TheNewsGuru

Tag: Ehichioya Ezomon

  • Atiku, Obi’s petitions different from conventional legal matters – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Atiku, Obi’s petitions different from conventional legal matters – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    This is a response to a comment on my October 30, 2023, piece on, “How Supreme Court trashed Atiku’s ‘fresh evidence’ from Chicago.” Former Vice President

    Atiku Abubakar of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) got the new evidence from President Bola Tinubu’s academic records and deposition to authenticate his certificate by the Chicago State University, in Illinois, United States, on October 2 and 3, respectively.

    The respondent to the article on ‘NTA BENIN FAMILY FORUM’ WhatsApp page, reposted a fabled, “Justice in 21st century Nigeria,” woven by Usman Muhammad around a murder case, in which the suspect was found guilty by the High Court and Appeal Court. But on his appeal to the Supreme Court, a CCTV footage showed the suspect didn’t commit the crime.

    Yet, the Supreme Court justices said, “Since your lawyers didn’t tender the footage at the lower court within 21 days of your arrest, you will be hanged as earlier ruled.”

    The poser: Why should the Supreme Court refuse the fresh evidence of fact that could’ve exonerated the suspect?

    Corollary, why should the Supreme Court refuse Atiku’s “new evidence” to prove that Tinubu presented a “forged certificate” to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for clearance for the February 25, 2023, poll?

    Reproduced below are excerpts from my response, “Very wrong and off-the-point analogy,” to the respondent’s query:

    “Elections are of a different kind (sui generis) from conventional legal matters. That’s why the rules and proceedures are different, too.

    “The rules guiding the 2023 General Election, as per the amended Electoral Act 2022, mandate litigants to front-load their pleadings, and witnesses to be called.

    “Once the actual proceedings start, you can’t plead what you didn’t front-load, because the other party to the dispute will no longer have a chance to reply. You can’t catch your opponent from behind.

    “That’s what Atiku wanted to do with the CSU academic records of President Tinubu, and CSU’s deposition therefrom regarding the authenticity of his certificate.

    “Besides, Atiku breached the Supreme Court Rules 1985 (as amended), whose Order 2, Rule 12 set three conditions for admitting new, fresh or additional evidence at the appeal stage. They’re:

    “(1) The new evidence shouldn’t have existed or existed but couldn’t be deligently obtained before the appeal. Did Tinubu’s certificate saga just happen yesterday? No! It’s been on since 2003, when he ran for reelection as Governor of Lagos State.

    “Remember the People’s Lawyer, Gani Fawehinmi (SAM), (SAN), fought the matter with all his legal prowess, and was unable to get judgment to nail Tinubu!

    “(2) The new evidence shouldn’t be such that will affect the entire appeal. That’s, the evidence must not torpedo the appeal, which primarily emanated from the February 25 presidential poll.

    “But Atiku (and Peter Obi, former Anambra State governor of Labour Party (LP)) virtually abandoned the allegations of electoral heist by Tinubu and All Progressives Congress (APC), in collabo with INEC. Rather, he focused on disqualifying Tinubu, as he knew he didn’t win the election, and the only remedy left was to rely on TECHNICALITIES, to remove Tinubu from office.

    “(3) The evidence should be credible and believable, and needn’t be incontrovertible.

    “Atiku held up the evidence as credible and believable, relying on the CSU deposition, which, though ordered by the court, as per Justice Maldonado, was done in Atiku’s lawyer’s chamber, where no court official was present to administer oath on the CSU Registrar, Caleb Westberg. It’s Atiku’s lawyer’s typist that reportedly administered the oath.

    “Tinubu controverted Atiku’s allegation that CSU denied the certificate he submitted to INEC. CSU had sworn to affidavits, and issued statements, confirming Tinubu’s studentship and graduation from CSU.

    “Atiku also fouled the rules when he initiated his case against CSU… He went to court in U.S. because it’d dawned on him he’s going to lose the case at the PEPC. That’s taking undue advantage of a situation, which’s against natural justice.

    “So, you (respondent) wanted the Supreme Court to ignore these facts, including Atiku breaching the rules of court, both at the PEPC and Supreme Court, and give him judgment based on emotions, sentiments and morality?

    “This is similar to what Obi said on November 6, 2023, at a press conference: that the Supreme Court ignored PUBLIC OPINION, and affirmed Tinubu’s victory!

    “How did they expect 5 Justices of the Appeal Court, and 7 Justices of the Supreme Court to abandon the law for public opinion? Public opinion is the rule of the jungle, and not of human society!

    “The maxim is, “The Law is the Law.” You’re not supposed to twist the law to favour one party, and disfavour the other party to a dispute.”

    Were public opinion – a mob mentality that runs on emotions – the main determinant for choosing the President, there won’t be need for elections. Simply apply the rule of the thumb, and pick the candidate that’s more voices of support on social media.

    This was evident at the February poll when Obi’s supporters in the OBIDIENTS Movement, who dominated social media, took that psyche to the election, believing that “the vote is in the bag” for Obi, who led in several opinion polls.

    They refused to accept that elections aren’t won on opinion poll numbers, but on actual votes cast at the polling units, where Obi/LP was short of over 40,000 polling agents to guard his interest.

    Many that paraded the social media were mere members of the general electorate; they’re no voters in the sense that they’d no Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs) that admit into the polling units, to be accredited to vote for their candidate.

    Sitting in their comfort zones on Election Day, they relied on doctored information to guide them through the electoral labyrinth many were witnessing or paying attention to for the first time.

    It’s no surprise that they bandied outrageous figures – that Obi won the election by moonslide – with one report claiming that Obi scored 50m votes, Atiku 25m votes, and Tinubu 15m votes, totalling 90m votes.

    An unbelievable figure that outstrips the INEC reported PVCs collected by potential voters – also overblown, as it contained millions of PVCs that belonged to dead voters!

    Still, Obi relied on such allied figures – plus the report that he won in 30 States, including in the 19 Northern States – to claim he won the election, but that INEC, Tinubu and the APC denied him victory.

    And like Atiku, Obi didn’t submit evidence with probative value – not even an alternative result to counter alleged INEC-awarded figure to Tinubu – to support his claim. In court, Obi challenged the process, and not the outcome of the poll he boasted he won handily.

    Atiku was expected to prove in the courts – with concrete and verifiable evidence – that he won the poll. But he didn’t stay the course, to establish allegations of massive fraud and violence, and INEC’s connivance with Tinubu and APC to deny him victory.

    Rather, he concentrated on obviously pre-election matters to have Tinubu disqualified, so he could be declared the President (as he placed second in the February 25 presidential poll), have a re-run with Tinubu or a fresh election that exclude Tinubu.

    Thus, the Atiku fresh evidence from Chicago wasn’t that of a factual report capable of turning the tables in his favour – such as the CCTV footage cited in the fabled murder case that could’ve saved an innocent suspect from the hangman’s noose – as it’s procured with deliberate disregard to the rules that govern election matters.

    Lawyers know that strict observance of or adherence to the law, and rules and procedures of the court is sacrosanct. You ignore them at your own legal peril! And in election matters, the law, and rules and procedures can’t be sacrificed on the alter of admitting a belated remedial evidence.

    Plaintiffs and respondents front-load their pleadings, and witnesses to be called at the exchange of briefs and replies by parties during pre-hearings, as no new, fresh or additional and better evidence – no matter how compelling – are allowed by the courts thereafter.

    Lawyers are apprised with these processes before filing clients’ briefs, and during pre-hearings, and are, ipso facto, obligated to obey them throughout the proceedings from the lower to higher courts.

    Did Atiku obey these processes – akin to a code of conduct – that his team of senior lawyers were abreast with? No! Actually, Atiku’s lead lawyer, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), admitted at the Supreme Court that he (Atiku) didn’t plead the new evidence he strove to impose on the court.

    Mr Uche also agreed that the time for fresh evidence had lapsed, but he would rather the court give substantial justice – a euphemism for abandoning the law for emotion – based on the new evidence from Atiku’s discovery in Chicago.

    You can’t break the law and also ask the law (court) to protect your right because you’ve a compelling reason for breaking the law. That’s what Atiku did!

    He purposely ignored the rules of engagement, went to CSU without the court’s authorisation, obtained the new evidence he didn’t plead, and emotionally asked the court to accept it, “to prevent Bola Tinubu from embarrassing and damaging Nigeria and Nigerians’ image in the global community,” as he said at a World Press Conference in Abuja in October, following his discovery from Chicago.

    No self-respecting court would accommodate such an entreaty from an appellant that affrontly breached the law, and the rules and procedures that guide election matters.

    Hence Atiku’s appeal, like that of Obi, merited dismissal, and the Supreme Court accordingly threw it into the dustbin of history!

  • Bayelsa 2023: APC escapes ‘second affliction’ – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Bayelsa 2023: APC escapes ‘second affliction’ – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Bayelsa State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has 10 days to campaign to regain lost grounds in attempts to reclaim the governorship it won in 2020, but lost via a Supreme Court ruling that terminated Governor-elect David Lyon, 24 hours to his inauguration on February 14, 2020.

    The bombshell – on the eve of St Valentine’s Day, recognised for “celebrating love and friendship,” but which turned the opposite for Mr Lyon – comes as a debarment of APC’s Deputy Governor-elect Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo, over alleged forged credentials he submitted to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the November 16, 2019, off-season election for governor in Bayelsa.

    Barely four years down the line, a similar order of an Abuja Federal High Court, issued on October 9, 2023, disqualified APC’s candidate for this November 11 poll, Chief Timipre Sylva, on the grounds that he’s elected twice as governor, and could be inaugurated a third time, in breach of the amended 1999 Constitution that pegs the tenure of governor to two terms of four years each.

    Trial Justice Donatus Okorowo had directed INEC to remove the names of Mr Sylva and his running mate, Mr Joshua Maciver, from the list of candidates for the election, to pre-empt Sylva – should he win Saturday’s poll and sworn in accordingly – from exceeding the eight-year tenure for governorship. So, the APC had to suspend its campaigns in Bayelsa.

    As it awaited the Appeal Court to rule on Sylva’s sack by the lower court, the Bayelsa APC rued its governorship loss in 2020 to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which it defeated at the poll.

    The previous day on February 13, 2020, Mr Lyon had rehearsed the final protocols for his inauguration, and went to bed, dreaming about his graduation from Governor-elect to Executive Governor of Bayelsa State the next day.

    And why not! Two days earlier, on February 11, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Senator Heineken Lokpobiri (now Minister of Petroleum Resources (Oil), over alleged fraudulent APC’s primaries for the November 2019 election.

    Dr Lokpobiri, who got judgment at the High Court, but failed at the Appeal Court, prayed the Supreme Court to void Lyon’s nomination, and declare him the lawful winner of the primary contest, and APC’s candidate.

