The Nigerian populace has, in recent months, been faced with an unprecedented economic downturn that has stretched their resilience to its limits. Many citizens are struggling to make ends meet, as inflation skyrockets, unemployment rises, and the cost of living reaches unbearable levels. Amid this economic storm, a statement by Nigeria’s First Lady, Remi Tinubu, stirred the public. Defending her husband, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, she claimed that he was not responsible for the economic hardship currently plaguing the nation. Her comment, while undoubtedly aimed at deflecting criticism, has been met with mixed reactions, mostly frustration and disbelief.

As Nigerians grapple with daily economic woes, the call is clear: they seek actionable, people-friendly solutions, not excuses or blame-shifting. Against the foregoing backdrop, permit this writer to, through this article, examine Nigeria’s leadership under Tinubu’s administration, scrutinize the claim that the president is not responsible for the economic hardship, and call for solutions that focus on the needs of the people, rather than defensive rhetoric.

From the onset of Bola Tinubu’s presidency in May 2023, Nigeria’s economic situation has deteriorated significantly. The removal of the fuel subsidy, which Tinubu announced within his first few weeks in office, set off a domino effect that worsened the already precarious financial situation of millions of Nigerians. While the fuel subsidy removal was hailed by some economists as a necessary policy shift to prevent long-term fiscal collapse, its immediate consequences were brutal. Fuel prices tripled overnight, leading to increased transportation costs and the inflation of food prices and essential goods. The government provided promises of palliatives to cushion the effects, but the implementation of these promises has been slow, and their impact remains largely unseen by the general populace.

Additionally, the floating of the naira led to further devaluation of the currency, exacerbating the cost of imports and increasing inflationary pressure. For many Nigerians, this meant their purchasing power diminished at an alarming rate, leaving them unable to afford basic necessities. Businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), have been hit hard by the twin forces of inflation and high energy costs. With dwindling profits and rising operational expenses, many are forced to shut down or scale back operations, leading to increased unemployment.

It is within this context that Remi Tinubu’s defense of her husband must be viewed. While it is true that the Tinubu administration inherited many of Nigeria’s economic challenges, the public perception is that his policies have worsened an already bad situation. Nigerians are not looking for excuses, but for leadership that can pull the nation out of its current crisis.

During an event at the Palace of Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi, on Thursday, the First Lady emphasized that the Tinubu administration is still in its early stages and should be given time to implement its policies. She argued that President Tinubu was not responsible for the current economic hardship, implicitly suggesting that the blame lay elsewhere, perhaps with previous administrations or global economic factors. While it is undeniable that Nigeria’s economic problems are deep-rooted, with decades of mismanagement, corruption, and policy failures playing a significant role, the timing and tone of her defense struck a nerve with many Nigerians.

The statement appeared to downplay the struggles of ordinary citizens, many of whom are finding it increasingly difficult to survive. In a country where millions are living below the poverty line, a defense of the president without tangible solutions to alleviate their suffering seems out of touch with the harsh realities on the ground. Instead of deflecting responsibility, Nigerians expect their leaders to confront the challenges head-on, demonstrate empathy, and propose meaningful, sustainable solutions that address the root causes of their plight.

Moreover, leadership entails accepting responsibility for the decisions made under one’s administration. The removal of the fuel subsidy, the devaluation of the naira, and the failure to promptly implement effective palliative measures all fall under the Tinubu administration’s purview. Deflecting blame, as the First Lady’s statement seemingly does, only fuels public frustration and erodes trust in the government.

At this critical juncture, Nigerians are not merely looking for explanations, they are looking for hope. Hope that comes from well-thought-out policies, hope that stems from a government that listens to the people’s cries, and hope that comes from leaders who show empathy and take action. The Tinubu administration must prioritize the development of people-centered solutions that focus on alleviating the burden on the masses.

One immediate step that can be taken is the implementation of social safety nets that are transparent and accessible. The government’s promise of palliatives following the removal of the fuel subsidy has been mired in delays and poor execution. Many Nigerians have yet to feel the effects of these promised relief measures. The administration must expedite the distribution of palliatives, ensuring that they reach the intended recipients, particularly those in rural areas and the most vulnerable segments of society. This would provide much-needed relief in the short term.

