Former Chief of Staff to ex-Governor Willie Obiano, Chief Primus Odili, has backed the endorsement of Anambra State Governor, Prof. Chukwuma Soludo, for re-election by the Minister of Works, Chief Dave Umahi.

During the flag-off of the access road to the 2nd Niger Bridge at Ogbunike near Onitsha, Umahi commended Soludo’s development efforts, declaring that the governor faces no real opposition in the November 8, 2025, governorship election.

Describing Soludo’s achievements as remarkable, Umahi, a member of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), stated that if he were from Anambra State, he would support Soludo for another term.

Odili echoed Umahi’s sentiments, emphasizing that in just three years, Soludo has delivered impressive results that should earn him overwhelming support from Anambra voters.

“The endorsement from Umahi, whose tenure as Ebonyi State governor was transformational, carries significant weight,” Odili said.

“Governor Soludo has completed major projects without borrowing. If he is given another term, the chances of completing ongoing developments are even greater.”

He added that while opposition parties may struggle to acknowledge Soludo’s achievements, the results speak for themselves.

“The All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) is not in a hurry to relinquish power in Anambra. Instead, we are strengthening our bond with the people through visible performance that no amount of rhetoric can discredit.

“Anambra residents know that the APGA-led government under Soludo is committed to building a safe, viable, and prosperous state. Umahi’s advice to the opposition should be taken seriously in the interest of the people.”

Odili also highlighted the impact of the Agunechemba security initiative, which has significantly reduced crime in the state, paving the way for development.

“With the decline in abductions, murder, and robbery, Soludo’s government now enjoys greater public support. The people appreciate his efforts to transform Anambra into a livable, smart megacity.

“Umahi’s words may be difficult for the opposition to accept, but they reflect reality. A simple drive around Anambra is enough to convince anyone that Soludo’s solutions are working and that the people have fully embraced his vision,” Odili concluded.

 [Vanguard]

Enough is Enough (EiE) Nigeria, a civil society organisation, says the legal, political, and democratic implications of “silencing elected voices” will be examined in the upcoming edition of ‘ThursdayTalks’.

ThursdayTalks is a monthly online discussion with thought leaders on issues affecting Nigerians and the country.

The conversation is an initiative of EiE in partnership with BudgIT and TheCable.

This edition, billed to hold on Thursday, March 27 is themed: ‘Suspended Voices, Silenced Mandates: What Next for Democracy?’

Stakeholders will explore the recent suspension of Siminalayi Fubara, governor of Rivers state; suspension of the legislature in Rivers, suspension of Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, senator representing Kogi central; and how such actions impact citizen trust, legislative independence, and accountability.

On March 18, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers and suspended Fubara; Ngozi Odu, his deputy; and all members of the Rivers assembly, due to prolonged political crisis in the state.

In a statement, EIE said this month’s conversation will have Tolulope Adeleru-Balogun, NewsCentralTV programme director, as moderator; and Opeyemi Adamolekun, EIE’s executive director, as speaker.

Other speakers are Oluseun Onigbinde, global director at BudgIT; and Chidi Odinkalu, a human rights activist.

The online conversation will last from 5-7pm.

[TheCable]

The question is not where US President Donald Trump has not touched in less than 100 days in office. It is how the world is coping with the shock and devastation of his touch and the trail of chaos it is leaving behind.

Because of its vulnerabilities, Africa was never far from Trump’s reach. When the continent thought the looming mass deportation of immigrants and the scrapping of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) were among the worst measures in the early days of Trump’s second term, he unleashed a body blow that has left South Africa in a daze.

As of March 23, South Africa’s Ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, arrived back in Cape Town to tumultuous cheers from large crowds after he departed Washington. He was declared persona non grata by the Trump administration on March 14 for his comments at a webinar.

Rasool’s ‘sin’

Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Rasool’s criticisms of President Trump’s policies as “unacceptable”, adding that the ambassador harboured animosity towards the US president. Rubio said on X, where he also announced the expulsion, Rasool “hates America.”

The last time the US declared a foreign ambassador persona non grata was 17 years ago, under President George W. Bush. And even then, it retaliated against Bolivia after that country expelled the US ambassador for allegedly interfering in its “internal affairs.”

What was it that Rasool said? He told a webinar hosted by a South African think tank that Trump was “mobilising a supremacism” and also trying to “project white victimhood as a dog whistle” as a reaction to the demographic reality of a diminishing white population.

He said, “We see it in the domestic politics of the USA, the MAGA movement as a response not simply to a supremacist instinct, but to very clear data that shows great demographic shifts in the USA in which the voting electorate in the USA is projected to become 48 percent white.”

Inconvenient truth

That was the inconvenient truth. Could it have been said differently? Did Rasool walk into a trap, or was Rubio’s excuse a red herring? Apart from Somalia, no other African country has been targeted by the new US administration as much as South Africa. 

First, there was an executive order freezing US assistance to Pretoria for alleged “unjust racial discrimination” against white Afrikaans over the Expropriation Act, which seeks to redistribute land in the country, and then followed the stoppage of the USAID-funded HIV/AIDS programme that has put hundreds of lives at risk.