    But the court’s five-member panel, headed by Justice Inyang Okoro, refused Lokpobiri’s prayer, having filed his writ outside the 14 days allowed by law. “The appellant cause of action arose on 4th September (2019) when he was not declared the winner and not 7th September (when he filed his case),” Justice Okoro ruled.

    So, it’s shocking two days later when the same Supreme Court nullified Lyon’s election based on Degi-Eremienyo’s disqualification over irregularities in his records.

    The unprecedented ruling defied comprehension among polity watchers because one or two of Degi-Eremienyo’s names were consistent in the documents he presented to INEC – indicating that they weren’t forged, but belonged to the same person.

    Actually, as the three-member panel of Justices of the Appeal Court had noted, besides the plaintiffs (Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Senator Duoye Diri) not proving their case against the APC candidates, Degi-Eremienyo submitted an affidavit, “which showed evidence of his change of name from Adeyi-Eremienyo to Degi-Eremienyo.”

    Accordingly, lead Justice Stephen Adah declared: “I agree with the appellant that the owner of the school leaving certificate and the GCE certificate are one and the same and I, therefore, set aside the judgement of the (lower) court.”

    The PDP and Mr Diri had sued Lyon and Degi-Eremienyo, and INEC, to disqualify Degi-Eremienyo over false information in his CF0001 form submitted to INEC for the November 2019 poll in Bayelsa.

    Ruling on the suit on November 12, 2019, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja, held that there’s no connection between the name on Degi-Eremienyo’s school-leaving certificate, first degree (BA), Master’s degree and the affidavits he’d sworn to – a ruling the Court of Appeal set aside, and affirmed the election of the APC candidates.

    But five Justices of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Mary Odili, overruled the Appeal Court reversal of the Abuja Federal High Court exclusion of Degi-Eremienyo, and nullified Mr Lyon’s election, on the grounds that his deputy presented false information to INEC.

    In his lead opinion, Justice Ejembi Eko ordered INEC to withdraw the Certificates of Return to Messrs Lyon and Degi-Eremienyo, and quickly “declare the party with the highest number of lawful votes and geographical spread the winner of the election.”

    That’s how Mr Lyon saw the “Promised Land” of Creek Haven Government House in Yenagoa, Bayelsa’s capital city, without occupying it for a single day. The nearest to doing so was during rehearsals on February 13, 2020, for his scheduled swearing-in.

    That’s also how defeated Senator Diri and Senator Lawrence Ewhrudjakpo became Governor-elect and Deputy Governor-elect overnight, and in a matter of hours, the Governor and Deputy Governor of Bayelsa State on February 14, 2020, prompting Diri to christen himself the “Miracle Governor.”

    Coming to 2023, the Appeal Court in Abuja, on October 31, reinstated Mr Sylva to the ballot he’s delisted by INEC on October 25. Had the court sustained the prior order, APC wouldn’t field candidates for Saturday’s poll, thus making it “two political afflictions” in the Bayelsa chapter within four years.

    A member of the Bayelsa APC, Mr Demesuoyefa Kolomo, filed a suit on June 6, asking the high court to determine whether Sylva was qualified to contest in the election, having occupied office of governor from May 29, 2007 to April 15, 2008 and May 27, 2008 to Jan. 27, 2012, given sections 180(2)(a) and 182(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution.

    Delivering judgment on the night of October 9, Justice Okorowo held that having been inaugurated twice and ruled as governor for five years, allowing Sylva to contest would amount to expansion of the constitution or its scope.

    Citing the case of Marwa vs Nyako at the Supreme Court, the judge noted that the drafters of the constitution precluded anybody from being voted for as governor more than twice, adding that the parties to the suit, having agreed that Sylva was voted into office two times, he can’t expand the constitution or its scope, to vie for a third term in office.

    But Sylva – who contended he’s elected once as governor, and cited an April 2008 Court of Appeal ruling that nullified his 2007 election – filed a three-ground notice of appeal, through a team of lawyers, led by Dr. Ahmed Raji (SAN).

    He applied for an order of the appellate court, to stay execution and/or further execution of the entire judgment and the orders contained therein, “pending the hearing and final determination of the appeal lodged against the judgement and orders of this Court before the Court of Appeal, Abuja.”

    He prayed the court for an order of injunction, restraining all Respondents in the appeal from implementing and/or giving effect to the declaratory and executory orders contained in the judgment, noting that Justice Okorowo wrongly assumed jurisdiction by delving into an issue within the domestic affair of a political party.

    Sylva said the judgment had occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice, as the judge failed to properly evaluate, determine and pronounce on a preliminary objection – which challenged the suit’s competence – thereby breaching his right to fair hearing.

    When the case was called on October 27 at the appellate court, Sylva’s lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), and APC’s counsel, K.O. Balogun, urged the court to allow the appeals, set aside the high court judgment and affirm Sylva’s candidacy.

    Mr Kehinde argued that in his first oath-taking, Sylva only spent six months, three weeks and two days in office before the election was annuled, describing the high court judgment as “a hatchet job just to tie this man (Sylva) not to campaign and participate in the election.”

    Also faulting the decision of the high court, Mr Balogun said Sylva was elected Governor of Bayelsa State in 2007, “but within few months, the Court of Appeal (then the final court for governorship election petitions) sacked him.”

    “He (Sylva) contested again in 2008 and won. The eight months that he earlier spent in office was nullified (by the Appeal Court),” Balogun said.

    “What the 1st respondent (Kolomo) is asking this court to do is to deem the nullified months as four years.”

    He accused Kolomo of “fighting a proxy war” (for Sylva’s opponents at the poll), because “he cannot be a member of the APC and be fighting to destroy its candidate and chances at the election.”

    Some members of the Justice Haruna Tsammani-led panel made similar observations during the proceedings. They wondered why Kolomo, who claimed to be an APC member, but not an aspirant at the primaries, would want to destroy his party’s chance in an election!

    Noting that Kolomo could’ve voted for another party in the November poll “if he assumed Mr Sylva did not deserve his vote,” the panel condemned the attitude of lawyers, who failed to advice their clients appropriately, saying, “it is a moral issue.”

    Kolomo’s lawyer, Mr Abiodun Amuda-Kanike (SAN), and INEC’s lawyer, Mr Ahmed Mohamed, prayed the court to dismiss the appeal, and affirm the judgment of the trial court. After lawyers to the parties had adopted their written briefs, the panel reserved verdict, which it delivered on October 31.

    The Appeal Court set aside the high court decision for lack of jurisdiction, and awarded N1 million cost against Kolomo for lack of legal right to pursue Sylva’s disqualification from Saturday’s election.

    Mr Sylva may’ve secured a temporary relief going into the poll, but he’s more huddles to cross, foremost being to upstage Governor Diri, who mocked him over his disqualification, describing him as “dishonest and insincere.”

    In a statement, “Bayelsa Doesn’t Deserve Serial Deceiver As Governor,” Mr Diri said: “Bayelsa needs an honest and sincere leader that is focused on its development and not a man widely known for deception.

    “Timipre Sylva is a man you cannot trust. He displaced all those he promised that he would give the governorship ticket and turned around to become the candidate himself.”

    With Diri having his work cut out for him, will Sylva breast the tape 15 years after his last victory, and reclaim for APC the governorship it lost to PDP in 2020? It’s a matter of five days hence!

  • How Supreme Court trashed Atiku’s ‘fresh evidence’ from Chicago

    How Supreme Court trashed Atiku’s ‘fresh evidence’ from Chicago

    By Ehichioya Ezomon

    It’s obvious on October 23, 2023, that the Supreme Court judgment on appeals from the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC) would be a formality. The barely 120 seconds it took the court to dismiss the 50-ground appeal by former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP) starkly bears this out!

    Also self-evident in that regard were exchanges between the seven-member appeals panel and counsel to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    At the hearing/adoption of the written addresses by Atiku/PDP and Obi/LP, some members of the panel, headed by Justice John Inyang Okoro, took turns to point out loopholes in Atiku’s pleadings through his lead lawyer, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), to the extent he had to admit the inherent flaws.

    Uche had argued that the Supreme Court has the “power, jurisdiction and discretion” to admit fresh evidence after 180 days, even as he noted that Atiku didn’t plead the new evidence derived from Atiku’s discovery in the academic records of President Bola Tinubu at the Chicago State University (CSU), Chicago, Illinois in the United States (U.S), and deposition of CSU to confirm Tinubu’s certificate.

    Uche also acknowledged that the time for filing fresh evidence had lapsed, as the PEPC had given judgment on September 6 in the petitions filed by Atiku/PDP, Obi/LP and Allied Peoples Movement (APM) against the declaration of Tinubu as winner of the February 25, 2023, presidential poll.

    Still, Uche insisted that: “There is no such constitutional limit of 180 days on the lower court to hear an election petition such that it can rob this (Supreme) court of exercising its jurisdiction in any manner whatsoever. The constitution was intentional and deliberate in setting the 180 days limit only for election tribunals and not for the court of appeal.”

    Had the court obliged Uche’s plea to admit the new evidence – which Justice Okoro noted could’ve been a “friendly but unnecessary joke over a constitutional provision” – it would’ve breached provisions of the amended 1999 Constitution and Electoral Act 2022, on the 180 days to decide election petitions.

    So, in the lead judgment, Justice Okoro debunked Uche’s “shocking” claims, and held that the said time was fixed like the “Rock of Gibraltar” that can’t be “extended or elongated, expanded or stretched beyond what it states.”

    Taking his time to explain Uche’s call on the Supreme Court to exercise its “power, jurisdiction and discretion” to admit fresh evidence, Justice Okoro was blunt and unsparing.

    He noted that Atiku filed his petition on March 21, 2023, “which was the last day of the 21 days prescribed in Section 285(5) (of the constitution) for filing election petitions after announcement of the results of an election.”

    “An election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of filing a petition, and where there is an appeal, within 60 days from the date of delivery of judgment, which elapsed on the 17th of September 2023,” he said.

    Justice Okoro then delivered the punch, saying: “It is shocking to have the above argument (by Uche) in print. It could have passed for a friendly joke but not for a serious matter like this in the apex court.

    “It is even an unnecessary joke over a constitutional provision. After election petitions have suffered under the previous provisions, it is unfair to suggest that we go back to those dark days.

    “When the time for doing a thing is set by the constitution, the court cannot extend the time. This is the law which at this stage is elementary.

    “The deposition (from CSU) cannot be admissible since the lower court (PEPC) did not admit it. This court cannot do what the lower court did not do.”

