composition of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in a such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no pre-dominance of persons from a few state or from a few ethnic or sectional groups in that Government or any of its agencies.”   This is a provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which the president swore to uphold. This violation, an impeachable offence is curiously overlooked by the National Assembly.


The federal government in contradistinction to its responsibilities is rather mounting pressure and arm- twisting the state governments and seeking to grab land from them for the purpose of establishing cattle colonies for agricultural development, which responsibility is clearly within the purview of the various state governments.


In the context of Nigerian federalism, Exclusive Legislative List is the list on which matters over which only the federal government can legislate are enumerated. This is contained in Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the 1999 Constitution. There are 68 of such matters.


Concurrent Legislative List on the other hand implies the list that bears the matters over which both the federal and state governments  can exercise legislative authorities. It is contained in Part 2 of the same Second Schedule of the 1999 Constitution. 


Items 17 – 20 of the Concurrent Legislative List provides for Industrial, Commercial or Agricultural Development. For the purpose of clarification, I reproduce the aforementioned provisions thus: 


17. The National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect to-


                 (a)  the health, safety and welfare of person employed  to work in factories, offices or other premises or in inter-state transportation and commerce including the training, supervision and qualification of such persons;                                


(b)  the regulation of ownership and control of business enterprises throughout the Federation for the purpose of promoting, encouraging or facilitating such ownership and control by citizens of Nigeria;  


(c)  the establishment of research centres for agricultural studies; and 


(d)  the establishment of institutions and bodies for the promotion or financing of industrial, commercial or agricultural projects.


18.  Subject to the provisions of this Constitution a House of Assembly may make Laws for that State with respect to industrial, commercial or agricultural development of the State.


19.  Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs of this item shall be construed as precluding a House of Assembly from making Laws with respect to any of the matters referred to in the foregoing paragraphs.


20.  For the purposes of the foregoing paragraphs of this item, the word “agricultural” includes fishery.


From the clear wordings of the paragraphs above on these items, it could be seen that matters pertaining to agricultural development are the exclusive preserve of the various state governments and the federal government therefore has no business with agricultural development except the establishment of research centres, institutions and bodies for the purposes of promoting or financing industrial, commercial or agricultural projects and so far, there are no conflicting laws of the federal and state governments in this respect for one to argue and insist that the law of the federal government should supersede and prevail. From the foregoing, it stands to  reason also that the yearly allocations in the federal budget for livestock development are always in error and an advertisement of the state of impoverishment of the knowledge of the laws of the country on the part of  those charged with the responsibility of making the budget.


Additionally, the federal government doesn’t own any land for the purpose of establishing cattle colonies for Fulani Cattle Breeders. The only land owned by the federal government and which undoubtedly is not for agricultural development is all the land within the 100 metres limit of the 1967 shoreline and all land reclaimed near the lagoon, sea or ocean in or bordering Nigeria, as provided by the LANDS ( TITLE VESTING, ETC) ACT OF 1993. Other than this land, every land comprised in the territory of every state is vested in the Governor of that state. The various state governments in that wise will be in order to establish cattle colonies or ranches for interested cattle rearers  in their states. 


Cattle rearing and business should not be seen or taken and can never ever be the exclusivity of the Fulanis. If anything, it shouldn’t even be their vocations as long as they can not afford to have fodder all year round in their capacities for their cattle. 


I am bewildered that the President and his Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development have refused to understand that Cattle rearing is a private business, that anyone with the requisite interest, knowledge and resources can freely venture into it, the same way one can engage in arable farming, vegetable farming, fruit farming, pig and poultry farming. These farmers do it on their private capacities and it is nonsensical to give the Fulanis herdsmen any preferential treatment simply because they are terrorists. They should rather be treated as terrorists and not pampered.


All hail the  Land Use Act. By its Section 1, all land comprised in the territory of each state of the Federation of Nigeria is vested solely in the Governor of the state and not President Buhari nor Mr Audu Ogbeh. The  Governor holds such land in trust for the people. He is responsible for the allocation of land in all urban areas to individuals resident in the state and to organizations for residential, agricultural, commercial and other purposes while similar powers are with respect to non-urban areas conferred on the Local Governments. The Act also makes provision to the effect that there can not be any compulsory acquisition of land except same is required for overriding public interest and such interest must be for the public purpose which include exclusive Government Use or general public use. It also include purposes in connection with economic, industrial or agricultural development,See Section 51 of the Act.