Rasool did what he had to. I won’t remove anything from his words. Relations between Pretoria and Washington were already testy, and the beads holding them had been broken from the waist by Trump’s chaotic dance steps. It was not a matter of if but which way the beads would fall.

Behind the story

The anti-Pretoria lobby in the US has had it for South Africa for a long time, especially following that country’s stand against Israel in the ongoing war on Gaza.

During my visit to Israel last December, the talk at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs was that South Africa took a bribe of $2 billion from Iran to mount a case against the Benjamin Netanyahu government at the International Criminal Court (ICC), an allegation that diplomatic sources in Pretoria have denied.

Despite Trump’s expression of displeasure, South Africa said it would not withdraw its case of genocide against Israel, saying it is aware that “Standing by our principles sometimes has consequences.”

Silent Africa

Rasool’s eviction is another consequence of South Africa’s principled stand, and the country is taking it in its stride. My surprise is the loud silence over Trump’s decision across African capitals. The continent’s media have also treated the story like a footnote.

We’re not talking about the US evicting illegal immigrants or smashing drug gangs. We’re talking about an ambassador with a distinguished career in the foreign service who was first appointed to the US in 2010 under Barack Obama.

He served for five years and was reappointed because of his extensive US domestic politics experience and ability to navigate complex international relations.

Contrary to what Rubio would have the world believe, Rasool’s “cardinal sin” was championing the case against Israel at the ICC – a matter of principle for which the ambassador should have no regrets.

Either African governments and the AU are too shocked to offer a clear response, or the continent has accepted chaos as the inevitability of the Trump era.

Dangerous silence

Whatever it is, silence is a dangerous option. If Trump can evict the ambassador of one of Africa’s most consequential countries for expressing an inconvenient opinion, it is only a matter of time before the less endowed countries will be in the firing line.

An academic and diplomat who served in many conflict areas in Africa, Professor Babafemi Badejo, said, “South Africa has, of late, been leading many countries over Gaza-Palestine. About four-fifths of African countries are, at best, lukewarm on this issue.

“It’s not a surprise that African countries have been mute over the US Secretary of State’s action declaring the South African ambassador persona non grata.”

If South Africa’s primary offence is its position on the war in Gaza – a position shared by many African countries – why is the continent unable to rally against Rasool’s eviction? Why is the AU silent?

European example

 In 2018, three European countries – France, Germany and the UK – took a common stand against the US in response to Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the comprehensive action plan to guarantee the nuclear agreement with Iran. They bypassed the dollar-trading system and set up their mechanism to trade with Tehran.

Why is Africa a spectator in its own case? “Fear of punishments and resignation to a life of minimal relevance, if at all, has been the stance of many African countries,” Badejo said. “How does a Lilliputian state begging for food aid for its people assert itself.”

Africa’s other reasons

There could be a less apparent reason Trump would get away with his diplomacy of bullying. Several African leaders would like to copy him. In West and Central Africa, for example, five countries – Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Guinea and Chad – are under military rule.

Four of them have broken away from the regional group ECOWAS. Their leaders, who might have been in soup in a different, bygone world, would now consider themselves lucky beneficiaries of a chaotic global order. The last thing they would want to do is to challenge Trump.

Apart from the President of Cote d’Ivoire, Alassane Ouattara, whose supporters are already urging to continue for a fourth term against the constitutionally approved limit, the presidents of three other African countries are pressing for an extended term limit, the sort of thing Trump is already hinting at.

I didn’t expect the South African Development Community (SADC) or the AU to call an extraordinary meeting to discuss Rasool’s expulsion. But it’s a measure of how weak and resigned we have become that neither an officer of these organisations nor an African head of state can call out his eviction.

It’s Rasool today. Trump’s next victim is not far away.

_______________________

Multichoice apartheid pricing?

I’m usually not one to interfere with the markets, whatever the invincible foxes or forces want to do. But how can you ignore the nonsense that Multichoice has been up to lately? The pay-tv service provider has increased fees in Nigeria by 21 percent through the backdoor while cutting subscription fees in South Africa by 38 percent! Why? It said the cut in South Africa was a token to subscribers for the cost of living crisis. And in Nigeria? You know the old story – inflation, infrastructure, blah, blah. I wouldn’t mind if Multichoice had a competitor. But it’s nonsense for this monopoly to make most of its profits in this so-called high-risk environment and use it to subsidise subscribers elsewhere.

We had a name for it: apartheid!

The move by the House of Representatives to strip vice president, governors and their deputies of their immunity while sparing the president, has sparked debates among stakeholders who have faulted the logic of the proposed legislation by the Green Chamber.

The stakeholders including political scientists, civil rights activists and politicians, while speaking on the proposed amendments argued that both the president and the vice president are usually elected on a joint ticket, hence, should enjoy the same privilege.

Among those who spoke is a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Science,  Bayero University, Kano, Dr Aminu Hayatu and a human rights activist cum former Kaduna senator, Shehu Sani.

According to them, what is good for the president is also good for the vice president, hence, any proposal to remove immunity must affect both the president and the vice president.

Daily Trust reports that the House of Representatives yesterday passed for second reading, a bill seeking to amend the constitution to strip the vice president, governors and deputy governors of immunity.