    Justice Okoro added: “It is settled law that when the time fixed for doing a thing elapses, the court cannot extend the time. It is immutable, fixed like the Rock of Gibraltar – it cannot be extended, elongated, expanded or stretched beyond what it states.

    “The court below (PEPC) lost its jurisdiction to determine any matter concerning the petition after the 180 days, which expired on September 17. This court cannot do what the lower court is no longer constitutionally allowed to do by section 285 of the constitution.

    “No amendment can be made introducing new facts not contained in the election petition, as stated in section 132(7) of the Electoral Act. This application clearly runs foul of the Electoral Act. On this application, fresh evidence is not received as a matter of course.”

    Uche had also urged the panel to diss technicalities and do substantial justice to the appeal, and sack Tinubu. In other words, Uche wanted the Justices to disregard the law, and rule on emotions, sentiments and morality, which underpin applying the principle of substantial justice.

    Meanwhile, the processes of the appeals at the Supreme Court were similar to the petitions at the PEPC, which affirmed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) return of Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as President of Nigeria.

    As was their modus operandi at the PEPC – when they literally abandoned allegations of massive infractions and violence at the poll, and focused on disqualifying Tinubu – Atiku and Obi resorted to appeals to base instincts for the apex court to sack the President.

    Atiku and Obi claimed to win the election, but were rigged out by INEC in favour of Tinubu and the APC. They’re expected to establish their victory, and the fraud, with impeachable evidence from active participants at the election.

    Besides, they’re to prove – beyond all reasonable doubts – allegations against Tinubu, especially those of criminal nature, such as forgery of certificates and documents that elevates to perjury under oath.

    In their haste to disqualify and sack Tinubu, Atiku and Obi took their eyes off the ball, which’s that they won the poll, but that INEC wrongly declared Tinubu due to alleged “fixing” of the process to suppress and/or switch their votes for Tinubu.

    Accordingly, Atiku and Obi ought to invite poll agents to speak to the thousands of documents they’d dumped on the court, and prove electoral crimes against Tinubu, the APC and INEC.

    Hence, after exhaustive 12 and half hours of evaluating issues pleaded within the six months of proceedings, the PEPC Justices adopted the lead judgment of Justice Haruna Tsammani, the panel’s chairman – that the petitioners failed to prove their cases beyond all reasonable doubts.

    “This petition accordingly lacks merit. I affirm the return of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” Justice Tsammani said.

    Similar scenarios played out at the Supreme Court, with Atiku and Obi focusing on matters outside the ambit of the poll of February 25. Save the “fresh evidence” that Atiku added to his 35 grounds of questioning Tinubu’s return as President, both appellants repeated back-to-back issues the PEPC had dealt with.

    So, it wasn’t difficult for the seven-member panel to come to the inevitable conclusion that the appeals were meritless, and dismissed them in their entirety.

    On Atiku/PDP appeal, Justice Okoro, having resolved the seven issues for determination in favour of Tinubu, declared: “The figure before us (Tinubu’s total votes, which Atiku couldn’t counter with an alternative figure) shows that the 2nd Respondent won the highest number of votes and was duly declared winner.

    “On the whole, having resolved all the issues against the Appellants, it is my view that there is no merit in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed. The judgement of the lower court, delivered on September 6, is hereby affirmed.”

    As for Obi/LP’s appeal, Justice Okoro barely spent 120 seconds to consider and conclude it’s “lacking in merit” having only a distinct issue from the Atiku/PDP appeal. In other words, Atiku and Obi’s appeals were mutatis mutandis (the same).

    Justice Okoro noted that the only distinct issue that Obi raised about Vice President Kashim Shettima’s alleged double nomination had been dealt with by the Supreme Court on May 26, 2023, in an appeal marked: SC/CV/501/2023.

    “This court cannot allow the matter to be relitigated in this court,” Justice Okoro said. “There must be an end to litigation. This matter ought not to have come here. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.”

    As they rue their electoral and legal losses, Atiku and Obi should be reminded that were abuses, insults, blackmail, intimidation, threats of physical harm, and appeals to base instincts strategies for winning petitions and appeals, they would’ve had judgments at the PEPC on September 6, and Supreme Court on October 26, 2023, respectively.

    Nigerian-born American Prof. Farooq Kperogi, in a piece, “PEPT’s verdict and the task before the Supreme Court,” published in tribuneonlineng.com of September 16, summed up Atiku and Obi’s pleadings, “as high on emotions, conjectures, moral posturing, grandstanding, logical absurdities (such as the 25% win in the FCT) than on legally-sound, substantive arguments about the election itself.”

    “They didn’t present foolproof, unimpeachable, evidentiary facts… Wishful thinking, online bullying, tendentious accounts of events, and coarse, primitive, illiterate invective are not substitutes for substance. Neither are mass delusion and blind political cultism guarantees of electoral victory,” Kperogi wrote.

    Atiku and his supporters, aliased  “Atikulators” and Obi and his “ObIdients” followers denigrated and over-rawed the person and character of President Tinubu, the APC, INEC’s Chairman,

    Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, Justices of the Appeal and Supreme Courts and the entire Judiciary – on the grounds that they frustrated their election, and legal remedies therein.

    Directly or via proxies, they filed and re-filed multiple cases against Tinubu in Nigeria and in the United States (U.S), solely to disqualify him from the election, damage his reputation and delegitimise his presidency even if he won the petitions and appeals in the courts.

    Atiku, Obi and supporters backed the lawsuits with street protests, press conferences, and interviews in local and foreign media, to spew hateful and inciteful statements against real and/or imaginary politico-judicial enemies.

    Lately, Atiku and Obi have competed for “the most critical” of President Tinubu. If Atiku held a press conference or issued a statement on Tinubu or matters in courts in Nigeria, and in the U.S., Obi would follow to raise the bar against their alleged nemesis.

    When Atiku held a “World Press Conference” to relitigate his “discovery” from Chicago State University – that he filed as fresh evidence at the Supreme Court – and slammed Tinubu as unfit to be President, Obi followed suit, calling on Tinubu to “reintroduce himself to Nigerians,” who “doubt his true identity.”

    Still, as they strove to carve separate niches – as regards the February 25 poll in which they placed second and third behind Tinubu – Atiku and Obi looked to work in synergy, to disqualify, and sack Tinubu, before deciding who the cap fits as President.

    In the results declared by INEC on March 1, 2023, Tinubu polled 8,794,726 votes, and secured 25% of votes cast in 29 States and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, to emerge the winner. Atiku came second with 6,984,520 votes, and secured 25% in 21 States and FCT; and Obi, placed third with 6,101,533 votes, and secured 25% in 17 States and FCT.

    But as the Supreme Court has dismissed their appeals against Tinubu’s election as President of Nigeria, the electoral competition and collaboration between Atiku and Obi may’ve come to an end in the 2023 poll cycle.

    As “all eyes” are now trained on the 2027 election, Atiku and Obi should retool their strategies on how to handle election matters!

  • The Akpabio-Ndume ‘showdown’ at Senate plenary – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    The Akpabio-Ndume ‘showdown’ at Senate plenary – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    It’s good to see Senate President Godswill Akpabio putting ice on the “plenary spat” between him and Senate Chief Whip Ali Ndume on October 17, 2023. The disruption the rowdiness could’ve caused was timely averted with the Senate going into an executive (a closed-door) session.

    Akpabio – (APC, Akwa Ibom West) and former Governor of Akwa Ibom State – told State House reporters in Abuja on October 18 – after he met with President Bola Tinubu – that members of the upper chamber of the National Assembly (NASS) won’t throw chairs to iron out disagreements.

    His words: “In the parliament, sometimes you disagree to agree. We are all working in one accord. There is no problem at all. Even if some people disagree on some of the happenings in the Senate, still, it is the majority decision that is going to prevail.

    “But we will never get to a point of throwing chairs. The Senate is too mature, full of mature people. So, if we have a disagreement, we immediately go into a closed session, resolve it and come out smiling.

    “We are politicians, no permanent hatred but permanent interest. That interest is the interest of the nation, to support the President, his administration in legislation, oversights functions to succeed, in order to move the country forward.”

    Surely, politicians may have no permanent hatred, yet, their permanent interest equates self-interest that fuels disagreements at plenary, and disruption of the parliament therefrom.

    His confidence aside, Akpabio should watch it, as the counts mount against his four-month gaveling at the Senate leadership that he assumed because Ndume (APC, Borno South) pulled the chestnuts out of the fire – amid a campaign to pit the North against the South.

    Ahead of inauguration of NASS in June 2023, Ndume, former Senate Leader in the 8th Senate, was an early bird for the Senate President, but dropped his bid and became Akpabio’s campaign manager when agitation for rotation of the seat to the South won the day.

    Ndume’s gesture was against the aspiration of former Zamfara State Governor Abdulaziz Yari (APC, Zamfara West), who – counting on the numerical strength of Northern senators – made Akpabio and the Presidency to sweat on election day despite all stops pulled by Tinubu for Akpabio, who defeated Yari by 63 votes to 46 votes in the 109-member Senate.

    So, Akpabio should be mindful, as tension builds among senators – even before Senate’s resumption from long vacation in September –
    over his handling of procedural matters and others affecting his colleagues – who may exit from executive sessions “smiling” but wait for him to misjudge his steps on the famed “banana peel” (banana skin in British English).

    The complaints, reported widely  in the media, include: (1) Insensitivity to the demands of senators (regarding observance of laws, and procedures and rules). (2) Sidelining of some ranking senators in allocation of chairmanship of committees. (3) Answering to President Tinubu’s beck and call (thus undermining the legislature’s independence).

    (4) Unsavoury role played during screening and confirmation of ministerial nominees (when three nominees, including former Kaduna State Governor Nasir el-Rufai, were dropped over undisclosed security reports). (5) Embarrasing floor announcement on September 9 of a “token” and “prayers” (money) to enable senators enjoy their holidays amidst economic hardships, aftermath of removal of fuel subsidy and floating of the Naira by the Tinubu administration.

    (In a viral video, Akpabio said, “In order to enable all of us (senators) to enjoy our holidays, a token has been sent to our various accounts by the clerk of the national assembly,” sparking instant rowdy moments on the floor of the Senate, and occasioning Akpabio to rephrase the statement, thus, “I withdraw that statement. In order to allow you to enjoy your holiday, the Senate President has sent prayers to your mailboxes, to assist you to go on a safe journey and return.” More whoops at the plenary!)

    Read along with the nebulous charge of “gross misconduct,” the above allegations could form grounds for Akpabio’s ouster – moves actually speculated a couple of times by “aggrieved senators” in the past weeks.

    But Akpabio’s denied these allegations, and the reported threats to impeach him, saying that contrary to the “sponsored news report,” the Senate is stable and unperturbed by what appears to be a “syndicated media attack from outside the precincts of the National Assembly.”