It is not in doubt therefore that the proposal by the federal government to open cattle colonies in parts of the Federation amounts to executive lawlessness. It is trite law that where the executive acts without the backing of the law,  and such acts which are actions or omissions are ultra vires the Constitution.


I am sure there is no President except President Buhari and no  State Governor except the likes of Governor Bello of Kogi State that can consciously cede any part of its territory to a terrorist group that is openly  spitting fire and talking tough all the time. 


The various state governments should be abreast with the laws of the land and also brace up to defend their territories against these invading terrorists in the guise of cattle rearers.  The State Governors as the Chief Security Officers of their states have every right to defend their territories. The soldiers have refused to help, they are now used as security guards and toll collectors manning roadblocks in the Southern part of the country. The policemen are raring and fast turning themselves into loaders at the motor parks. What a colourful shame!


If the government is sincere and must succeed in its drive to diversify the economy, it is high time some form of Farmers Defence and Security Guards were set up. Such formations would not be in contravention to Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution. That provision of the Constitution doesn’t preclude the state governments from setting up security agencies in the similitude of the Police, provided it is not a Police  Force. Section 214 (1) only provides that:  “There shall be a Police Force  for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria Police Force, and subject to the provisions of this section no other police force shall be established for the Federation or any part thereof.” If Section 214 of the Constitution doesn’t preclude the establishment of Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps because the Corps is not seen as a Police Force which it is not, then something  in the similitude of the NSCDC could be established by the various state governments to defend the farmer population in cases of threat to their lives and properties.


The Act establishing the NSCDC in its Section 3 provides for the functions of the Corps. Section 3  provides : “The Corps shall-
      (a)  assist in the maintenance of peace and order and in the            protection and rescuing of the Civil Population during the period of emergency”, and its Section 29 defines ” Period of emergency” to include any period of disorder or unrest and environmental or structural disaster. 


In these days of unprovoked attacks against the farming communities, with such violence that causes reasonable apprehension of death and grievous bodily harm, in addition to criminal trespass and malicious damage to farmlands, farm settlements and farm produce, it is absolutely necessary and  incumbent on the various state governments to rethink self-preservation for these farmers. The doctrine of self-defence is applicable in our criminal jurisprudence and the law is trite that a man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the  first blow or fire the first shot, circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike. Under the Common Law, the courts have equated the defence of others with the prevention of crimes. The courts in this  regard have held for instance that a woman would be justified in using reasonable force when it was necessary to do so in defence of her sister, not because they were sisters but because ” there is a general liberty as between strangers  to prevent a felony.”  


Under the Nigerian Criminal Code, whenever it is lawful for any person to  use force in any degree for the purpose of defending himself against an assault, it is lawful for any other person acting in good faith in his aid to use a like degree of force for the purpose of defending such first-mentioned person.  Self-defence  is the use of force to protect oneself, one’s family, or one’s property including farmlands, farm settlements and farm produce from real or threatened attack.


The state governors in equipping  the officers and men of such outfits for the purpose of carrying  out their functions, may require to invent and use some other farm tools and implements in addition to the usual farm tools or other mechanical tools of some other nature which may come within the definition of a firearm, in respect of such other tools in order to fall within the exemption envisaged by  Section 37 (c) of The FIREARMS ACT, LFN, CAP F28, 2004.


It is high time the various state governments rose up to the defence of their territories as the Chief Security Officers of their various states and the time to act is now.


Uyoakam Ekerete, Esq
22/01/2018

By Mfreke Udonkang

We get it that engagements might become a bit cliché these days and you may wish to do something different so as to make the day remarkable and forever treasured by your partner.
Whatever you do, though, there are still some lines you should not cross in your bid to pull a huge, creative surprise proposal.
Below i list 6 types of these mistakes you should avoid.


1. Fake death
Whatever you do, don’t be like the guy in the movie, who faked his death so as to create a stirring story.
You shouldn’t put your partner through the harrows of a death scare just so you can now play Lazarus and propose afterwards.
Dead that morbid idea, sir.


2. Fake arrest
We agree that a little drama might make for a great story but faking an arrest sounds a bit extreme.
No one wants to joke with SARS, abeg.


3. The wedding proposal
Don’t propose at another person’s wedding. It is as simple as that.
Hopefully everyone has learnt that lesson.