In the longer term, the government must focus on creating an enabling environment for businesses to thrive. SMEs, which form the backbone of Nigeria’s economy, are in dire need of support. Access to affordable credit, subsidies for energy costs, and improved infrastructure would go a long way in reviving these businesses and stimulating job creation. Furthermore, the government should focus on diversifying the economy away from its heavy reliance on oil, investing in agriculture, technology, and other sectors that can provide sustainable economic growth and employment opportunities.

A key component of addressing Nigeria’s economic crisis lies in leadership that takes responsibility. While it is true that no single administration can fix Nigeria’s systemic issues overnight, leadership involves acknowledging the failures of past policies and taking ownership of the current situation. The Tinubu administration cannot afford to sidestep accountability. Instead, it should engage in meaningful dialogue with stakeholders, including the private sector, labor unions, and civil society, to develop comprehensive strategies that address the root causes of the current economic woes.

Moreover, communication is crucial. The Nigerian public deserves transparency and regular updates on the government’s efforts to mitigate the economic crisis. Remi Tinubu’s defense of her husband, while perhaps well-intentioned, lacked the substance that Nigerians are desperate for. Citizens want to know what specific actions the government is taking to improve their lives, how soon they can expect to see positive changes, and how their leaders plan to steer the nation toward economic recovery.

As Nigerians continue to navigate the tough economic terrain, they are not interested in who is to blame for their suffering, they want relief, hope, and solutions. The Tinubu administration must pivot from defensive rhetoric and focus on implementing policies that genuinely uplift the people. Leadership in times of crisis requires humility, empathy, and action. Nigerians are looking for leadership that can provide practical, people-friendly solutions to ease their burden.

The First Lady’s defense of her husband highlights the frustration within the corridors of power, but it misses the mark in addressing the real issues on the ground. Nigerians are tired of excuses, they want a government that listens to their struggles and acts with urgency to deliver solutions. Time is of the essence. The Tinubu administration has the opportunity to turn the tide, but it must act now and act decisively. Nigerians have waited long enough; they deserve a leadership that can bring about the economic relief they so desperately need.

Given the foregoing backdrop, it is expedient to ask, “Who will tell our first lady that Nigerians want people-friendly solutions, not excuses?

In Nigerian political speak, there are many words and phrases, or many expressions so to say, whose usage does violence to the grandeur of English lexis and grammar. One such expression is the application of ‘platform’ as a metaphorical symbol of the importance of political parties in Nigeria’s electoral process. Daily, in the media, print or electronic, you are bound to read or hear the expression about one politician or the other contesting or not contesting for an office, public or party, “UNDER the platform” of party A, B, or Z. This expression appears in newspaper reports or headlines, and in the articles of respected columnists; it features in the commentaries of popular TV anchors, just as politicians mouth it on different campaign grounds. It’s been so repeatedly used that many do not seem to know that the phrase violates some basic English language rules.

Literally, a platform is a raised ground; it is what Oxford Languages, said to be the world’s leading dictionary publishers for more than 150 years, defines as “a raised level surface ON which people or things can stand.” In a second definition, Oxford Languages also describes platform as “the declared policy of a political party or group.” For clarity, the publishers of this leading English dictionary give an example of the usage of that word in this sentence: “seeking election ON a platform of low taxes”. From both definitions, ON is the only preposition that is used before ‘platform’ when it functions as a noun in a sentence. The preposition, UNDER, did not feature in any shape or form in both definitions aforesaid. In any case, the purpose of a platform is to allow whoever stands ON it to stand out and be seen by many people around, or for that person to see far into the distance.

Since every expression must be literally meaningful before its metaphorical application could be sensible, I couldn’t understand how Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara could have directed his supporters, as reported by one columnist, “to contest (the controversial local government elections in the state) UNDER the platform of the almost unheard-of Action People’s Party (APP).” Of course, the “almost unheard-of” APP handsomely won almost all the chairmanship and councillorship seats in the state, just as the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in Benue State as well as the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Akwa Ibom State respectively won all the seats in contest during the council polls in those states. Significantly, the winners in the council polls in both Benue and Akwa Ibom States, as it happened in other council elections in other states, were mostly reported to have contested UNDER the platform of the ruling APC and PDP in the respective states. 