    Akpabio’s Special Adviser on Media, Mr Eseme Eyiboh, said in September that, “The Senate has since moved on after the leadership contest. The plot to drag in senators, who initially did not support the emergence of the present leadership into a conspiracy that does not exist, was uncharitable to the senators.

    “Continuing to link these senators with one conspiracy or the other, with barely disguised innuendo, is rather unkind. We call on the media not to give in to the conspiratorial tales,” Eyiboh added.

    However, there’s a twist to the hush-hush in the Senate, as claimed in September by the now sacked Senator Ishaku Abbo (APC, Adamawa North), alleging that Akpabio, “along with his associates,” were the disseminators of the story about intention to impeach him.

    Abbo – who lately accused Akpabio of orchestrating his sacking by the Appeal Court, but later retracted the allegation and apologised – said that Akpabio’s behind the impeachment narrative “to create discord between President Tinubu and northern senators.”

    “I woke up today (September 17) to find over 10 mainstream Nigerian newspapers all carrying news of a plan to impeach Senator Akpabio by senators from Northern Nigeria,” Abbo said.

    “As a Northern senator and an official of the Northern Senators Forum, I boldly affirm that this news is intentionally disseminated and propagated by the ‘camp’ of Senator Akpabio solely to pit President Bola Tinubu against the North.”

    Yet, Abbo hinted about the schism in the Senate relating to Akpabio’s alleged unfair sharing of committee positions that sidelined majority of ranking senators.

    Abbo queried: “If Akpabio and his camp wanted a united Senate, much like (former Senate President) Ahmad Lawan (APC, Yobe North), they would have known exactly what to do during Senate Standing Committees allocation and supplementary budget resources allocation.

    “But the camp of the SP continued to treat the Senate as a conquered territory where the winner walks away with the spoils of war. A classic case of the winner takes all!

    “How do you justify a situation where out of Category A Committees, only two were granted to his (Akpabio’s) perceived rivals? How will you explain a Senate where 83.1% of those appointed Chairmen of Category A Committees also serve as Vice Chairmen of Category A?”

    Abbo called on Akpabio “to rein in his camp, as the seeds of discord and deep ethno-religious division they are sowing will not bode well for the country.”

    To survive any alleged threats against his position, Akpabio needs a bulwark like Ndume – a one-man riot squad you can rely on if he gives his word. But it appears their relationship has soured, especially as Ndume headlines Akpabio’s alleged mishandling of Senate’s affairs.

    Pre-the October 17 “mild drama,” Ndume and Senator Mohammed Ogoshi Onawo (SDP, Nasarawa South) reportedly accused Akpabio of giving senators inadequate opportunity to interrogate and scrutinize bills, “especially money bills,” and warned that history would judge him “for approving executive requests and passing important legislation posthaste.”

    So, did the “showdown” between Akpabio and Ndume stem from Akpabio attempting to get back at Ndume, by trashing his efforts to correct a motion of urgent national importance on “the need to reopen the Nigeria-Benin Republic border,” or Akpabio’s just following the rules that senators have accused him of jettisoning?

    Whatever, spotting that the motion – moved by Senator Summaila Kawu (NNPP, Kano South) – lacked a specific heading – and that Akpabio had fiated its consideration – Ndume, an opionated “stickler for rules,” raised a point of order, seeking correction under Order 51 of Senate Standing Rules, which enjoins correcting errors before proceedings at plenary.

    Ndume said: “This is the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guided by laws, rules and procedures. If in the course of proceedings at any session, errors are observed, they must be corrected before forging ahead with such proceedings.”

    But Akpabio ruled Ndume “out of order” on the ground that, “having ruled on issues raised, it (they) cannot be revisited.” Efforts by Senator Sunday Karimi (APC, Kogi West) “to sustain Ndume’s argument through another point of order” was unsuccessful, as Akpabio ruled him out of order.

    However, Akpabio sustained a reading of Order 16 by Senate Deputy President Jibrin Barau (APC, Kano North), which requires “a substantive motion to be moved by any Senator for correction or review of earlier decisions taken.” An “infuriated” Ndume raised Order 54 “to seek correction of the error.”

    With Akpabio again ruling him out of order, Ndume packed his documents and stormed out of the chamber, forcing senators into a hurried hour-long closed-door session, which “affected the items on the Order Paper for the day.”

    It remains in speculations whether Ndume – who, as Chief Whip, acts as a bridge between the ruling and opposition members, and ensures information flow on government business – will be “punished” for disrespectfully walking out of plenary.

    (In March 2017, under the Senate President Bukola Saraki-led 8th Senate, Ndume’s suspended for six months, for peddling allegations of Saraki faking documents to import a bulletproof Range Rover, and involement in perjury by Senator Dino Melaye (candidate of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the November 11, 2023, governorship poll in Kogi State).

    The Senate, upholding the recommendation of its committee on ethics and privileges chaired by Senator Samuel Anyanwu (candidate of the PDP in the November 11 election in Imo State), said Ndume failed to do due diligence, but relied on media reports for his claims.)

    In his chat with State House reporters, Akpabio papered over the Ndume episode, and a possible penalty to be meted to him – as,  perhaps, any such moves had to wait, to avoid disruption of the 10th Assembly retreat held in Akpabio’s home state of Akwa Ibom from October 19 to 22.

    Akpabio said the retreat informed his visit to the Presidential Villa, to brief Tinubu and solicit his support for representation at the event, “and he (Tinubu) has graciously done that.”

    He added: “He (Tinubu) needs to be informed that the Senate will not be available in Abuja. We are moving the Senate all the way to Akwa Ibom for the next four days. Thereafter, we will be travelling to Angola, to attend the (147th Assembly of) International Parliamentary Union (IPU) (hosted by National Assembly of Angola from October 23 to 27). So, before he (Tinubu) sees me, it will take probably another nine days. So, I needed to inform him.”

    Now, “all eyes are on the Senate,” to see if Akpabio will push Ndume under the bus, and allow “political affliction” to strike him the second time via suspension from the chamber barely six and half years after his first “rustication”!

  • Passports backlog and Minister Tunji-Ojo’s wave of ‘magic wand’ – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Passports backlog and Minister Tunji-Ojo’s wave of ‘magic wand’ – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    When someone does a good job, they deserve our praise, and our honour. Today, that praise, that honour goes to the Minister of Interior, Mr Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, for a promise made and a promise kept. He’d pledged on September 7, 2023, that the backlog of applications for 204,000 passports would be cleared in two weeks.
    But the minister was “laughed out of court” because Nigerians had heard such promises from different Ministers of Interior and Comptroller-Generals of Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS), and they never delivered on those declarations.
    So, Tunji-Ojo making the assurances to clear accumulated passports in two weeks was like a promise made by a drunk under the influence, as usual. But this minister was a different promise-maker, who bandied the name of President Bola Tinubu as wanting the backlog cleared because he (Tinubu) was “embarrassed” by the undue delays in their issuance.
    And pronto, the passport officials – lethargic in operations, and notorious in underhand dealings to fleece hapless applicants – swung into action, and in a record time, “the 204,000 passports were cleared.”
    Besides former Minister of Aviation under the Muhammadu Buhari government, Mr Hadi Sirika – who’d promised a “brand new runway” for the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja, and delivered it with 24 hours to spare – Nigerians can’t recall in recent history such a “magician” like Minister Tunji-Ojo.
    Not even former Minister of Interior, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola (former Governor of Osun State), could solve the endemic delays in passport issuance in his four-year supervision of the ministry, leaving behind the backlog inherited, and now “cleared in a jiffy” by Tunji-Ojo.
    The minister gave a “marching order” to the NIS in September, demanding swift clearance of the pending passport applications in two weeks. At a meeting with top government officials, including the Acting Comptroller-General of NIS, Mrs Caroline Adepoju, and the Managing Director of Iris Smart Technologies (that produces passport booklets), Mr Yinka Fisher, the minister said he’s determined to remove “bottlenecks in the acquisition of passports and other immigration documents.”
    Describing the task ahead as a national emergency, Tunji-Ojo said: “As far as I am concerned, the issue of passport is a national emergency. I keep getting emails daily from Nigerians complaining. We cannot continue like that.
    “It has become an embarrassment to His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. I represent him here as your minister. That embarrassment is mine now. I am not changing my words. I need the backlog cleared in two weeks.”
    As a strategy for achieving the goal, the minister “man-marked,” and monitored the process, making the passport officials to give him progress reports every morning until “mission accomplished.”
    Even as Tunji-Ojo’s hit the bull’s eye with his first shot at clearing the backlog of passports, he’s promised more actions that’d ease the processing of passports within two weeks, and “the documents would be delivered to the owners at homes, in offices or places of their choice.”
    He told visiting Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation, Dr Betta Edu, in his office in Abuja on September 12, that, “Nigerians must not be relegated from being citizens of Nigeria by denying them a passport,” adding that, “We must get it right now… By the time the backlogs are cleared, Nigerians will start enjoying the efficient service of having their passports issued within two weeks upon application.”
    Also in an interview on Channels TV, Tunji-Ojo said to fast-track passport issuance, his ministry would enter into a partnership with post offices, financial institutions, and others to serve as enrolment centres, and also work towards reducing the human factor in the passport application process, which “breeds corruption.”
    Only a few other ministers have “hit the ground running” after their inauguration. They include Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr Nyesom Wike; Minister of Works, Senator Dave Umahi; Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation, Dr Betta Edu; Minister of Labour and Employment, Mr Simon Lalong; and Minister of State for Petroleum (Oil), Senator Heineken Lokpobiri.
    Most Nigerians will disagree with the tag of “performing Ministers” bestowed on these gentlemen and lady. Yet, their policy statements, actions and body language stand them out from the crowded field of ministers. Samplers: Mr Wike – nicknamed “Mr Project” as Governor of Rivers State (2015-2023) – was on the streets of Abuja the day after his swearing-in, inspecting projects, and making pronouncements, some with far-reaching ramifications. He said he’d revoke and/or demolish thousands of undeveloped plots, property built on green areas, and property owing ground rents.
    Exhibiting his “talk-and-do” trademark, Wike’s test-run his demolition machine with multi-storey structures owned by “very influential Nigerians,” and by last week, the FCT administration had raked in about N2bn from ground rents, with a projection of N5bn to N7bn from that single source of revenue by December 2023.
    Senator Umahi – also a “Mr Project” as Governor of Ebonyi State (2015-2023) – made the inspection of the Abuja-Lokoja-Benin highway in a punishing 14-hour vehicular journey – but done partly on foot due to the road’s dilapidation.
    From interactions with contractors, stranded commuters and community people living on the highways, Umahi’s plotted how to efficiently and timely fix that road and others in similar shapes nationwide. That’s how a new policy of officially adopting cement and discarding literite for road construction was mooted.
    Dr Edu – former Commissioner of Health in Cross River State and Women Leader of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) – has shown that President Tinubu didn’t make mistakes in picking her as a female and a youth, and giving her the important ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation to supervise.
    She’s been all over the place – disaster and disaster-prone areas – meeting, and sharing in the experiences of the internally-displaced persons (IDPs) in their camps, and preparing and fine-tuning a template for bringing 15m Nigerians into the social safety net of the federal government.
    Mr Lalong, an elected Senator, had his work cut out for him, as he’s thrust immediately into the den of angry organised labour unions up-in-arms against the government over President Tinubu’s “subsidy is gone” declaration in his inaugural speech on May 29, 2023, and floating of the Naira that combined to send the economy into a tailspin.
    Lalong has only had some respite in the past week from labour’s series of agitation, but there’s potential for further confrontation if the government failed in the next two weeks to wrap up negotiations with the unions led by the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC).
    Coming at a time when prices of oil products, mostly for petrol, hit the roof aftermath of President Tinubu’s removal of subsidy, Dr Lokpobiri’s staked his reputation and that of the president on the December 2023 completion of rehabilitation of the Port Harcourt Refinery, and resumption of refining crude thereafter.
    Lokpobiri’s paid several visits to the refinery, for progress assessment, and came out each time to restate that the revamping of the plant was going according to plan and schedule, and that the December deadline would be met. Nigerians pray, and hope that the money-guzzling refinery would be back to life as promised by the minister and President Tinubu!
    One or two other ministers have proclaimed the directions they want to take their ministries. They include the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Mr Festus Keyamo (SAN); Minister of Sports Development, Senator John Owan Enoh; Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Chief Adegboyega Oyetola (former
    Governor of Osun State); Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, Dr Doris Uzoka-Anite; Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, Dr Bosun Tijani; Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Mr Dele Alake; and Minister of Defence, Mr Mohammed Badaru Abubakar (former Governor of Jigawa State).
    But most of the ministers appear to be sleeping on duty, or at home. It took quite awhile for them to resume duty from organising and/or attending parties to celebrate their appointments. Thus, many Nigerians are unsure if these appointtees had visited their ministries to introduce themselves to, and familiarise with the staff and workings of the ministries.
    Particularly concerning are the following: Chief Adebayo Adelabu, who handles the crucial Ministry of Power – the most critical driver of the economy after petrol and foreign exchange; the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mr Mohammed Idris, supposedly the spokesperson for the government; Minister of Education, Prof. Tahir Mamman; Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Prof. Ali Pate; and Minister of Agriculture and Food Security, Abubakar Kyari.
    One thread, though, runs through the pronouncements and actions of the “stand-out ministers,” and that’s to invoke President Tinubu’s name to drive the process. Often, you hear the ministers say: “That’s what the President wants,” “That’s the instruction of Mr President,” “The President said I should carry out this plan,” “Mr President wants quick results.”
    The ministers aren’t coy deploying the President’s name, so long as it yields the necessary results – and it seems to be doing the “magic” afterall! So, the “slumbering” ministers should wake up, adopt a similar strategy, and add value to the lives of Nigerians, who hurt from government’s twin economic policies of subsidy removal and floating of the Naira!
    To succeed in his ambitious “Renewed Hope” agenda, President Tinubu needs to encourage the likes of Mr Tunji-Ojo to implement government’s policies and programmes, and execute and timeously deliver on projects and services to meet the people’s needs.
  • Atiku goes for broke over Tinubu’s certificate saga – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Atiku goes for broke over Tinubu’s certificate saga – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    President Bola Tinubu – acclaimed cat (or bat) with nine lives – seems to face the last test of his staying political power, as former Vice President Atiku Abubakar moves to quash the judgment of the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC), which’s affirmed him (Tinubu) as winner of the February 25, 2023, election.

