News

We’ll Rely On Three Grounds To Win At S’Court -PDP

Published

7 years ago

September 16, 2019

Lawyers for the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, and those for the party, yesterday, argued that they would rely on three grounds to get the Supreme Court to overturn President Muhammadu Buhari’s last Wednesday victory at the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal.
Atiku and his party had said they would be challenging the unanimous judgement by the five-man tribunal that confirmed Buhari’s victory at the February 23 presidential poll.
The former vice president went to the tribunal seeking to overturn the victory of the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who was running for a second term in the February 23 presidential poll.
His petition did not succeed for failing to prove allegations of irregularities against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Buhari and the APC, the tribunal declared in a judgement that lasted for over eight hours, last Wednesday.
In a unanimous judgement delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, the five-man panel held that all the five issues raised by the petitioner against the respondent were not proved.
But shortly after the verdict, Atiku and the PDP vowed to go to the Supreme Court to challenge the decision, but did not give the date their appeal would be filed.
Section 134(3) of the Electoral Act, 2010 provides that an appeal from the tribunal would be heard and disposed of within 90 days from date of the judgement.
Arguing their case, Atiku’s lead counsel, Levy Uzoukwu, SAN, said there were a number of grounds upon which the appeal would be successfully challenged.
Uzoukwu said that contrary to the position of the tribunal that you don’t need to attach copies of certificates listed, the INEC Form CF001 clearly states that you must attach evidence of qualifications before you swear to an affidavit.
He added that the chairman of the tribunal also erred by his statement that “for Army to say so, it could be inferred that he submitted his certificates upon his enlistment. Interestingly, none of the three respondents raised that point in the trial. So, the court generated that, and that would tell you the extent the justices went.”
“Just look at the issue of the server, which has now thoroughly embarrassed them; the presiding justice unequivocally said the existence of the server was not proved. Now, the second justice, who gave the second judgement said that the petitioners recklessly hacked into the server and shamelessly presented the material to the court. This completely contradicts what the presiding justice said.
“That is not all, Justice Oseji came from another angle and said that the petitioners proved the issue of the server, and agreed with us that server is a storage device, which a computer is and that the INEC relied on our case and called no evidence. So, I just don’t understand.”
Another fundamental one, where we indicated that the areas put together, where elections did not take place, the total number of voters nullified the difference of the votes between Atiku and Buhari, they didn’t say one word on any of that.
“In this one, we subpoenaed the INEC, which brought Form EC40G, where on its own tabulated areas, election did not take place and the registered number of voters came to 2.7million, where elections were cancelled. We tendered this and addressed it copiously.
“We also tendered what they published on their website. I think that one was 2.6 million, where they organised supplementary elections for National Assembly, and elections were cancelled. It took place simultaneously with the presidential. Accreditation was also simultaneously by the same parties.
“At the point of voting, you go to the box for National Assembly. So, you cannot say that for presidential, election took place and for National Assembly, election did not take place in the same polling unit.
“We addressed all these issues. But they cleverly departed from it and not a word on it, and moved on as if nothing happened.
“We are going to articulate all these in our Notice of Appeal. We have 14 days and they have not given us the judgement because they said they were going to correct some errors,” he said.
Also speaking about the intention to challenge the judgement, counsel to Atiku, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, said several things were wrong with it, among which he said were poor evaluation of evidence, non-evaluation of evidence, misplacement of exactly what the case of the petitioners is, and the fact of provisions of the Electoral Act being misinterpreted and misapplied.
“At the Supreme Court, there will be seven very good heads that will hear the appeal from here. There is no question about that; we will appeal the judgement,” he said.
The Minister of State for Niger Delta and one of the lawyers to the APC, Festus Keyamo, SAN, did not respond to calls and text message to him over the matter.
But one of the lawyers to Buhari, Sam Ologunorisa, SAN, said the appeal was expected, but added that it would help to enrich the country’s law.
“As lawyers, our opinions on issues of law and evaluation of facts arising therefrom are bound to differ. The presidential election petition and the issues so distilled will generate this type of reaction as the stakes are high.
“In all, our legal jurisprudence is bound to be richer and I hope the political class will learn one or two lessons and initiate appropriate reforms to deepen our democracy.”
Also, the National Publicity Secretary of the PDP, Mr. Kola Ologbondiyan, said the party was confident of winning at the Supreme Court.
Speaking to newsmen, yesterday, Ologbondiyan said the Supreme Court would dwell on the substance of the case and deliver justice.
“There are two levels of courts and we believe that the tribunal took over the responsibility of the respondent counsel by shopping for the cases they didn’t make. That is the position of our party, which was changed to law and jurisprudence.