The bill was among the 42 considered and passed through second reading during Wednesday’s plenary session, presided over by the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Okezie Kalu.

The House had on Tuesday passed 39 constitution amendment bills for second reading and referred to the House Committee on Constitution Review for further legislative actions. The accelerated passage of 42 more bills yesterday increased the number of constitution amendment bills passed for second reading to 81.

Sponsored by Rep. Solomon Bob (Rivers PDP), the bill is seeking an amendment of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution to guard against abuse of office and to ensure transparency in governance.

The long title of the proposed legislation reads, “A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to qualify the immunity conferred on the President, remove the immunity conferred on the Vice President, the Governors and their deputies, in order to curb corruption, eradicate impunity, and enhance accountability in public office and for Related Matters”.

The lawmaker said the bill seeks to “promote accountability in public office” by removing the immunity currently granted to the vice president, governors and their deputies.”

The draft bill states that it seeks to amend Section 308 of the principal Act by substituting a new subsection (3) as follows: “This section applies to a person holding the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Vice President only when acting as President in line with Section 145 of this Constitution.”

In subsection (4), it proposes that “The foregoing provisions of this section shall be inapplicable where the person to whom this section applies is acting in an unofficial capacity or where the conduct of the person is beyond the powers of his office or the conduct is criminal in nature”.

President should not be spared from losing immunity

Reacting, a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Bayero University Kano, Dr Aminu Hayatu, faulted the amendment bill seeking to strip vice president, governors and their deputies of immunity, describing the move as unnecessary.

He queried the rationale behind advocating for the removal of immunity for only the vice president while the president is allowed to retain immunity, adding that both of them are usually elected on a joint ticket.

“So, the question is, this is a joint ticket. So, why are you isolating someone that is also a party to the ticket? If you are doing that, do it to the governors alongside the deputies and the president with his vice president.  I mean, that makes sense because it’s a joint ticket. They were not elected separately. So, all this is something that I think is unnecessary.

“What we need to focus on is whether the executive should maintain that privilege of immunity or not. That should be the subject of debate. Not that some individuals, you know, are being considered while others are being spared. The same reason the vice-president or the deputy governor is there is to assist the president or the governor. And then, it’s the same duty and function that they are performing as assistants to these executive positions; the number one position in the state or in the country.

“So, it is, I think, for me, an unnecessary exercise because we are battling with bigger problems that we should focus on. Constitutional amendment is something that should happen with deep insights, not like the one of immunity of the president or the deputy governor and what have you. So, I am opposed to this and I am a frontline critic of this.”

Also speaking on the matter, a rights activist and former Kaduna senator, Shehu Sani, faulted the removal of immunity for only the vice president while the president is allowed to enjoy immunity.

Sani in a post via his verified X handle (formerly Twitter) said: “The positive aspects of removing immunity for VP and governors is that nobody will be above the law; the negative aspect of it is that it can be used to witch hunt VPs and governors.”

He, however, argued that if the VPs must lose their immunity as proposed by the amendment bill, the president must not be spared.

“If a VP should have no immunity, whoever is the President should not have it also.

Sani urged Nigerians to “show interest in it (the proposed amendment bill) before it’s too late.”

Bill to increase Lagos LGAs from 20 to 57

Among the bills passed is the proposal to increase the number of Local Government Areas (LGAs) in Lagos State from 20 to 57.

The bill, jointly sponsored by Reps James Abiodun Faleke, Babajimi Benson, Enitan Badru and 19 others, is titled, “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) to accommodate the 37 Development Area Councils of Lagos State as full-fledged Local Government Areas, increasing the total number of Local Government Areas in Lagos State to 57 and the total number of Local Government Areas in the federation to 811, and for Related Matters (HB. 1498)

Daily Trust reports that the move is aimed at making the 37 existing Local Council Development Areas in the state full-fledged LGAs.

It would be recalled that the creation of LCDA by then administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu when he was the state governor in 2004, pitched him against then President Olusegun Obasanjo, who stopped allocations to the state following the development.

Obasanjo had directed states that created new local government areas at the time to revert to the former structure or risk stoppage of their statutory allocations.

While most of the affected states reverted to the old councils for their allocations to be restored, Lagos State remained resolute in sustaining the new councils.

The failure of then Governor Tinubu to heed to the presidential order led to the stoppage of allocations to the state.

Tinubu stood his ground and headed to the Supreme Court to challenge the action where he eventually won and the allocations for Lagos State were subsequently released.

Bills for death penalty review, power devolution, others pass second reading

Among the bills passed for second reading were those seeking a review of the framework for Local Government Administration, review of death penalty law and citizenship by investment.

One of the bills seeks to amend the constitution to transfer control of natural resources—including mines, minerals, oil fields, and geological surveys—from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent Legislative List.

Sponsored by Speaker Abbas Tajudeen, Kingley Chinda,  Gaza Jonathan Gbefwi, and Ikeagwuonu Onyinye Ugochinyere, the bills (HB. 200, 1310, 1446 & 1546) aim to grant state governments a greater role in resource governance.

Another set of bills propose the transfer of fingerprints, identification, and criminal records from the Exclusive to the Concurrent List (HB.1411, 1403 & 1918).