    Atiku, candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has filed  35 grounds of appeal at the Supreme Court, which’s 60 days to determine the matters, and hopefully close the 2023 presidential election cycle. Yet, as the final arbiter in election issues in Nigeria, the apex court can make a couple of orders that’ll take closure of the poll beyond the remaining 60-day window.

    One, the court can order a re-run between the two leading candidates (Tinubu and Atiku) at the election, on the basis that Tinubu didn’t score the required majority of lawful votes, and secure 25% of the votes cast in not less than 24 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja.

    Two, the court can annull the election for a fresh exercise, on the ground that the February 25 poll – allegedly massively rigged amidst widespread violence – didn’t meet the threshold of freeness, fairness, credibility, transparency and acceptability.

    Similarly, the Supreme Court can make a couple of orders that’ll end the presidential poll cycle. One, uphold the judgment of the PEPC, and thus the declaration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which returned Tinubu as President.

    Two, disqualify Tinubu from the February poll, mainly for failure to meet, or contravening the requirements to contesting in the poll, and declare Atiku, as first runner-up, as the President.

    The PEPC, an Appeal Court, acted as the Election Petitions Tribunal for the presidential poll. It evaluated the consolidated petitions of the PDP, Labour Party and Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and their candidates, and dismissed them on September 6, for lack of merit, and affirmed Tinubu’s victory at the election.

    Delivering the lead judgment in a 12-hour plus sitting, chairman of the five-member panel, Justice Haruna Tsammani, said: “This petition accordingly lacks merit. I affirm the return of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

    Though he accepted the PEPC ruling, Atiku’s dissatisfied with the court’s findings, and has appealed to the Supreme Court, regurgitating most of his pleadings the PEPC had mainly struck out.

    Meanwhile, as he continues to face controversies, fueled by conspiracy theories, Tinubu, whose taciturnity appears to be his strategy for surviving a toxic political environment, opens his flanks for Atiku to query the Tribunal’s failure to properly consider the evidence he placed before it, particularly

    Tinubu’s academic records from Chicago State University (CSU) in Illinois, United States.

    The controversies include: (1) That Tinubu forges his birth, education and job records, swears on oath, and commits perjury.

    (2) He’s convicted for narcotics and money laundering, and forfeited $460,000 to the U.S. government.

    (3) He’s dual citizenship: Nigeria and Guinea, in breach of provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

    Related to the above, are that: (1) Tinubu’s running mate in the election, and now Vice President, Senator Kashim Shettima, was nominated for two elective positions, in violation of provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.

    (2) INEC violated the Act, and its own regulations and guidelines by failing to electronically transmit the presidential results via the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) onto the INEC Results Viewing (IReV) portal, for real-time perusal by the electorate.

    (3) Tinubu didn’t score the “mandatory” 25% votes cast in the FCT, Abuja, in addition to securing same in at least 24 of 36 states of the federation.
    Atiku, who couldn’t prove allegations of electoral fraud “beyond all reasonable doubts,” alleges that Tinubu forged the certificate he presented to

    INEC in 2022, for the February poll, even as Tinubu denies same, and states that he attended CSU (1977-1979), with the school confirming it.

    Consequently, Atiku, focusing on three crucial inter-related areas: Tinubu’s alleged identity theft; non-studentship at CSU; and forgery of the university’s certificate, subpoenaed, and deposed CSU, to produce and confirm Tinubu’s academic records on oath.

    That’s the basis for CSU’s release of Tinubu’s academic records to Atiku on October 2, and deposition on October 3, in compliance with the order of

    Justice Nancy Maldonado of the U.S. Northern District Court of Illinois in Chicago, who’d upheld earlier order of Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert for the Northern District of Illinois.

    In all, the CSU presented scores of documents to Atiku, in the order of his four main requests:

    (1) “A true and correct copy of any diploma for a Bachelor of Science degree issued by CSU in 1979,” for which Atiku received seven (7) copies of diplomas CSU issued to seven former students in 1979.

    (2) “A true and correct copy of any diploma issued by CSU to Tinubu,” with no documents produced for Atiku, as CSU maintains that it doesn’t keep copies of student diplomas, as they’re ceremonial.

    (3) “True and correct copies of any diploma issued by CSU (other than Tinubu) that contains the same font, seal, signatures and wording as in the certificate that Tinubu submitted to INEC,” and Atiku received five (5) copies of diplomas, which match the format of the replacement diploma dated June 27, 1997, that CSU issued to Tinubu.

    (4) “True and correct copies of any CSU documents relating to Tinubu that were certified by Jamar C. Orr, Esq., and all communications to or from CSU concerning the certification of such documents by Jamar C. Orr, Esq. between August 1, 2022 and August 1, 2023,” and Atiku received nineteen

    (19) documents relating to Tinubu that were certified by Mr. Jamar Orr between August 1, 2022 and August 1, 2023, but CSU withheld the communications aspect of the request, going by prior ruling of the court.

    So, the October 3 setting was to orally depose CSU, to confirm attendance of and authenticate the certificate it awarded to Tinubu in 1979, and a replacement diploma in 1997.

    The venue was West Wacker Drive in Chicago, Illinois, and at the office of Angela Liu, one of the lawyers hired by Atiku, to help him establish a case of forgery of CSU’s certificate by Tinubu.

    Present at the deposition were five other lawyers from the firm, Dechert LLP. Joining the session were Tinubu’s lawyers, Victor P. Henderson and Oluwole Afolabi (who joined by zoom from New York). Also in attendance were CSU’s lawyer, Michael Hayes, and its registrar, Caleb Westberg.

    In the over five-hour deposition, Atiku’s lawyers’ quizzing to catch Westberg off-guard – to contradict himself or CSU – was to no avail. The school registrar stood his ground, and reaffirmed that Tinubu attended and graduated from CSU, and the certificate awarded to him in 1979, and a replacement diploma in 1997 were authentic, inclusive of the discrepancies, which resulted from changes made to CSU’s certificate format over the years, and human errors.

    Now, armed with Tinubu’s academic records, the pursuit of which he describes as “bringing clarity and definitive answers to these issues that appear to have defied our institutions for nearly a quarter of a century,” Atiku will attempt to fortify his 35-point appeal at the Supreme Court, which may oblige filing of the fresh evidence (in line with Order 2 Rule 12(1) of the “Supreme Court Rules 1985” (as amended), but without giving any probative value to it.

    Atiku, looking to address this fear at a World Press Conference in Abuja on October 5, obliquely implored the Supreme Court: “The issues at stake in this case require us once more to re-dedicate ourselves to both the country and our constitution. Now, we entrust these facts to us all as citizens and as leaders of the institutions (courts) charged with interpreting our constitution.”

    He added: “It should not take months or, indeed, decades, for the institutions (courts) concerned to be able to do their work in establishing the credibility of any certificates presented by candidates for public office.”