“We believe that when we go to the Supreme Court, which is the highest court, we will take another look at the substance of the five issues the tribunal claimed to have addressed, and we believe that they would do justice on all the issues,” he said.
Similarly, the presidential candidate of the PDP, Atiku, has confirmed that his team and that of the party were working together to challenge the judgement.
Atiku’s special adviser on media, Paul Ibe, told our source in a telephone interview, yesterday, that his boss and PDP’s legal team were studying the judgement before taking the necessary action at the apex court.
Asked whether Atiku or his camp had confidence of winning at the Supreme Court, Ibe simply replied, “Let’s get there first. We are on the road. This is not about Atiku, it is about Nigeria and Nigerians. It is about our future and the need to reset our destiny. It is about creating jobs and making Nigerians better.”
Adding his view to the argument about going to the Supreme Court, a former director-general of the Nigerian Law School, Prof Tahir Mamman, said it was within the right of Atiku and the PDP to appeal against the decision of the tribunal.
He explained that the cost element of the petition may not be a problem for Atiku.
“It is okay if he appeals, but whether or not his appeal succeeds is a different matter. Nobody tried to predict what the Appeal Court would do earlier. But overall, if you look at the unanimous judgement of the court, it is a landmark decision; very comprehensive. All the issues were taken within the prism of the requirement provisions of the Electoral Act and the Evidence Act,” he said.
But Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, faulted the tribunal’s decision, saying it erred by claiming that the petitioners dumped electoral materials on the tribunal by not leading evidence through the makers.
“It is a misapplication of the principle in Duriminya v. C.O.P (Supra) to expect the petitioner to come and read afresh to the court the same evidence already contained in the exhibits, which were tendered and received without objection. The tribunal erred seriously by failing to see that forms EC8A and EC8B are statutory forms complete on their own as to their source and purport, and which cannot, therefore, be equated with ordinary documentary exhibits.
“It is, therefore, my contention that there is a need for our courts to reconsider their stand on the issues of who can tender certified true copies of public documents and the weight to be attached to it and the arguments that unless documents tendered are demonstrated, courts should regard them as dumping. If court cannot look at documents tendered and interpret the man making meaning out of it, then what is the duty of the court?” he queried.
Another lawyer, Abeny Mohammed, SAN, however, advised both parties in the matter to obtain copies of the judgement and study them before determining the next course of action.
A former Kaduna State governor, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, described the decision by Atiku to head to Supreme Court as the right decision, saying Buhari did same years back.
The elder statesman also said it was in the interest of Nigerians for the matter to go to the Supreme Court because that would show everybody that there is justice in the country.
“I think his decision to go the Supreme Court is right. He should do it for his own sake because he feels aggrieved. That is one. Secondly, even his competitor, Buhari, went up to the Supreme Court when he had the same problem. So, why can’t Atiku also go?
“Thirdly, it is even in the interest of Nigerians for the matter to go up to the Supreme Court because that will show everybody whether there is justice or not. The Supreme Court is supposed to be more articulate than the tribunal; therefore, it can do more justice.
“Finally, the outcome of the Supreme Court will enable Nigerians to know more about the law. Of course, in addition to this, I, therefore, say also that for me as an individual politician, there is no different between the PDP candidate, Atiku and the APC candidate, Buhari,” he said.
The Director, Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), Ms. Idayat Hassan, toeing the line of Balarabe Musa, also argued that the tribunal, having given its reasons for the decision, the petitioner, Atiku and the PDP have a right to exhaust all remedies, and that is why they are going to the Supreme Court.
“However, the most important thing to happen is that our electoral jurisprudence must change. The burden of proof on the petitioner to prove his case may lead to the defeat of justice in the long run. We have to reach a point where it shouldn’t just be “he who asserts, must prove,” but also those who claim to have conducted elections must prove that they did it within extant regulations,” she said.
On his part, the Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, said the country was running a constitutional democracy, and under constitutional democracy, the courts must be obeyed.
“Whatever the feelings of any aggrieved party, they have to accept the verdict of the court, and if they strongly believe that they have a case, they can proceed to explore other democratic and legal means. We will not encourage anybody to do anything that is not within democratic norms.
“I think this is not really good because President Buhari’s victory was not challenged in 2015, and now in 2019, his election is being challenged, which means that there may be infractions in the conduct of the election. We appeal to Nigerians to remain calm and for President Buhari to face governance. He should also caution his aides, supporters and officials from making derogatory remarks or mockery of opponents.
“We should face governance now. The only thing that would ameliorate the disaffection of the people who felt otherwise is for Buhari to put tangible programmes that would deliver good governance and job security for the people. The president should be focused and make the anti-corruption efforts succeed,” he said.