In the 2023 general elections, many of the candidates who contested UNDER the platform of their various parties, particularly in the governorship and National Assembly polls, won the elections with what the media loved to call “a wide margin.” Although I do not know if the situation was similar in previous polls, particularly the 2007 election in which the then President Olusegun Obasanjo had described was a do or die affair for the then ruling PDP, or even the 1983 election in which the then ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) recorded what was then described as a landslide victory in many states across the country; I want to believe there is a nexus between the nature of a candidate contesting for an office UNDER a political party and the “sweeping victory” (apology to the media) of that candidate in the polls. This would, of course, require further study by political researchers who understand the dark arts of Nigeria’s political and electoral process.

I, however, suspect, indeed would like to believe, that there is some dishonesty or fraud or danger or deviousness in any activity taking place UNDER something rather than in an open space. Why do Nigerian politicians prefer to contest election UNDER, rather than ON, the platform of a political party? Could it be because of the endless possibilities of winning elections UNDER the table, sorry platform? Could it be where ghost voters are conjured, where every INEC (Independent National Electoral Commission) innovation to improve the electoral process is perverted, where electoral thugs are procured, where stolen and damaged voting materials are hidden, where vote-buying money is minted, where the security agents used for harassing political opponents or chasing voters away are quartered? Could it even be where those funny judges issue strange ex parte orders even in cases their courts have no jurisdiction, or where favourable judgments could be easily bought by the highest bidder? Is that the oven where those hot election victories are baked? Could that also be the reason why the (political) platform, in the words of a colleague, “shifts like a thermometer”; where a politician belongs to one party in the morning and another in the evening, or contests election UNDER the platform of the PDP in 2019 and the APC in 2023?

Should that be the situation, we should collectively collapse the platform, literally and metaphorically, as to leave no space UNDER for political parties to carry out unwholesome operations. That way, politicians would be left with no choice but contest for elections ON a party platform or whatever remains of it.

The United Nations Association of Africa (UNAA) has appointed Amb. Sylvester Okafor as its new President General, marking a significant milestone in the organisation’s history.

The appointment, which was made in Abuja Nigeria during the celebration of the 64th anniversary of Nigeria’s membership of the United Nations, witnessed the attendance of several dignitaries including the World Peace President, Amb Per Stafsen, from the Kingdom of Denmark

A statement by the chairman, Board of Directors of the association, Amb Emmanuel Nkweke, said this esteemed position is a testament to Amb. Okafor’s tireless efforts in promoting global peace, development, and humanitarian causes.

He noted that as the founder and CEO of First Foster Care Foundation Incorporated in the USA, Amb. Okafor has demonstrated exceptional leadership and commitment to improving the lives of vulnerable populations, stressing that his expertise in international relations, diplomacy, and social development will undoubtedly propel UNAA’s mission forward.

Under Amb. Okafor’s visionary leadership, UNAA is poised to strengthen partnerships, foster collaborative initiatives, and advance Africa’s interests on the global stage. His appointment is a source of pride for Nigeria, reflecting the country’s growing influence in international affairs.

The statement emphasised that Amb. Sylvester Okafor is a renowned diplomat and humanitarian, founder and CEO, First Foster Care Foundation Incorporated, US, with a track record of promoting peace, development, and social justice

“This appointment is a well-deserved recognition of Amb. Okafor’s dedication to global peace and development. We look forward to his leadership in driving UNAA’s agenda and promoting African interests worldwide.

“As Amb. Okafor assumes this critical role, Nigerians and the international community eagerly anticipate his strategic vision and impactful contributions,” the statement added.

[Leadership]

The Pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, has called on President Bola Tinubu to call to order those using federal might to disrupt states.

It specifically condemned the situation in Rivers and what it called it “growing abuse of power by the Federal government” during the conduct of local government elections in the state.

Afenifere’s position was contained in a statement by its Deputy Leader, HRH Oba Oladipo Olaitan, and Prince Justice Faloye Afenifere, the National Publicity Secretary.

According to the Yoruba group, “The role of the Judiciary to muddy the election process and the refusal of the Police to do the obligatory duty of protecting the peace of the state is strongly condemned. The two institutions are complicit in the breakdown in that state.

Afenifere also called on “all patriotic citizens, especially state assemblies” to reject the Local Autonomy Independent Electoral Commission Establishment Bill 2024 currently being pushed through the National Assembly, insisting the move to take over the conduct of LG elections from SIECs would amount to state capture and abuse of the country’s federalism.