    Whatever his misgivings, Atiku must convince the Supreme Court: (1) Why he couldn’t obtain the new evidence (documents) to front-load with his petition at the PEPC, if it’s relevant to him. (Or “is it a case of becoming wiser after the event (the PEPC judgment),” as George A Oguntade JSC (as he then was) avers in UBA Plc v. BTL Ind. Ltd. (2005) 10 NWLR?) (2) That the fresh evidence will have an important, but not necessarily crucial effect on the whole case. (3) That the evidence is apparently credible, capable of being believed and it need not be incontrovertible.

    So, will the Supreme Court admit Atiku’s new evidence, and open the floodgate for fresh materials at appeals? Won’t dubious applicants abuse the process, as Oguntade JSC (as he then was) cautions?

    Nigerians can’t wait for the apex court, which’s “final not because it is infallible, but rather it is infallible because it is final,” according to Chukwudifu Oputa, JSC (as he then was)!

  • Edo 2024: Obaseki’s ‘divine’ forgiveness of Shaibu’s ‘political follies’ – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Edo 2024: Obaseki’s ‘divine’ forgiveness of Shaibu’s ‘political follies’ – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    “He who is begged or pleaded with is king,” is an adage that the average Edo person doesn’t take for granted, mostly if the act for which forgiveness is sought is committed publicly – such that the aggrieved feels slighted and injured – and the mollification is also displayed openly.

    Edo State Governor Godwin Obaseki aptly symbolically assumes a kingly position lately, as he exhibits the spirit of divine, to forgive Deputy Governor Philip Shaibu, who’d “erred” by aspiring to succeed Obaseki in 2024.

    It’s Shaibu’s inalienable right to aspire to be governor in an off-season election in September 2024, to round-off Obaseki’s eight-year tenure in November 2024. But Obaseki reckoned the act as in bad faith and taste.

    Deputy governors aren’t satisfied with playing second fiddle, and they begin plotting how to become the Chief Executive the day after their swearing in. To justify their aspiration, some deputy governors boast of influencing the governor’s pick for the position.

    But woe beside the deputy governor, who thinks the influence of their godfather will carry them through after the governor has assumed the full powers of office. And most times, their political benefactors become their first victims.

    In Nigeria’s brand of democracy in which the Constitution clothes the  governor with powers of overlordship that subsume other authorities – ancient and modern – the deputy governor is laughably a “spare tire,” who owes his stay in office to the benevolence of the governor, and thus should be heard and not seen, or they risk being rendered redundant in the scheme, or hounded out of office when they want to assert their authority.

    A deputy governor can hardly survive risking relationships with their principals on account of aspiring to succeed them. It’s either the governor engineers the mostly pliant members of the State House of Assembly to impeach the deputy governor over nebulous allegations of “gross misconduct,” or their powers are curtailed, and access to the governor and state activities limited or frozen.

    Such was the fate that befell Shaibu in his undisguised ambition to be governor in 2024. To clear all roadblocks, he filed suits in courts, to pre-empt Obaseki deploying the State Assembly to impeach him and scuttle his ambition.

    Obaseki felt that Shaibu had gone about the project in a manner that betrayed their cordial relationship since they came together in a joint ticket on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in 2016, and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in 2020.

    To Obaseki, who’d dealt with his acclaimed political godfather and predecessor in office, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole – culminating in the now Senator for Edo North being sacked by the courts as National Chairman of the APC – Shaibu’s a small fry to make mincemeat of.

    Thus, he cut communications with, and barred Shaibu from accessing him; stopped him from certain official activities, and relocated his office to outside the Government House, Benin City, via a two-para memo dispatched by the Secretary to the State Government, Mr Osarodion Ogie, dated September 15, and received on September 19.

    The memo, “Relocation of Office Accommodation,” reads: “I write to inform you that His Excellency, the Governor, has approved the relocation of your office accommodation to No 7, Dennis Osadebey Avenue, G.R.A., Benin City.

    “You are therefore requested to ensure your compliance in line with Mr Governor’s approval, please.”

    Surprisingly, Shaibu, after resuming in the new office, tendered his apology to Obaseki.

    The months-long political feud between Obaseki and Shaibu had the potential to threaten the peace and security of the proudly homogeneous Edo State dubbed the “Heart Beat of The Nation.”

    Particularly on the verge of getting dragged and enmeshed in the murky waters of politics and personal ambitions were the people of Edo South and Edo North, where Obaseki and Shaibu hail from, respectively.

    But before Obaseki could twist the screw further, well-meaning Nigerians stepped in to engender truce, leading to Shaibu’s withdrawal of his writs in the courts, and offering “sincere apologies” to Obaseki for whatever his follies.

    Shaibu told journalists in Benin City on September 21 that: “I will use this medium to appeal to Mr. Governor, if there is anything that I don’t know that I have done, please forgive me, so that we can develop our state together.

    “If there is any mistake that I have made as human, is (sic) not an act of maybe wickedness, because I’m not wicked. I have a very clean heart.

    “So Mr Governor, please, if there is anything that you think I have done, I am sorry. I need us to work together to finish well and strong because that is my prayer for you.”

    Shaibu vouched for his loyalty to Obaseki, and said he’d taken a personal vow with God to support the governor, stressing that, “If I have a vow with God, there is nothing that will change it.”

    He hoped for a return of the good old days with Obaseki, saying: “And I can only wish that the relationship that we had, in the next few days and weeks, I know it will come back… We’ve been the envy of the entire country; it (cordial relationship) is still possible.”

    Exactly one week after, on September 28, Shaibu’s prayers were answered, as Obaseki, touting himself as a “person of faith,” said he’s “under obligation to accept the apology.”

    In a letter, “Re: Public Apology By The Edo State Deputy Governor, Philip Shaibu,” Obaseki said: “I have noted the public apology made by the Deputy

    Governor of Edo State, His Excellency, Rt. Hon. Comrade Philip Shaibu. This apology followed an aberrant behaviour that contradicts what the people of Edo State stand for.

    “To name a few, the Deputy Governor needlessly filed unfounded petitions in the Nigerian courts restraining me, the State House of Assembly and Security agencies from a non-existent impeachment process, followed by repeated breaches of protocol; unwarranted and unprovoked attacks in the media on my person and the State Government.

    “The media frenzy as a result of the above and more, provided an impression of crises that has been precarious and distasteful to Edo people in the State and across the world.

    “Although these unwarranted provocations caused me severe personal discomfort, as a person of faith, I am under obligation to accept this apology because as they say, ‘to err is human, to forgive is divine.”

    “In good faith, I trust that the public apology as expressed by the Deputy Governor is genuine and followed by contrite steps to improve his conflict resolution skills.

    “I also enjoin the Deputy Governor to guide his proxies to act in accordance with his piety.”

    “It is my sincere hope and that of my other colleagues in government and all well-meaning Edo people, that these rhetorics will be put to an end forthwith to enable this administration finish strong and deliver the dividends of democracy to the greatest number of Edo people over this final twelve (12) months.”

    Governor Obaseki deserves some plaudits! Yet, the swords sheathed, and the guns silenced, the lessons learned should endure, as political ambition die hard. For Shaibu – and many in his shoes – the ultimate is to be in full control as the Executive Governor, despite being deputy for eight years. Nothing else suffices!

    So, unless the “terms of the truce” for apology and forgiveness include total surrender of Shaibu’s ambition, the battle may be over, but the war will continue till September 2024. And it’ll be epic in proportion and ramifications on both sides!

  • Obaseki scorches political terrain, holds no prisoners – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Obaseki scorches political terrain, holds no prisoners – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    The faceoff between Edo State Governor Godwin Obaseki and Deputy Governor Philip Shaibu recalls to mind a popular meme – “If Men Were God” – adopted by a transport company plying many routes across Nigeria.

     The phrase was left hanging without supplying what would happen were men to be God! But trust Nigerians! They filled the void with a stream of alternatives, thus:

    If men were God, “Humans will have one eye, one nostril, one ear, one hand, one leg, no fingers, no toes, no teeth, no stomach, no private parts. And wait for this: The “men-God” will limit, ration or seize air completely for any infractions!

    Welcome to Edo State where Governor Obaseki straddles the “Heart Beat of The Nation” and strikes fears in cowered residents.

    Lately in a litany of actions, Obaseki’s cut communications with, and barred Shaibu from accessing him – hiding behind security details’ duty to choose who to allow access to the governor. Fair enough!

    On September 18, Shaibu’s left stranded at the outer fencing of the Government House, Benin City. He’s heard, in a viral video, telling someone on the phone that:

    “Up till now, I don’t have any official communication (about his new office). It’s the civil servants that have official communication. As I’m speaking to you now, I’m standing by the gate” (of the Government House).

    Shaibu’s ordeal stems from his “expulsion” from the Osadebey Avenue seat of Government, for “aspiring to be Governor” in 2024, and daring to take out a writ, to preempt Obaseki using the House of Assembly to “impeach” him and scuttle his ambition.

    So, Obaseki decreed that Shaibu relocate, but kept him floating for weeks before accessing the new office via a memo by Secretary to the State Government, Mr Osarodion Ogie.

    The two-para memo, “Relocation of Office Accommodation,” dated September 15, and received on September 19, reads:

    “I write to inform you that His Excellency, the Governor, has approved the relocation of your office accommodation to No 7, Dennis Osadebey Avenue, G.R.A., Benin City.

    “You are therefore requested to ensure your compliance in line with Mr Governor’s approval, please.”

    Obaseki’s derring-dos birthed prior to the 2020 election, which he snatched from the jaws of defeat on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    He’s denied a second-term ticket by All Progressives Congress (APC), headed by his acclaimed godfather and predecessor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, now Senator for Edo North.

    Scaling the poll huddles, Obaseki, backed by Shaibu – a community relative of Oshiomhole – bared his fangs to pay back his “enemies” for risking his re-election and “undermining” his authority as governor.

    (Pre-the 2020 poll, in which Oshiomhole backed and campaigned for his challenger, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu, Obaseki told Oshiomhole that, “I’m still Governor of Edo State.”)

    Once again, Obaseki’s showing he remains the governor, by turning the heat on Shaibu who – already scalded, scorched and seared even as the battle has just begun – has surrendered and “begged for forgiveness.”

    He told journalists in Benin City on September 21 that, “We have resumed (in the new office). There is no problem with it, the governor has asked us to go there.”

    On the nitty-gritty of the parley with newsmen, Shaibu said: “I will use this medium to appeal to Mr. Governor, if there is anything that I don’t know that I have done, please forgive me, so that we can develop our state together.

    “If there is any mistake that I have made as human, is (sic) not an act of maybe wickedness, because I’m not wicked. I have a very clean heart.