4. The crisis engagement
Don’t propose during a fight. This is not wise. Even if the ring is bought and ready to go, let cooler heads prevail before those four big words fly.


5. Prank proposal


It’ll be a little mighty insensitive to pull an April first engagement prank with your babe.
And the act is not cruel only on the annual first day of April wankfest. A prank proposal is uncool wherever, whenever you do it.
Don’t be that guy [or babe
Try to avoid an accidental proposal wedding proposals like the one that happened in “The Wedding Part 2” (Bongis)


6. An accidental proposal


The only thing worse than a botched proposal is an accidental one.
Don’t give rings as random gifts to your babe if you know your relationship has reached that stage where an engagement is to be expected.
Also try to stay away from giving her gifts that come in tiny boxes. She might begin screaming ‘YES, I’ll marry you’ before you have time to explain that it’s just earrings in the box!

The Nigerian Association of Seadogs, also known as Pyrates, has called on the Federal Government to declare and treat herdsmen in the country as terrorists.

The group explained that declaring cattle herders in Nigeria terrorists had become imperative following their activities that had led to the death of scores of Nigerians.

NAS President, Arthur Boje, who made the call during a medical outreach organised by the association at Oro-Ochiri community in Rebisi town, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, said herdsmen were also responsible for the sacking of some communities in the country.

The medical outreach was part of the association’s programme to mark its Quarter 2 Pyrates Working Committee meeting.

Boje said, “We are not happy with the killings going on in parts of the country. There is no way you will be satisfied when your brothers and sisters are killed senselessly and the government is not doing enough to save the situation.

“What those herdsmen are doing is orchestrated. It is tactically planned. These are people that have infiltrated into the country, aided by some people on the ground and also sponsored by people here.

“They are terrorists and the Federal Government should treat them as such. They are not herdsmen; they are professional killers brought from outside into the country to cause havoc.”

By Mfreke-Abasi Udonkang 

Mfreke-Abasi Udonkang

It is becoming clearer by the day, that the Nigerian  government headed by President Mohammadu Buhari is a basket case.  The Presidency has woefully failed in its core constitutional responsibility to protect the lives and properties of Nigerians. This is due largely to the refusal of the President and Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Repubublic of Nigeria, the Chief Security Officer of the Federation to effectively confront and tackle the criminal activities of the dreaded Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association for the overall good of the country.


Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association is the group that is responsible for the genocide that is currently going on in the country especially in the the middle belt region and some parts of Southern Nigeria. The association is made up of militant Fulani herdsmen from the Northern part of the country, a group that has been named by The Global Terrorism Index as the fourth deadliest terror group in the world. 95 percent of their attacks target private citizens, reflecting the group’s primary concern over the ownership of farmlands.


In spite of the unremitting calls by concerned citizens of the country, on the government to arrest, investigate and prosecute the leaders of this group, who openly admitted to the killings in Benue State, the President is studiedly  dillydallying on it for reasons best known to him and thereby indicted himself of having compromised the security of Nigerians.


As a result of the studied silence and inaction on the part of the President, who is of the fulani extraction and who also has a verifiable historical antecedents of being an ethnic bigot, so many people in the country especially the Christians are of the opinion that President Buhari has an agenda of islamizing the whole country and this line of thinking is strengthened against the backdrop that all the security arms and agencies in the country are headed by the Fulani moslems, the Northerners, in flagrant violation of Section 14 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria  (As Amended ). 


Section 14 (3) of the Constitution provides thus: ” The Composition of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in a such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no pre-dominance of persons from a few state or from a few ethnic or sectional groups in that Government or any of its agencies.”   This is a provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which the president swore to uphold. This violation, an impeachable offence is curiously overlooked by the National Assembly.


The federal government in contradistinction to its responsibilities is rather mounting pressure and arm- twisting the state governments and seeking to grab land from them for the purpose of establishing cattle colonies for agricultural development, which responsibility is clearly within the purview of the various state governments.


In the context of Nigerian federalism, Exclusive Legislative List is the list on which matters over which only the federal government can legislate are enumerated. This is contained in Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the 1999 Constitution. There are 68 of such matters.


Concurrent Legislative List on the other hand implies the list that bears the matters over which both the federal and state governments  can exercise legislative authorities. It is contained in Part 2 of the same Second Schedule of the 1999 Constitution. 