The Afenifere group loyal to Chief Ayo Adebanjo insisted that “Nigerian citizens would be effectively silenced and conquered by a one party dictatorship if the move to take over LG elections scales through.

“Ultimately, Afenifere reiterates its stance that only a decentralization of power from the federal government can bring true representative and efficient governance to Nigeria,” it added.

The statement read further: “Afenifere has been warning of the dangers of the Tinubu administration’s move towards overcentralized unitarist governance with his attempt to take over Local Government finance and electoral administration, whose motivation has played out in River State with the botched attempt to seize control of Rivers State.

“Unable to use other means to frustrate and usurp the Rivers State Governor, the federal government has been used by the Governor’s previous Godfather, Mr Nyesom Wike, to go for the jugular by attempting to takeover the control of the local governments. The inherent abuse and inefficiency of our overcentralized structure was deployed in favor of Nyesom Wike, the Minister of Federal Capital Territory, to pursue his personal political ambitions to undemocratically control the state after falling out with his political protege.

“Following the further bastardization of the Judiciary to sabotage the Rivers State local government elections with a kangaroo court judgement to withhold Rivers State voters register, the federally controlled police was withdrawn from its statutory obligations to safeguard true and fair elections in Rivers State.

“With a spirit of defiance to uphold the principles of federalism, the River State government went ahead to hold elections in its administrative units aka local governments.

“As absolute power corrupts absolutely, Nyesom Wike went ahead to carry out his earlier threats to burn down any State that doesn’t conform to his personal dictates backed by federal might, as his emboldened loyalists set fire on local government offices across River State without fear of laws only enforceable by the federal police.”

Inspector General of Police Kayode Egbetokun to understand that the Nigerian Police is an instrument to not only serve the Nigerian federal government but the Nigerian federation as a whole, adding that he “should not lend himself to abuse of the federation by the federal government.”

[DailyTrust]

More trouble looms for Nigerians as the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria has rejected the ex-depot price of Premium Motor Spirit by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.

The marketers with over 70 percent of filling stations in Nigeria threatened that they will stop operation if NNPCL refuses to back down on its new petrol ex-depot price of N1,010 per liter.

The spokesperson of IPMAN, Chinedu Ukadike disclosed this to DAILY POST in an interview on Friday morning.

His comments come as NNPCL on Wednesday announced a fresh price hike across its retail outlets nationwide to between N998 and N1,030 in Abuja and Lagos State.

The state-owned company also announced between N1,040 to N1,010 as the per liter prices they will sell to marketers.

Reacting, Ukadike said the ex-depot petrol prices announced by NNPCL showed that the company is poised to inflict continued suffering on Nigerians.

He stressed that IPMAN members will not accept a petrol price higher than what NNPCL sells at its retail outlets.

According to him, the action of NNPCL cannot be termed as deregulation.

He noted that with the NNPCL petrol ex-depot price of N1010, oil marketers who own the majority of filling stations nationwide will sell the product at N1,200 per liter.

“NNPCL is selling ex-depot in Port Harcourt at N1045 per liter, Calabar (N1040), Lagos (1010).

“We refuse the price by NNPCL. We cannot comply with the price. We will not lift NNPCL petrol, we are not interested.

“NNPCL will continue to suffer the masses. They are selling N998, why are they selling to us above the price they are selling to IPMAN members at N1010, by the time logistics cost is added, the petrol price will get to N1200,” he fumed.

This portends a looming fuel scarcity nationwide.

DAILY POST observed that in Abuja, the majority of filling stations were not dispensing fuel on Thursday.

Earlier, the Nigeria Labour Congress called for an immediate reversal of the latest fuel price hike by NNPCL.

However, the Nigerian government on Wednesday blamed market forces for the fuel price hike in the country.

[Dailypost]

Former Big Brother Naija contestant, Victoria Adeleye popularly known as Veeiye, has voiced frustration with Nigeria’s economic challenges, likening the situation to a “social experiment.”

In a post on her X page, Veeiye stated: “Nigeria: too expensive to live, too expensive to leave. Almost feels like a social experiment. It’s like they want to see how much people can take.”