    “So Mr Governor, please, if there is anything that you think I have done, I am sorry. I need us to work together to finish well and strong because that is my prayer for you.”

    As a comic relief, with a touch of religiosity, Shaibu said: “I’m missing my governor really, and I know God will touch the governor’s heart and touch all of us and even those that are trying to be in between. God will touch them to know that I mean well.

    “Like I always tell people, I am a loyal servant, there is nothing that has changed. I took a personal vow to support the Governor, and you can see my Catholic people are here. Everything about me, if I have a vow with God, there is nothing that will change it.”

    And hoping for the best, Shaibu added: “And I can only wish that the relationship that we had, in the next few days and weeks, I know it will come back. We have just less than how many months, just one year to go. We’ve been the envy of the entire country; it is still possible.”

    Did Shaibu also covenant with God that he’s going to “enter and leave government together with Obaseki,” without scheming to be Governor immediately thereafter, as revealed by the governor’s handlers?

    Shaibu’s words can melt a stone, but will they cut ice with Obaseki, who appears to have crossed his mind about the deputy governor he’s accused of betraying and sabotaging him?

    Shaibu’s pleading for forgiveness may even embolden Obaseki to continue to run roughshod over his opponents. As Republican State Rep. Daniel Perez of Florida, United States, says about Governor Ron DeSantis’ highhanded governance of Florida, “the problem of wielding the power of government like a hammer is that the people start looking like nails.”

    Governor Obaseki’s wielded, and brought down the hammer too often that the list of victims keeps growing, starting with Tony Kabaka Adun, whose multi-million Naira hotel was bulldozed in February 2020.

    And having ignored an order of the court that’s about to give judgment on the hotel, Obaseki turned round to demand N18 million from Mr Adun, as the cost of bringing down his edifice. What an irony!

     Barely a year after, the demolition squad uprooted the property of former Deputy Governor of Edo State, Dr Pius Odubu; a House of Reps member, Prof. Julius Ihonvbere; and Chief Executive Officer of PADMOZI Sports Marketing, Mr Mike Itemuagbor; while the land for Pastor Ize-Iyamu’s farm estate was revoked.

    Since 2016, Obaseki’s also prevented inauguration of 14 APC House of Assembly members, and caused removal of the Assembly roof to deny access to the 14 lawmakers, allegedly planning to impeach him; hounded Oshiomhole out of Edo, and directed that he seek his (Obaseki’s) permission to visit the state; and reportedly “sponsored” Oshiomhole’s suspension by his ward executive, leading to his sack by the courts as National Chairman of the APC. Deputy Governor Shaibu is next to taste Governor Obaseki’s fury.

    Critics, including Edo APC, accuse Obaseki of vendetta, for “regularly and willfully demolishing property belonging to perceived opponents, and dissenting or critical voices in the state, in the bid to foist a siege mentality on the citizenry.”

    Obaseki’s said the structures were “built on government land,” and that, “anybody who contravenes the law, no matter how highly placed you are in Edo State, you will be dealt with.”

    “Businesses cannot thrive when there is anarchy and complete disrespect for the law. For us as a government, whatever we need to do to ensure that there is law and order, will be done,” Obaseki warned.

    But if Obaseki were acting in the public interest to retrieve “limited” government property at the GRA in Benin City, why not bulldoze other property, starting with his own?

    Coming to Shaibu, he’d acted like the house mouse, to sell Oshiomhole out to Obaseki in the name of “loyalty” and with an eye to the 2024 governorship.

    That “ambition” appears up in the air, courtesy of Obaseki, who Shaibu helped to salvage his second-term ambition by throwing his “mentor and father,” Oshiomhole, under the bus.

    Yet, besides one good turn deserving another, Shaibu’s inalienable right to dream, and aspire to be the Executive Governor of Edo State if his political platform and the electorate sanctioned it.

    As Shaibu’s expressed remorse for whatever his indiscretions, and pleads with Obaseki to “find a place in his heart” to forgive him, may I remind the governor about the unkindness of history, as he faces the homestretch of his eight years of governing Edo State?

    Earlier in the heady days of his administration, l’d cause to advise him to tread softly for the sake of posterity, channeling the counsel through a March 29, 2021, article captioned, “Edo 2020: Legacy Obaseki wants remembered for.”

    In it, I recalled the immortal words of a popular social-political critic in the defunct Bendel (Delta and Edo) State, Air Iyare. He’s the type that lobes dynamites at the authorities, and you only ignore him, and his moral suasion at your own peril.

    That’s the lesson Military Governor Husaini Abdullahi learned in Bendel (1976-1978) from Mr Iyare’s crusading, when he wanted to turn a secondary school in Benin City into a hotel. Excerpts from my article:

    “Writing in the once-flagship Bendel-owned Nigerian Observer, Iyare held that sustaining the grammar school far outweighed the advantages derivable from turning the complex into a hotel.

    “Closing his article, Iyare stated that should Abdullahi seize the school for commercial purposes, he ‘will not be remembered as Abdullahi the Governor, but Abdullahi the hotelier.’ And that did it! Mr Abdullahi, who retired as Vice-Admiral and died in 2019 at 80, let the grammar school be.

    “The moral here isn’t Abdullahi’s succumbing to public opinion, but the legacy he would’ve left behind had he turned the secondary school buildings into a commercial venture.

    “Coming to the now, what legacy does Godwin Obaseki want to be remembered for after his eight-year tenure in 2024 in Edo State? Is it as Obaseki the Governor or Obaseki the “demolisher”?

    “Mr Obaseki should ponder this, as he embarks on a bulldozing spree of property of his real or imagined enemies.”

    This piece of advice is as relevant – if not more germane – as it’s in March 2021, as the governor’s extended his blitzkrieg to his deputy, who paired with him to qualify to run as governor.

    Obaseki still has 14 months (until late November 2024) in the saddle – time enough to restrategise his style from wanting to show that, “I’m the Governor” (which nobody can drag with him now) to displaying that, “I’m the Father of all Edolites.”

  • Supreme Court can’t help Atiku, Obi’s ’causes’ – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Supreme Court can’t help Atiku, Obi’s ’causes’ – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    In my May 15, 2023, article in New Telegraph on, “Election Petitions: Need for litigants and judges to avoid technicalities,” I referenced an opinion piece by lawyer and rights activist, Olu Adegboruwa (SAN) on, “The evils of technical justice.”

    Adegboruwa’s article of February 2, 2021 (SaharaReporters) stemmed from the Supreme Court ruling on the Osun governorship election, in which the issue of “technicalities” reared its ugly head regarding “originating summons” and “writ of summons,” and how the apex court had interchangeably applied “technicalities” in its opinions.

    Yet, the court cautions against shutting out hearing litigants simply on ground of technicalities.

    In the case of Boniface Ebere Okezie & 3 Ors. v. Central Bank of Nigeria & 5 Ors. (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt.1747) 181 – that lasted 11 years (2009-2020), the Supreme Court advised:

    “The paramount duty of courts is to do substantial justice and not cling to technicalities that will defeat the ends of justice. It is more in the interest of justice that parties are afforded reasonable opportunity for their rights to be investigated and determined on merit rather than that parties be shut out prematurely from being heard on the grounds of non-substantial compliance with rules of court.

    “It is immaterial that there are technicalities arising from statutory provisions, or technicalities inherent in rules of court. So long as the law or rule has been substantially complied with and the object of the provisions of the statute or rule is not defeated, and failure to comply fully has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice, the proceedings will not be nullified.”

    This admonition re-echoes in the wake of the judgment of the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC), which on September 6, dismissed petitions challenging the declaration of Bola
    Tinubu as winner of the February 25 presidential poll, and affirmed him as duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    Though they’re not “shut out prematurely” from being heard, two of the Plaintiffs – former Vice President Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi of Labour Party (LP) – have complained about the Tribunal applying technicalities to dismiss their petitions against the declaration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) – and are heading to the Supreme Court for redress.

    Yet, one of the “wonders” of post-February-March 2023 General Election in Nigeria is the obvious abandonment of the actual votes of the presidential poll of February 25 by the opposition candidates and their political parties.

    The question is: Why would Atiku and Obi, and their parties literally abandon monumental infractions they alleged during the election?

    The duo and supporters had claimed that INEC manipulated the electoral process in favour of the ruling APC and former Lagos State Governor Tinubu, who’s declared winner, and returned President-elect, and President of Nigeria.

    The answer is located in pursuit of technicalities that dominated proceedings of the Tribunal, which delivered judgment on September 6 in the consolidated petitions by the LP, PDP, and Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and their candidates, challenging Tinubu’s election.

    After a marathon 12-hour plus judgment, the five-member panel, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, dismissed the petitions, and affirmed Tinubu’s victory in the presidential poll.

    In summary, Justice Tsammani said: “This petition accordingly lacks merit. I affirm the return of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

    The petitioners had focused on technicalities, aimed at removing Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima from power through disqualification from the February election, and any future poll arising therefrom.

    That way, either Atiku or Obi – both laying claim to winning the election – would be declared President; or in the worst case scenario, the election would be cancelled and a re-run ordered, or the poll annulled and a fresh balloting mandated that would exclude Tinubu and the APC.

    As the tables turned against them, Atiku and Obi have accused the Tribunal of applying technicalities to dismiss their petitions, and expressed their determination to appeal the judgment at the Supreme Court.

    Still, a further question: Why or how did Atiku fail to deploy his wealth of experience of over 30 years in politics and political struggles to prosecute his petition at the Tribunal?

    Actually, Atiku boasted on September 8 about his political prowess and long fights to deepen democracy and the rule of law via the instrumentality of the courts.

    He’s expressing frustration over his failure to obtain clean copies of the judgment delivered by the Tribunal, to enable him proceed on appeal to the Supreme Court within 14 days from the date of the judgment.

    That a doyen and veteran of Atiku’s calibre reportedly failed to realise that elections are numbers – and elections are won or lost at the polling units with those numbers – is a study in absurdity, and a crucial lesson from the 2023 election cycle!

    In claiming that he won the February 25 poll, Atiku submitted thousands of “documentary evidence” at the Tribunal, relating to how INEC allegedly manipulated results in the 36 States and Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, to deny him and PDP victory.

    But as noted by the Tribunal in its judgment, Atiku couldn’t invite a single PDP agent from the over 176,000 polling units across Nigeria, to speak to those documents, and show how he won that polling unit, but the votes were suppressed or switched by INEC in favour of Tinubu.

    Atiku – like Obi – relied heavily on extraneous factors to make him President of Nigeria that he’d aspired to, and contested for in 2007, 2015 and 2019, and came short as runner-up – as happened again in February 2023.