Items 17 – 20 of the Concurrent Legislative List provides for Industrial, Commercial or Agricultural Development. For the purpose of clarification, I reproduce the aforementioned provisions thus: 


17. The National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect to-


                 (a)  the health, safety and welfare of person employed  to work in factories, offices or other premises or in inter-state transportation and commerce including the training, supervision and qualification of such persons;                                


(b)  the regulation of ownership and control of business enterprises throughout the Federation for the purpose of promoting, encouraging or facilitating such ownership and control by citizens of Nigeria;  


(c)  the establishment of research centres for agricultural studies; and 


(d)  the establishment of institutions and bodies for the promotion or financing of industrial, commercial or agricultural projects.


18.  Subject to the provisions of this Constitution a House of Assembly may make Laws for that State with respect to industrial, commercial or agricultural development of the State.


19.  Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs of this item shall be construed as precluding a House of Assembly from making Laws with respect to any of the matters referred to in the foregoing paragraphs.


20.  For the purposes of the foregoing paragraphs of this item, the word “agricultural” includes fishery.


From the clear wordings of the paragraphs above on these items, it could be seen that matters pertaining to agricultural development are the exclusive preserve of the various state governments and the federal government therefore has no business with agricultural development except the establishment of research centres, institutions and bodies for the purposes of promoting or financing industrial, commercial or agricultural projects and so far, there are no conflicting laws of the federal and state governments in this respect for one to argue and insist that the law of the federal government should supersede and prevail. From the foregoing, it stands to  reason also that the yearly allocations in the federal budget for livestock development are always in error and an advertisement of the state of impoverishment of the knowledge of the laws of the country on the part of  those charged with the responsibility of making the budget.


Additionally, the federal government doesn’t own any land for the purpose of establishing cattle colonies for Fulani Cattle Breeders. The only land owned by the federal government and which undoubtedly is not for agricultural development is all the land within the 100 metres limit of the 1967 shoreline and all land reclaimed near the lagoon, sea or ocean in or bordering Nigeria, as provided by the LANDS ( TITLE VESTING, ETC) ACT OF 1993. Other than this land, every land comprised in the territory of every state is vested in the Governor of that state. The various state governments in that wise will be in order to establish cattle colonies or ranches for interested cattle rearers  in their states. 


Cattle rearing and business should not be seen or taken and can never ever be the exclusivity of the Fulanis. If anything, it shouldn’t even be their vocations as long as they can not afford to have fodder all year round in their capacities for their cattle. 


I am bewildered that the President and his Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development have refused to understand that Cattle rearing is a private business, that anyone with the requisite interest, knowledge and resources can freely venture into it, the same way one can engage in arable farming, vegetable farming, fruit farming, pig and poultry farming. These farmers do it on their private capacities and it is nonsensical to give the Fulanis herdsmen any preferential treatment simply because they are terrorists. They should rather be treated as terrorists and not pampered.


All hail the  Land Use Act. By its Section 1, all land comprised in the territory of each state of the Federation of Nigeria is vested solely in the Governor of the state and not President Buhari nor Mr Audu Ogbeh. The  Governor holds such land in trust for the people. He is responsible for the allocation of land in all urban areas to individuals resident in the state and to organizations for residential, agricultural, commercial and other purposes while similar powers are with respect to non-urban areas conferred on the Local Governments. The Act also makes provision to the effect that there can not be any compulsory acquisition of land except same is required for overriding public interest and such interest must be for the public purpose which include exclusive Government Use or general public use. It also include purposes in connection with economic, industrial or agricultural development,See Section 51 of the Act.


It is not in doubt therefore that the proposal by the federal government to open cattle colonies in parts of the Federation amounts to executive lawlessness. It is trite law that where the executive acts without the backing of the law,  and such acts which are actions or omissions are ultra vires the Constitution.


I am sure there is no President except President Buhari and no  State Governor except the likes of Governor Bello of Kogi State that can consciously cede any part of its territory to a terrorist group that is openly  spitting fire and talking tough all the time. 


The various state governments should be abreast with the laws of the land and also brace up to defend their territories against these invading terrorists in the guise of cattle rearers.  The State Governors as the Chief Security Officers of their states have every right to defend their territories. The soldiers have refused to help, they are now used as security guards and toll collectors manning roadblocks in the Southern part of the country. The policemen are raring and fast turning themselves into loaders at the motor parks. What a colourful shame!