Additionally, Hon. Babajimi Benson introduced a bill (HB.1406) to allow states to collect road tolls, while Hon. Ikeagwuonu Ugochinyere’s HB.1431 seeks to move the construction of non-trunk ‘A’ roads to the Concurrent List.

Another bill (HB.2060), co-sponsored by Benjamin Okezie Kalu and Muhammed Mukhtar, proposes the inclusion of tourism on the Concurrent List to boost the industry’s development at the state level. Another bill (HB.1412) seeks to insert piracy and high-seas crimes into the Exclusive List, reinforcing Nigeria’s maritime security.

Also, HB.1543, sponsored by Speaker Abbas Tajudeen and Hon. Marcus Onobun, aims to move quarantine-related matters from the Exclusive to the Concurrent List, potentially enhancing states’ responses to health emergencies.

Meanwhile, HB.1512 seeks to allow states to manage water resources within their jurisdictions and ensure financial autonomy for local government councils.

State creation and local government reforms

The House also considered multiple bills seeking the creation of new states, including Oke-Ogun, Ijebu, Ife-Ijesa, Tiga, Orlu, and Etiti, among others.

On local governance, HB.1669, sponsored by Hon. Dibiagwu Eugene Okechukwu, aims to reinforce local government autonomy. Conversely, HB.1215 proposes removing local governments as a constitutionally recognised tier of government and placing their creation and funding under state governments.

Traditional institutions and citizenship rights

HBs.203 & 71 propose formal recognition of traditional rulers’ advisory roles in governance, while HB.1195 & 1422 seek to extend citizenship rights to foreign spouses of Nigerian women. HB.2059 proposed a Citizenship by Investment scheme for foreign investors meeting a set financial threshold.

Also passed were bills revising penalties for capital offences (HB.2120), defining acts of torture (HB.1194), and ensuring free, compulsory basic education as a constitutional right (HBs.1661 & 1206). Additionally, HB.1517 seeks to clarify conditions for declaring a state of emergency, among others.

Why bills got accelerated passage —Reps spokesman

Meanwhile, the House has explained the rationale behind the accelerated passage of the constitution amendment bills through second reading without the general principles of the bills being subjected to debate by the lawmakers.

Speaking to our reporter, the House spokesman, Rep. Akin Rotimi said the House gave the bills accelerated passage through second reading based on resolution taken and recommendations by the House Committee on Constitutional Amendment.

He added that the measure was to expedite action and the process of the constitution review exercise, adding that the House Rule allows members to take such actions that may ease the work of the House.

According to him, the House needs to speed up the work of the committee ahead of the public hearings of the bills and other activities.

He further said it was in line with the deadline set by the committee to round off its work on the constitution review exercise.

Daily Trust reports that the constitution review committee chaired by the House Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Okezie Kalu, has set December 2025 as the deadline for the conclusion of the constitution amendment exercise.

 [DailyTrust]

T.D. Jakes, The Senior Pastor of the Potter’s House in Dallas, Texas, has revealed that the life-threatening medical emergency he suffered last year was a heart attack.

The 67-year-old was preaching in his church last November when the incident happened.

Midway through speaking, Jakes paused onstage and was shaking after lowering the microphone.

The much respected cleric was then helped off the stage by church officials.

Jakes said he did not feel any symptoms of a cardiac arrest, but doctors later told him he was preaching with only half of his heart working.

“I didn’t really realize what was happening to me onstage until I got to the hospital in an ambulance and fussing that it happened onstage, by the way, because I didn’t want it to happen, and the doctor leaned over my ear and said, ‘You had a massive heart attack,'” Jakes told Craig Melvin on TODAY.

“The reason I didn’t realize it was because I had none of the symptoms that they say.

“No numbness, no sharp pain, no anything. I just kind of drifted off to sleep. I didn’t know what it was, but I almost died.

“(The doctor) said five minutes later, I’d have been dead on arrival.

“The right side of my heart had completely stopped getting blood at all.

“As long as I was up preaching, I felt fine. But when I sat down, the adrenaline dropped, and it exposed the fact that I was preaching with half of my heart closed through a clot. And they had to go get it,” he added.

[DailyPost]

Seasoned actor Hanks Anuku has shared thoughts on remarriage, revealing that he’s interested in finding love again but with a non-Nigerian.

Anuku said experience with his ex-wife from Asaba has left him traumatised, making him wary of Nigerian women.

In a recent interview on Nollywood Hardcore, Anuku explained that his previous marriage failed due to compatibility issues.

He emphasised that he’s seeking a deeper connection with someone who shares his values and interests.

Anuku revealed that he finds himself more compatible with Caucasian women with whom he had friendships in the past.

Anuku’s preference for Caucasian women is rooted in his experiences abroad where he had many female friends from that background.

He has a particular fondness for blonde women and in contrast, his past marriage was marred by his ex-wife’s constant demands for money and her jealousy over his acting career.

Anuku, who has been separated for over 10 years, said: “My marriage failed because we were not compatible. It was a wrong marriage. She is not the mother of my kids. But I had a stepdaughter she came with from a previous relationship.