    Those extraneous factors – categorised mainly as pre-election matters – questioned Tinubu’s alleged baggage: A cloudy parental background; identity theft in age, educational certificates, and job appointments; conviction for trafficking in drugs in the United States, and forfeiture of $460,000 thereof; and dual citizenship of Nigeria and Guinea.

    Others were: Tinubu’s invisible means of stupendous wealth; his ill-health that’s impacted his mental acuity, and may hamper his performance if elected President of Nigeria; double nomination by Shettima for Senate and Vice Presidential slots at the same time; and failure of Tinubu to secure 25% of votes cast in the FCT, Abuja.

    But most or all of these matters had been litigated upon, and dispensed with by various courts in Nigeria and overseas, with Tinubu having the day in the proceedings.

    Atiku – through his legion of Senior Lawyers – failed or refused to take judicial notice of the subsisting rulings, and continued to proceed against Tinubu at different jurisdictions.

    During pendency of the Tribunal judgment, Atiku re-instituted the case of Tinubu’s alleged forgery of certificates of the Chicago State University (CSU) in Illinois, in the U.S., with the reported intention of using the outcome at the Supreme Court should the Tribunal fail to give him judgment.

    Atiku may have the chance to deploy the proceedings of his fresh U.S. case against Tinubu at the Supreme Court, as the Tribunal had dismissed his and PDP’s petitions against INEC, Tinubu and the APC, in their entirety.

    Obi, vice presidential candidate to Atiku at the 2019 General Election, cuts a similar picture as Atiku in his presidential ambition, and met the same failure at the Tribunal on September 6.

    But what Obi lacks in a checkered political experience as Atiku (and Tinubu), he’s in majorly young Nigerians, who enabled him to spring surprises at the February poll.

    From position zero, Obi vaunted to second runner-up at the poll contested by 18 candidates, ranking at par with Tinubu and Atiku in the number of states won: 11, 12 and 12 states, in that order.

    Obi also claimed to have won the February poll, but had a “double-faced” approach – like members of the OBIdients Movement that supported his presidential run – to the application of technicalities in deciding the petitions at the PEPC.

    On one hand, Obi loathed the idea of determining – on technical ground – the petitions against his alleged “stolen mandate” by President Tinubu and the APC – reportedly in cahoots with INEC.

    On the other hand, Obi craved for technicalities in awarding him a favourable judgment, such as his claim that the Constitution makes it mandatory that to be declared President, a candidate should secure 25% of votes cast at the FCT, where he (Obi) scored 59%, Tinubu 19% and Atiku 15%, respectively.

    But the Tribunal disagreed with Obi’s (and Atiku’s) claim, noting that apart from Section 299 of the amended 1999 Constitution equating the FCT as a State, the area hasn’t a special status, and that all Nigerians have equal voting rights, and their votes carry equal weight in all parts of the country.

    Undoubtedly, Atiku and Obi’s claims, pleadings and prayers were contradictory in all material particular.

    They alleged that the election was marred by irregularities, and violence, but their witnesses averred otherwise, noting that they had problems only with uploading results to INEC’s results viewing (IReV) portal for real-time perusal  by the electorate.

    And that as a remedy – in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, and INEC’s regulations and guidelines – they (plaintiffs’ witnesses) took pictures of results declared at the polling units with the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), and took the hard copies of the results and BVAS to the Ward Collation Centre, for authentication for manual collation.

    Besides, the petitioners, who pleaded INEC’s non-substantial compliance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as regards “mandatory” 25% score of votes cast in the FCT, Abuja), and the 2022 Electoral Act (relating to “compulsory” electronic transmission of results), wanted to gain from the said anomalies as President.

    While Atiku prayed to be declared President, or in the alternative, a re-run be ordered by the Tribunal for Tinubu and himself; Obi asked to be proclaimed the President or the election be annulled, and a fresh exercise mandated, excluding Tinubu and the APC.

    But the Tribunal rejected their prayers, as they’re unable to prove the allegations in their petitions “beyond all reasonable doubts.”

    Surely, it’ll be an uphill task for Atiku and Obi to convince the Supreme Court to reverse – in their favour – the apparently well-founded verdict of the Presidential Election Petitions Court affirming the election of President Tinubu!

  • Blackmail, threats, fears hand coupists unfettered incursions – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Blackmail, threats, fears hand coupists unfettered incursions – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    The import of August 19 pledge by the military junta in Niger Republic to transition for three years before returning the country to civil rule wasn’t lost on observers of the July 26 coup d’etat in the country.

    The coupists’ message was twofold: Consolidate their forceful hold on power in Niger, and subtly invite militaries in fragile countries across Africa to takeover the reins.

    And 11 days later (August 30) – and one month of the coup in Niger – military officers overthrew Gabonese President Ali Bongo Ondimba, and “dissolved all institutions of State,” citing serious institutional, political, economic and social crises as factors responsible for the incursion that they tagged, “necessary” for the progress of the Central African country.

    This makes the eighth military takeover in Africa since 2020, thus uncannily confirming prediction of more coups in the continent by the Leader of INRI Evangelical Spiritual Church, Nigeria, Primate Elijah Ayodele.

    The forecaster of mainly political events around the globe said both “military and political coups” would follow the Niger example unless African rulers changed their governing behaviours.

    In a chilling statement released by the pastor’s media aide, Osho Oluwatosin, at close of July, the Primate warned that, “there will be a military coup(s) and a political coup(s) in many countries on the continent.”

    Ayodele declared: “There is no way anyone can stop a coup in Africa. As long as leaders in the continent are not doing the right thing, there will be a coup (coups).

    “The following countries: Uganda, Togo, Benin Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Bissau and Congo Brazzaville must tidy up and do the needful because a coup (coups) will soon happen in these countries.

    “The following countries will experience political coups: South Africa, Central Africa Republic, Sao Tome & Principe, Gambia, and Senegal. They must do what is needful against political coups.”

    Noting that, “African leaders are corrupt and power-intoxicated,” Primate Ayodele said: “Coup is a fresh revolution in Africa against bad leaders. Any African leader that isn’t doing well should prepare for a coup.”

    Though Gabon wasn’t listed in the prediction – nor Cameroon and Rwanda that’ve reshuffled the hierarchy of their militaries in the wake of the Gabonese putsch – but here we’re with the eighth military coup in three years, which’s expanded the “coup belt” beyond its rather straight line from the West to East coast of Africa.

    Countries affected by the coup contagion are: Mali (August 2020 and May 2021); Chad (April 2021, after death of President Idriss Derby in the war front against rebels); Guinea (September 2021); Burkina Faso (January 2022 and September 30, 2022); Niger (July 26, 2023); and Gabon (August 30, 2023).

    Besides leaders “doing the right things” to stave off coups, the other antidote is what Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has initiated in Niger: Forcely rein in any coupists, and return to constitutional order.

    But the ECOWAS is hamstrung by the very people, whose interests it fights to uphold by wanting to intervene militarily in Niger!

    Save those who stand to gain from a disruption of existing order, nobody in their right senses pray for war whose end is unpredictable.

    Yet, certain fundamentals push the war-shy to action, such as the July coup in Niger could force the ECOWAS to engage in.

    For once, the 15-member countries have decided to go beyond demurring, to taking concrete actions to reverse incessant military coups in the sub-region.

    But the coupists and their civilian collaborators have exploited the faultlines in neighbouring countries to consolidate their occupation of Niger.

    The’ve deftly deployed blackmail, threats, fears, and linguistic, cultural and religious affinity to sow discord, and preach armagedon in those countries should ECOWAS’ standby force intervene to restore to power President Mohamed Bazoum, who has been under house arrest.

    The coupists are particularly emboldened by supports from Nigerians, whose President Bola Tinubu – though endorses the ECOWAS initiative – can’t bypass approval of the Senate, which’s turned down his request for military action in Niger.

    Now, the junta, playing for time under pretext of seeking amicable solution to the self-created crisis, has declared a three-year transition to return Niger to civil rule.

    It wasn’t difficult for the junta, headed by former Presidential Guards’ commander, Gen. Abdourahmane Tchiani, to tell an ECOWAS peace mission in Niamey on August 19 that it’d transition to constitutional order in three years.

    Interpretation! Despite threats by ECOWAS to march its standby force into Niger if peace moves failed, the military henchmen can’t be intimidated by external forces to relinquish power to Bazoum.

    At a meeting in the Ghanaian capital city, Accra, a day earlier on August 18, the ECOWAS military chiefs of 11 of 15 countries, proclaimed their readiness to intervene in Niger “anytime the order is given” by the subregional governments.

    This follows an August 10 confirmation of an “ECOWAS standing force” by the leaders, who met in Abuja, to review their failed seven-day ultimatum to the Niger junta to release, and reinstate Bazoum to power.

    The Niger military rulers have continued to shun peace overtures from ECOWAS, the African Union (AU), United Nations and Western countries, including the United States and France, which have insisted the intransigent soldiers must return Bazoum to power.

    The junta have denied audience to these international bodies and countries – or allowed only low-level contacts with them – and established a modicum of civilian government under a Prime Minister.

    The regime even adds to its list of absurdities the threats to kill Bazoum and his family members (if ECOWAS’ soldiers invaded Niger), and/or prosecute him for “high treason,” for speaking with outside powers.

    When ECOWAS’ military chiefs renewed their commitment to intervene in Niger any time the order was given, the military clique did two things in quick succession:

    It rallied support of its co-coup rulers in Mali and Burkina Faso (who’ve reportedly sent fighter jets to Niger’s borders with ECOWAS’ countries, to prevent their troops from moving into Niger), and gave clearance to meet the ECOWAS peace mission in Niamey.

    But a day after meeting with the ECOWAS delegation – led by Nigeria’s former Head of State, retired Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar – the junta revealed its intention to remain in power for three years.

    In another pullout from their bag of tricks, Gen. Tchiani said that within one month, the regime would form a committee, to study and form a new constitution for Niger.

    Even as he said the door for further negotiations was open, and that “Niger doesn’t want to go to war,” Tchiani vowed it’d defend itself “if the need arises.”

    And preparations for such an eventuality kicked off same day, with reports of thousands of volunteers turning out in central Niamey, “answering a call to register as civilian auxiliaries, to be mobilised to support the army” against an invading ECOWAS force.

    With another coup in Gabon becoming too many in Africa, can ECOWAS forcefully return the Niger coupists to the barracks, as President Tinubu says is inevitable as a last resort?

    But what about Tinubu’s reported gamble with a shorter transition timeframe of one year in Niger? Isn’t that giving up on the initiative of the ECOWAS, AU, UN and Western countries to return Niger to constitutional order pronto?

    That maybe more wins for the “Military Boys,” and perhaps the beginning of the death knell for democracy in Africa!