If the government is sincere and must succeed in its drive to diversify the economy, it is high time some form of Farmers Defence and Security Guards were set up. Such formations would not be in contravention to Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution. That provision of the Constitution doesn’t preclude the state governments from setting up security agencies in the similitude of the Police, provided it is not a Police  Force. Section 214 (1) only provides that:  “There shall be a Police Force  for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria Police Force, and subject to the provisions of this section no other police force shall be established for the Federation or any part thereof.” If Section 214 of the Constitution doesn’t preclude the establishment of Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps because the Corps is not seen as a Police Force which it is not, then something  in the similitude of the NSCDC could be established by the various state governments to defend the farmer population in cases of threat to their lives and properties.


The Act establishing the NSCDC in its Section 3 provides for the functions of the Corps. Section 3  provides : “The Corps shall-
      (a)  assist in the maintenance of peace and order and in the            protection and rescuing of the Civil Population during the period of emergency”, and its Section 29 defines ” Period of emergency” to include any period of disorder or unrest and environmental or structural disaster. 


In these days of unprovoked attacks against the farming communities, with such violence that causes reasonable apprehension of death and grievous bodily harm, in addition to criminal trespass and malicious damage to farmlands, farm settlements and farm produce, it is absolutely necessary and  incumbent on the various state governments to rethink self-preservation for these farmers. The doctrine of self-defence is applicable in our criminal jurisprudence and the law is trite that a man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the  first blow or fire the first shot, circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike. Under the Common Law, the courts have equated the defence of others with the prevention of crimes. The courts in this  regard have held for instance that a woman would be justified in using reasonable force when it was necessary to do so in defence of her sister, not because they were sisters but because ” there is a general liberty as between strangers  to prevent a felony.”  


Under the Nigerian Criminal Code, whenever it is lawful for any person to  use force in any degree for the purpose of defending himself against an assault, it is lawful for any other person acting in good faith in his aid to use a like degree of force for the purpose of defending such first-mentioned person.  Self-defence  is the use of force to protect oneself, one’s family, or one’s property including farmlands, farm settlements and farm produce from real or threatened attack.


The state governors in equipping  the officers and men of such outfits for the purpose of carrying  out their functions, may require to invent and use some other farm tools and implements in addition to the usual farm tools or other mechanical tools of some other nature which may come within the definition of a firearm, in respect of such other tools in order to fall within the exemption envisaged by  Section 37 (c) of The FIREARMS ACT, LFN, CAP F28, 2004.


It is high time the various state governments rose up to the defence of their territories as the Chief Security Officers of their various states and the time to act is now.


Uyoakam Ekerete, Esq
22/01/2018

By Mfreke Udonkang

We get it that engagements might become a bit cliché these days and you may wish to do something different so as to make the day remarkable and forever treasured by your partner.
Whatever you do, though, there are still some lines you should not cross in your bid to pull a huge, creative surprise proposal.
Below i list 6 types of these mistakes you should avoid.


1. Fake death
Whatever you do, don’t be like the guy in the movie, who faked his death so as to create a stirring story.
You shouldn’t put your partner through the harrows of a death scare just so you can now play Lazarus and propose afterwards.
Dead that morbid idea, sir.


2. Fake arrest
We agree that a little drama might make for a great story but faking an arrest sounds a bit extreme.
No one wants to joke with SARS, abeg.


3. The wedding proposal
Don’t propose at another person’s wedding. It is as simple as that.
Hopefully everyone has learnt that lesson.


4. The crisis engagement
Don’t propose during a fight. This is not wise. Even if the ring is bought and ready to go, let cooler heads prevail before those four big words fly.


5. Prank proposal


It’ll be a little mighty insensitive to pull an April first engagement prank with your babe.
And the act is not cruel only on the annual first day of April wankfest. A prank proposal is uncool wherever, whenever you do it.
Don’t be that guy [or babe
Try to avoid an accidental proposal wedding proposals like the one that happened in “The Wedding Part 2” (Bongis)


6. An accidental proposal


The only thing worse than a botched proposal is an accidental one.
Don’t give rings as random gifts to your babe if you know your relationship has reached that stage where an engagement is to be expected.
Also try to stay away from giving her gifts that come in tiny boxes. She might begin screaming ‘YES, I’ll marry you’ before you have time to explain that it’s just earrings in the box!