“I have been separated for more than 10 years. I’m not married to anybody yet but I have another lady who has two kids for me. She has a son and daughter for me and they live together with their mother. I’m not married again. I’m not married after separating from my first wife. I don’t want to get married to any Nigerian. Because I went through a lot of psychological trauma and all that. I never expected that I was going to be separated from her. It hurt me. But I had to move on.

“I thought I had a chance to get married again but it never happened. The mother of my kids is not the kind of woman I want to get married to. So, we are just friends. She has two kids for me don’t mean I have to marry her. She is just my friend. I’m doing what I can. I like to be married and be happy in the marriage. I have dated for a couple of years and I know that she wasn’t going to be my wife. I like to be in love with somebody and not just be infatuated. Agape love, the greatest of love is what I want in any woman I’m going to get married to.

“It’s not that I don’t want to get married, I’m just scared of Nigerian women. Overseas, I had Caucasian female friends. If I had to go back, it would be a bit too late now. Maybe, if I go on vacation and I find a friend… I found myself a lot more compatible with Caucasian women. When I was overseas, I never dated any coloured woman. Blonde women are my specs. They never bothered me until I came to Nigeria.

“My ex-wife is a Nigerian woman from Asaba. I was in love with her. We were in school together but she was always demanding money. And she also asked me to stop acting because she was jealous of other women being around me. I told her I couldn’t stop acting.”

[TheNation]

…Intrigues, as dark forces plot to truncate credible polls in 2027

…Why President Tinubu should be concerned about the credibility of polls

…Nigeria’s history of encouraging electoral malfeasance by side-stepping the law

…How dependable institutional memory can deliver effective election management
…The challenge of rebuilding confidence in INEC

Vanguard can authoritatively confirm that there is a plot to compromise the 2027 general election through the instrumentality of appointing a yes-man as a replacement for Professor Mahmood Yakubu, the National Chairman of Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

Yakubu’s tenure ends in November of this year when he will have served two terms.

What Vanguard cannot confirm is when the plot began.

At press time, Vanguard investigations revealed that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is yet to be fully boarded on the plot’s platform.

However, forces pulling the strings from outside Aso Rock Presidential Villa are known friends of the President.

They are also working with powerful Aso Rock insiders.

The arrowhead of this move is a former South-South governor and a member of the class of 1999.

This comes at a time the credibility of the Election Management Body is suffering a massive discount due to the 2023 general elections and the off-season elections it has conducted since then.

One option being pursued for the plot to succeed is the nomination and confirmation of a malleable individual as Yakubu’s successor.

A number of names (withheld by Vanguard) is already being put forward for possible consideration.

Unfortunately, the individuals positioned by the plotters had served as National Commissioners of the Commission, and Resident Electoral Commissioners, RECs, who did not dress themselves in shining armour during their tenure.

In fact, the seemingly plausible consideration for their choice is the extent of their malleability, which would mean an erosion of INEC’s credibility in conducting free, fair, and credible elections.

Nigerians recall with nostalgia how the 2003 and 2007 general elections went, culminating in the public admission by a beneficiary of the 2007 sham presidential election, late President Umar Musa Yar’Adua, that there were flaws in the election that brought him to power.

Flouting constitutional provision

Under a democracy with a written Constitution, unlike the British parliamentary system where the Constitution is unwritten, the power exercisable by any elected or appointed state official like the President must derive from the Constitution; otherwise, it is null and void.

That is why Section 1 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) declares unambiguously: “This Constitution is supreme, and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons, (including the President) throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

INEC is established under Section 153 of the Constitution.

The mode of appointment of the Chairman and members is provided for under Section 154(1) and (2) of the Constitution only. In exercising his power to appoint the Chairman or members of INEC, the Constitution mandatorily says, “the president shall consult the Council of State”, and such appointment again “shall be subject to confirmation by the Senate.”

The Constitution established INEC as genuinely independent and clearly stated under the Third Schedule, Paragraph 14, that its members “shall be persons of unquestionable integrity” and “shall not be members of a political party.”

Recently, card-carrying members of the ruling political party, the All Progressives Congress, APC, were appointed as Commissioners in INEC. Unfortunately, this practice did not start with the APC.

Avoiding former President Buhari’s blunder

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, something very curious but strangely indecipherable, happened when President Muhammadu Buhari, who rode on the back of the vigour and determination of Nigerians to engage change, threw INEC into a cesspit of needless controversy, by not appointing a substantive national chairman for INEC until the tenure of the largely reformative Professor Attahiru Jega ended.

Acting in line with statutes and order of seniority, Jega had handed over to Ambassador (Dr.) Ahmed Wali to head and supervise the activities of the commission until a substantive chairman is appointed “in consultation with the Council of State” – as stated by the constitution.

However, within 24 hours, Buhari, who had just been sworn-in, barely 36 hours earlier, overruled Jega and appointed a familial, nay filial relation, Mrs Amina Bala Zakari, as acting head of INEC.

The Head of The Civil Service of The Federation at that time, Barr. Danladi Kifasi, who conveyed the appointment in a letter, said the appointment was with effect from 30th of June, 2015 until the appointment of a substantive chairman.