[TheNation]

A new bill has been proposed in Nigeria that will require individuals engaged in banking, insurance, stock-broking, or other financial services to provide a Tax Identification Number as a precondition for opening a new account or operating an existing one.

According to the bill, titled “A Bill for an Act to Provide for the Assessment, Collection of, and Accounting for Revenue Accruing to the Federation, Federal, States, and Local Governments; Prescribe the Powers and Functions of Tax Authorities, and for Related Matters”, this legislation aims to enhance tax compliance and improve the country’s revenue collection process.

The bill, obtained from the National Assembly and dated October 4, 2024, stated, “A person engaged in banking, insurance, stock-broking, or other financial services in Nigeria shall make the provision of a tax ID, a precondition for opening a new account or operating an existing account.”

This requirement is part of broader efforts to ensure that all individuals and entities participating in financial activities are properly registered for tax purposes.

The bill also outlines that any non-resident person supplying taxable goods or services to any individual in Nigeria or deriving income from the country must register for tax purposes and obtain a Tax ID.

However, non-resident individuals who derive only passive income from investments in Nigeria will not be required to register, although they must provide relevant information as prescribed by the relevant tax authority.

The proposed legislation also empowers the relevant tax authority to automatically register and issue a Tax ID to individuals who should apply for one but fail to do so.

In such cases, the tax authority is required to promptly notify the individual of their registration and the issuance of the tax ID.

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in administrative penalties. According to the bill, a taxable person who fails to register for tax will incur a penalty of N50,000 in the first month of non-compliance, followed by N25,000 for each subsequent month.

[Punch]

THE world commemorated the first year of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel with no clear vision to end the on-going carnage. In the First World War, there were about 22 million deaths. Humanity vowed: “Never again!” Never again will we allow such mass scale slaughter. To ensure this, the League of Nations was created in 1920 to preserve world peace and promote international cooperation. Nineteen years later, the Second World War began on September 1, 1939. This time, the slaughter was so horrendous that Russia alone lost over 22 million people, that is a higher figure than the combined slaughter in the First World War.

This time, we created the United Nations, UN, for the maintenance of international peace and security, well-being of the people of the world and international cooperation. These, 79 years later, are precisely the things that are missing in the world.

However, while in the past wars, we shouted “Never again!” These times, we have lost our collective voices and resolve. We accept genocide, even when the footages are brought right into our bedrooms. Admittedly, there are differences. In the past wars, there were some restraints, especially when it came to children, women and the elderly. For instance, young men were so disproportionately killed in the Second World War that there was a severe shortage of men to begin families.

Many men who returned from the war, were traumatised. But in the on-going conflict in the Middle East it is children and women that are the main targets. In the first year of the so-called War in Gaza, over 42,000 have been killed with about 70 per cent of these victims being women and children. An indication that those carrying out the slaughter in today’s world do not care about the target; all they want is to exterminate the populace.

Some make the mistake of assuming that the ‘Gaza War’ which is actually an Israeli-Palestinian war, began on October 7, 2023. No. Even months before that attack, Israel had killed over 250 Palestinians.

This war, is also, not a matter of disagreements between two neighbours. The issue is one of a settler colony where a people migrate from one part of the world to seize or colonise another part, militarily dominate and settle in it at the expense of the indigenes. To be able to do so in a sustainable way, the indigenous population has to either be subjugated or exterminated.

The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are such settler colonies where Europeans pacified the indigenes. There were bloody attempts in Kenya and Algeria by Britain and France to achieve the same aims. Uprisings by the Mau Mau in Kenya and heroic resistance by the Algerians who lost two million people, stopped these unholy plans.

The Germans wiped out two thirds of the Namibian people in a failed attempt to make it a settler colony. In the case of Zimbabwe, British businessman, Cecil Rhodes, seized it and made it a settler colony until the people won the war of independence in 1980. In South Africa, the Europeans established their first settlement in 1652 and the indigenous people did not regain control until 342 years later.

But the Israeli case is unique. First, the European settlers claim to have been indigenous to the territory thousands of years earlier before going into exile in the 6th Century. Secondly, their leading lights did not regard the indigenous peoples they were going to meet as nationalities with equal rights. Rather, they regarded them as dispensable barbarians. Thirdly, they regarded themselves as Europeans going to establish a new European country as was done in Australia, New Zealand, USA and Canada, and was being done in South Africa and Zimbabawe, then called Rhodesia.