At that time, both Wali and Zakari were National Commissioners of INEC.

But in terms of seniority, Wali trumped Zakari.

Interestingly, Buhari, who had been declared winner of the presidential election of March 2015 and who ought to have been briefed by his transition team on appointments he needed to make immediately he assumed office, either had no clue about what was happening in INEC or had made up his mind to appoint a family member as INEC chairman.

The furore Buhari’s misstep generated in the country at that time threw INEC under the bus and it took several investigative stories by Vanguard, accompanied by opposition from patriotic activists in the country to stop Buhari from appointing his ‘sister’ as INEC chairman.

It was not until Wednesday, October 21, 2015 — almost four months after — that Buhari appointed Professor Mahmood Yakubu as substantive INEC chairman, after a series of lobbying and counter-lobbying to get a ’suitable replacement’ for Jega.

That ‘suitable replacement’ conducted the two controversial 2019 and 2023 general elections – whereas the former was immersed in a controversy over the presence of a server in INEC, the latter suffered incalculable damage when its much- touted BVAS and IReV platforms were rendered ineffective.

There are five clear months ahead for President Tinubu to seek and appoint a fitting replacement in the mould of a Jega, as was done in Ghana, when Kwadwo Afari-Gyan’s tenure ended, and Madam Jean Mensa was appointed to continue the good works Afari-Gyan started.

Why President Tinubu should be concerned about the credibility of polls

Aso Rock insiders have reliably informed Vanguard that President Tinubu understands the importance of credible polls.

According to a source close to the President, “his declaration that NYSC members should be used to support the conduct of the coming census is not just about saving cost alone but about ensuring credibility of the process. It is the same way he is looking at the appointment of who will succeed Professor Yakubu. He wants a credible process, and he wants to help ensure that Nigerians’ confidence in INEC is not shaken”.

There is a positive history about this.

Nigerians remember President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan because of his legacy of the free, fair, and credible general elections in 2015. That is why he enjoys international recognition as a credible election observer.

Before Jonathan, former head of state General Abdulsalami Abubakar enjoyed plausible international recognition after he handed over to a civilian administration and completed a transition programme that saw a credible election process in 1999.

Owu-born former military and civilian president Mathew Okikiolakan Aremu Olusegun Obasanjo continues to enjoy international acclaim because of his 1979 transition programme, which birthed the Second Republic. This was when African Heads of State were transmuting into civilian presidents.

These speak to global recognition of the critical role credible elections play and the primacy of integrity of the leader under whose watch such elections are conducted or vice versa.

The Nigerian Electoral laws about the best in Africa but require operators with integrity

Like many African countries that subscribe to the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, NEPAD, peer review democratic process and the AU Charter on Democracy and Good Governance, Nigeria has domesticated the same norms and standards and even gone further to extend their utility in the Nigerian context by innovating with processes such as Biometric electronic voters register, the use of electronic transmission of election results from polling units and several other amendments to the electoral rules approved by political actors based on experiential recommendations to improve the integrity of the electoral process.

Yet, despite these innovations, which, in many instances, are well ahead of other electoral legislative frameworks in Africa, operators often falter or are pressured to falter in implementing the framework’s provisions and guidelines.

How dependable institutional memory can deliver effective election management

The Akwa-Ibom and Abia instances demonstrated the important impact of human agency, which contrasted with the Adamawa scenario.

These contrasting scenarios, along with the dogged fashion demonstrated in Akwa Ibom by REC, Mike Igini, in pursuing the prosecution of two university professors for electoral offences and the actions of Professor Nnenna Oti in Abia, refusing to be cowed into announcing a fraudulent result, are stark comparisons to the actions of Adamawa REC, who, against electoral guidelines, decided to announce a fictitious governorship election result.

In the same vein, removing one Chidi Nwafor as Director of ICT negatively impacted the 2023 general elections, particularly the embarrassing malfunctioning of the IREV, the inviolability of which Professor Yakubu had boasted.

Then there is the non-re-appointment of Professor Okechukwu Ibeanu, a National Commissioner in charge of Operations who saved the Anambra elections from manipulation — even from internal sabotage — and represents a blight by not acknowledging and promoting appointees who have demonstrated a high sense of integrity.
Even the late Professors Eme Awa and Humphrey Nwosus’s team of electoral operators still have some living members.

Whereas they may have advanced in age, Professors Adele Jinadu, a former National Commissioner, and Tonnie Iredia, NEC Director of Public Affairs, are still alive and their institutional memory would be invaluable to the Tinubu administration.

The Nigerian electoral process requires a root and branch reform beyond policing election malpractice and fraud, one steeped in appointing and retaining those with a proven track record of diligence and probity.
The appointment of tested and trusted hands will assist in de-escalating the competitiveness of elections, and the process may become more manageable in terms of procedures, including minimising the influence of political actors in determining how election laws are formulated and approved.

Such reforms and several others recommended and widely accepted by citizens as necessary for election integrity should be championed by the Tinubu regime as someone who rose to leadership under a process of resistance to election annulment.

Obtaining the public’s support for such revival will be a significant step towards greater legitimacy, as will appointing credible election managers to steer such reforms to the EMB.

Former Chairman of INEC, Professor Attahiru Jega, who battled forces against the commission, ensured that the 2015 general elections enjoyed credibility while working with some trusted National Commissioners and RECs.

Curiously, some of those with whom Jega delivered the 2015 election were gradually eased out of the system.
More curiously, Vanguard investigations have revealed that the Buhari administration’s deliberate policy is to cease re-appointing some of the most truculent adherents to the rule of law and the electoral guidelines of INEC.

That was why the general elections of 2019 suffered disputations over the issue of the INEC Server, which suddenly became non-existent after being approved, budgeted for, and bought.

This was even after the national chairman had openly boasted that a server would warehouse the results of that year’s elections.

The challenge of rebuilding INEC and the vanishing tribe of Nigerian voters

Apart from 2003, when 39 million Nigerians were said to have trooped out to vote, a figure representing 69.1%, the population of Nigerians who vote at every general election cycle has continued to dwindle (See box). In 1999, 29.8 million people were said to have voted (52.3%); in 2007, 35.4 million voted (57.5%) and the election was considered a rape on free, fair and credible polls; in 2011, 38.2 million voted (53.7%); in 2015, 28.6 million voted (43.7%); in 2019, 27.3 million voted (34.8%); and in 2023, 24 million voted (26.7%).

So, why have the figures been shrinking?

A combination of factors, ranging from voter apathy occasioned by a lack of trust in INEC and the continuing hardship voters face on the day of the election, to logistical issues that appear not to be improving, election day violence that scares voters away, and a growing frustration on the part of voters that their votes do not count, is responsible.

The problem may get worse in 2027 because, for all the promises and assurances given by Professor Yakubu about the inviolability of BVAS and IReV, promises that galvanised millions of Nigerians to show interest in the election, their hopes were dashed once it was discovered that some results were not uploaded.

To avoid this, weaknesses in pre-election matters need to be strengthened; post-election dispute resolution reforms need to be implemented, and BVAS and result transmission need to be strengthened.

If President Tinubu can see to the implementation of some of these recommendations and a few others, he may be building a legacy of probity and integrity.

Victor Umeh, the senator representing Anambra central, has criticised the senate for delaying a motion seeking to immortalise Humphrey Nwosu, the late former chairman of the National Electoral Commission (NEC).

On Wednesday, a move by 15 senators to urge the federal government to immortalise Nwosu was stalled  in the upper legislative chamber.

The motion by Enyinnaya Abaribe, senator representing Abia south, sought to honour Nwosu for overseeing the June 12, 1993, presidential election.

The late Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola, was widely believed to have won the election, regarded as the most free and fair poll in Nigeria’s history.

June 12 has since been declared a public holiday and named Democracy Day.

However, Opeyemi Bamidele, the majority leader, objected, stating that the motion copies had not been distributed to lawmakers, which is a requirement under senate rules.

Abaribe attempted to push for consideration under “personal explanation,” arguing that senators had the right to be heard.

Bamidele insisted that explanations must follow senate procedures unless an exception was agreed upon and reminded Barau Jibrin, the deputy senate president, who presided over the plenary, that the chamber had moved on.

Jibrin upheld Bamidele’s position, ruling that the senate should proceed with its agenda, and advised Abaribe to reintroduce the motion in the next session.

‘THE MOTION WAS UNDEMOCRATICALLY SHUT DOWN’

Speaking when he appeared on Politics Today, a programme on Channels Television, Umeh described the senate’s action as “very undemocratic”.

“I think it is a question of people not been fair to a man who has done so well and instead of giving him accolades, we want to be uncharitable to him even unto death,” he said.

“This motion came today at the most timely moment because he will be buried on Friday, two days away.

“So, there is no way we cannot talk about his contributions in the parliament; those who have opposing views will say that the man should not be immortalised, those who say that he should be immortalised should say their views.

“Shutting down the motion the way it was done this morning is very undemocratic.”

Umeh said the senate leadership should have permitted lawmakers to discuss the motion, noting that similar matters are debated daily regardless of individual opinions.

He added that delaying the motion was unfair to the late Nwosu, who, he said, dedicated himself entirely to serving Nigeria.

Born on October 2, 1941, Nwosu died on October 24 in a hospital in Virginia, USA.

During an interview on Channels TV on Monday, Professor Wole Soyinka responded to critics who have been taunting him to “say something” about the present administration. In the interview, he said, “People should stop trying to work on my timetable for me. I had not swallowed an alarm clock. I don’t see why I should put my alarm on and say: ‘One year has passed, now, I must make an assessment’ if there is nothing I feel like talking about and if I am busy elsewhere.” Following his earlier statement when he visited Bola Tinubu at Aso Rock in 2023, that he only criticises a government after its first year, it must be disappointing to his monitors that they cannot put their hands in his mouth and force out words.