In fact, Theodor Herzl, the Austro-Hungarian journalist who founded the Zionist Movement  and is regarded as “The Spiritual Father of the Jews”, wanted to create Israel in the image of colonial Rhodesia. In 1902, he wrote Rhodes: “You are being invited to help make history. It doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen but Jews… it is something colonial.”

One of the arguments of Herzl was that Europeans of Jewish ancestry or who had adopted Judaism, were being discriminated against and profiled as unscrupulous. This was depicted in the “Merchant of Venice”, a play written in 1596-97 by William Shakespeare. In it, an unscrupulous businessman of Jewish origin, Shylock, wanted a pound of flesh from a Christian, Antonio.

Herzl proposed a solution to rid Europe of the Jewish problem by securing lands for them in Palestine, and simultaneously, building a new European country in Asia. This way, the Jews will also have a homeland and simultaneously, help Europe to police the Middle East.

But what would happen to the indigenous Palestinian People? Herzl has a simple solution: “We must expropriate gently the private property (Palestinians) on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly.”

The Palestine was then under the Ottoman Empire and Herzl, in 1901, met Sultan Abdul Hamid II. He offered Jewish assistance and £150 million for Jewish settlement. He said: “If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine… we should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilisation as opposed to barbarism.” But the Sultan refused.

However, the Ottoman Empire was in decline and Britain, the new emergent power, offered the Zionist Federation, Palestinian lands. In a November 2, 1917 letter, then British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour, wrote: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Armed conflicts ensued between the new settlers and indigenous peoples. In 1948, the former won the first war, seized 77.9 per cent of the lands and expelled the indigenes. Following another victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, the Israelis seized East Jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank and Syria’s Golan Heights.

A two-state solution agreed under the 1993 Oslo Accords have now been rejected by Israel which wants the entire Palestine with an eye on Lebanon and Syria, and possibly Jordan.

A crew of DStv sports journalists traveling to cover the African Cup of Nations (AFCON) qualifier match in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, were attacked and kidnapped.

The Anambra State Police Command confirmed that six of the crew members have been rescued.

According to a statement from the Public Relations Officer of the Anambra State Police Command, SP Tochukwu Ikenga, the media crew was abducted along the Isseke-Orlu Road in Ihiala Local Government Area while they were traveling from Lagos to Uyo.

Joint security forces launched a rescue operation following the incident, which led to the safe recovery of six kidnapped journalists.

“Joint security forces have successfully rescued six members of the media crew who were abducted while traveling from Lagos to Uyo along Isseke-Orlu Road in Ihiala,” Ikenga said as quoted by Sahara Reporters.

The police spokesperson added, “Meanwhile, operations are still ongoing for the possible rescue of the seventh crew member. Further development shall be communicated.”

Meanwhile, a prominent journalist and former staff of the broadcast station, Colin Udoh confirmed that one of the crew members is dead.

He tweeted, “A journalist, one of my former SuperSport colleagues, was killed yesterday when members of the production crew for Friday’s game against Libya were kidnapped on their way to Uyo. Some of the crew have been freed, while at least 2 others are still unaccounted for.”

Vanguard News

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has postponed the inspection of election materials used in the Edo governorship election indefinitely.

The postponement was sequel to a clash between supporters of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at the commission’s secretariat in the state.

The electoral commission initially fixed the inspection for Wednesday after the PDP alleged it was prevented from inspecting the materials on Monday.

Thereafter, INEC fixed Thursday for the inspection following an objection by the APC.

The party alleged that the bimodal voter accreditation system (BVAS) were brought to INEC’s secretariat in vehicles owned by the Edo government, adding that it did not get enough notice before the inspection was to commence on Wednesday.

Goodluck Osaretin, one of the representatives of the PDP, described APC’s objection as “desperation to prevent us from inspecting the BVAS machines”.

“We are not surprised by what is happening,” Osaretin said.

Gunshots could be heard and that forced INEC to postpone the inspection of election materials indefinitely.

Inspecting the election materials is a prerequisite for the PDP to file its case at the Edo governorship election tribunal.

Asue Ighodalo, candidate of the PDP, is challenging the victory of Monday Okpebholo, Edo governor-elect.

[TheCable]