To be fair to him, Soyinka has not been exactly silent on Nigeria’s situation. He criticised Tinubu’s decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State, but his intervention was tame, lame, and lacking characteristic edginess. The Soyinka who once referred to President Goodluck Jonathan as “Nebuchadnezzar” because of a police siege on the National Assembly resorted to prevarications on Rivers’ state of emergency. Time truly changes everything. If Jonathan were Nebuchadnezzar, the enslaving king who lost his sanity at the height of his brutal reign, then to which biblical figure can one similarly liken Tinubu, under whose watch Nigerians have confronted a severe economic crisis and recorded an unparalleled number of human rights abuses? Rehoboam, perhaps. That was the king who ill-advisedly refused to lighten the strenuous taxes his predecessor had tolled the people, incited a public rebellion, and ended up balkanising a united kingdom.

Everyone, including the critics taunting Soyinka for bringing less than the blunt edges of his sharp wit to political discourses, knows he is in an awkward situation under the present administration. He and Tinubu are friends, and their close relationship reportedly started during their NADECO days. Ordinarily, it is hard for a social critic to take down a close friend in power. It is even harder for a man like Soyinka, who has set a high bar of radical public engagement, to continue to meet his own standards now that his buddy is the President. While he has built a towering profile around being an anti-establishment figure, he is part of the political establishment now, even if he does not hold any official position in Tinubu’s administration. He can no longer maintain his previous ideological stance on political issues, and he should make that clear to the public rather than promising to speak when he finally has something to say. There is nothing he will ever have to say on any issue that has to do with Tinubu’s administration that will not be considered tainted and even cynically prejudged, so why bother?

Perhaps if Soyinka had known that a day would come when Tinubu would become the President, he would have been more measured in his criticisms of previous administrations. He would not be in the awkward position where they jab him to prove his patriotic commitment to the nation by criticising an oppressive government now run by his dear friend. The past cannot be helped, but he should also be able to clearly state to the public on whose behalf he has advocated for years, why he would hang up his boxing gloves this time around. It will not be a crime, nor will it mean he has lost the patriotic zeal that pushed him into lifelong social advocacy; it would just be practical under the circumstances. It is not enough to say, “I will speak when I have something to say,” but you must also be accountable enough to the public to point out your closeness to the political subject, how it compromises you, and why you would take a pass on political commentary. Without being upfront about why you have nothing to say during an oppressive reign when you would have had more than enough to say if your friends were not involved, you damage your public image and legacy. Respecting the public enough to be honest about your limits under the circumstances means you can frame your actions as courtesy to a friend rather than leave them to be interpreted as cowardice or hypocrisy.

One of the several fallouts of the ascendance of the All Progressives Congress to the national stage from being a regional party is that it forcefully retired many anti-establishment figures. Many of them cut their critical teeth railing against the Peoples Democratic Party machine that was in power for 16 years. While at it, they also fraternised with the Alliance for Democracy/APC, the political party that also defined itself against the state. Their mutual affiliation was logical for reasons ranging from ethnic sentiment to the lush funds Tinubu provided from Lagos’ purse. When the APC won the Presidency in 2015, many of them found themselves in the uncomfortable position where they could either maintain their oppositional stance (and risk offending their APC allies) or become apologists for a government that duplicated every political action for which they once attacked the PDP. Before many could figure out their roles under the dispensation, the dynamics of Nigerian political opposition changed. The old guard was replaced by a younger generation who quickly made it clear they would have nothing to do with them.

Soyinka was one of those who soldiered on, although one can argue that his criticisms of the Muhammadu Buhari administration curiously coincided with the sidelining of Tinubu among the APC establishment. While I do not think he is a card-carrying member of the APC, Soyinka’s political posture since 1999 has favoured the AD/APC political class more than any other collective in Nigeria. Now that the same Tinubu has made it to the Presidency, Soyinka is in an even more complicated place. There is no winning for him under the circumstances other than acknowledging that some personal relationships necessarily compromise us. The writer E.M. Forster once said, “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” This should be one of the times when choosing your friend over your country is the right thing to do.

This is not the first time friendship has put Soyinka in an awkward position where he has to self-justify. In 2016, during one of the many squabbles between Rivers Governor Rotimi Amaechi and his successor Nyesom Wike, it was revealed that the former had spent N82m (about $165,000) to host him to a dinner. Wike’s boys pulled that detail out from official records for no other reason than to embarrass Soyinka, whose intervention in the Rivers matter was perceived as fighting Amaechi’s battles. Soyinka’s response was to deny it was his “business to probe into the catering and logistical implications of the hundreds of institutions and governments all over the world to whom I acknowledge an immense debt of unsolicited recognition over the years”. Yes, while no reasonable person expects a Nobel Prize winner to ask such questions when he is hosted at a dinner, the right thing would have been to condemn such an inordinate expense made in your name. By not calling out Amaechi’s corruption, he fell into Wike’s well-laid trap to make him choose between his friend and the strict moral principles for which he is renowned.

Now he is in another situation that warrants choosing between his friend and his principles, and I suggest he chooses the former. We can borrow the immortal wisdom of Ogbuefi Ezeudu in Things Fall Apart, who told Okonkwo: “That boy calls you father. Do not bear a hand in his death to remind him this unpleasant task needs not to involve him.” Soyinka was right that other people—the Falanas, Sowores, and the Baiyewus—are already doing a good job without him. The thing is, by looking away from his friend’s administrative shortcomings, he will also be losing the moral right to comment on any other leader after Tinubu. He should make peace with that.