News

Military Shake-Up: NAF Redeploys Senior Officers, Appoints New Commanders

Published

2 days ago

November 9, 2026

The Tide

The Nigerian Air Force has approved a major shake-up of its senior leadership, involving fresh appointments and postings across its operational commands, strategic institutions and Defence Headquarters.

The exercise, approved by the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Sunday Aneke, on November 7, 2026, is aimed at strengthening command effectiveness, enhancing institutional capacity and sustaining operational readiness.

In a statement yesterday, the Director of Public Relations and Information, NAF, Air Commodore Ehimen Ejodame, said the appointments covered Service Headquarters, operational commands, training institutions and other strategic establishments.

The statement partly read, “The NAF has approved a major strategic realignment of its senior leadership through a fresh round of postings and appointments designed to strengthen command effectiveness, enhance institutional capacity and sustain operational readiness in support of national security objectives.

“The exercise, approved by the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Sunday Kelvin Aneke, on 7 November 2026, takes effect from November 2026.

“The appointments span Service Headquarters, operational commands, Defence Headquarters, training institutions and other strategic establishments, reflecting a deliberate effort to align leadership competencies and professional experience with the Service’s evolving operational and institutional priorities.”

At the NAF Headquarters, Air Vice Marshal AK Ademuwagun was appointed Chief of Transformation and Innovation, while AVM IV Ajiboye became Superintendent of Standards and Evaluation.

Other appointments include AVM PN Amadi as Chief of Air Intelligence; AVM NN Ananaba as Chief of Operations; AVM AH Bakari as Air Provost Marshal; AVM EE Efiom as Chief of Training; and AVM AJ Laoye as Chief of Aircraft Engineering.

The Air Force also appointed AVM NI Ilo as Air Officer Commanding, Tactical Air Command; AVM BR Mamman as AOC, Mobility Command; AVM OS Ogunsina as AOC, Logistics Command; AVM MN Onyebashi as AOC, Special Operations Command; and AVM FCS Nwakara as AOC, Ground Training Command.

At the institutional level, AVM PB Philips was appointed Commandant of the Armed Forces Command and Staff College, while AVM MC Ekwueme became Commandant of the Armed Forces Resettlement Centre.

Similarly, AVM AO Akinbunwa was appointed Commandant of the Air Force War College, while AVM OC Ubadike became Commandant of the Air Force Institute of Technology.

Other appointments include AVM AI Sambo as Commandant of the Nigerian Air Force College of Logistics and Management, and AVM M Yusuf as Deputy Commandant of the Nigerian Defence Academy.

At the Defence Headquarters, AVM UK Abdullahi was appointed Director of Defence Operations, while AVM EOE Ebiowe was posted to the Office of the National Security Adviser as Deputy Coordinator, National Intelligence.

Also, AVM DDG Pwajok was appointed Director of Technical Services at the Defence Intelligence Agency, while AVM I Sani became Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence.

Other senior officers were posted to various directorates at the Defence Headquarters, including operations, military strategy, cyber operations, civil-military relations, search and rescue, special duties and joint warfare doctrine.

The appointments also affected the Defence Space Administration, where AVM AA Suleh was named Deputy Chief, while AVM OA Oyename and AVM SS Lazarus were appointed Directors of Earth Observation and Launch Vehicles and Space Operations, respectively.

Furthermore, AVM GI Jibia was appointed Deputy Force Commander of Operation Hadin Kai, while AVM JI Ukeh became Commander of the Nigerian Air Defence Corps.

The statement said the exercise was part of efforts to strengthen leadership renewal, institutional accountability and operational effectiveness across the service.

According to the CAS, the professional competence and wealth of experience of the newly appointed officers would advance his command philosophy and strengthen the Air Force’s capacity to deliver decisive airpower effects in support of joint operations and national security objectives.

“All affected officers are expected to assume their new appointments and complete the necessary handover and takeover formalities on or before November 13, 2026,” the statement concluded.

News

SERAP Demands Details Of FG’s N50,000 Relief Payments

Published

2 days ago

November 9, 2026

The Tide

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged the Federal Government to disclose details of the funding, implementation and administration of its N50,000 National Emergency Relief and Stabilisation Intervention.

The organisation asked the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, Dr Bernard Doro, to provide information on beneficiary selection, payments, contracts with digital financial service providers and safeguards against political interference.

SERAP made the demand in a Freedom of Information request dated November 7, 2026, and signed by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare.

The request followed the ministry’s October 30 announcement of the NERSI programme, which is intended to provide N50,000 in financial assistance to vulnerable Nigerians.

SERAP said important questions remained unanswered about the programme’s total funding, geographical coverage, duration and the methodology for selecting beneficiaries from the National Social Register and verified national identity records.

It urged the minister to disclose budgetary allocations, funds released and expended, eligibility criteria, beneficiary verification processes and the geographical distribution of recipients.

The organisation also asked the ministry to clarify whether the N50,000 assistance was a one-off payment or a monthly intervention, noting that the ministry’s public statement described it as a monthly payment, while a subsequent frequently asked questions document did not clearly specify the frequency or duration.

In the request, SERAP said, “Nigerians have a right to know how public funds allocated to NERSI are being spent, who is receiving the assistance, how beneficiaries are selected and whether the programme is reaching those most in need.”

The organisation raised concerns about possible political interference in the programme, particularly ahead of the 2027 general elections.

“Publicly funded social assistance must be allocated strictly on the basis of genuine need and objective eligibility criteria. It must not be used to reward political supporters, secure partisan loyalty, finance political mobilisation or influence the electoral choices of vulnerable Nigerians, particularly ahead of the 2027 general elections,” it said.

SERAP further insisted that beneficiaries should not be required to attend political rallies, support candidates or display political materials as a condition for receiving the assistance.

“Beneficiaries must not be required or encouraged to attend political rallies, support political parties or candidates, display political materials or demonstrate political loyalty as a condition for receiving assistance. NERSI is a government programme funded with public resources, not a personal gift or political benefit from any office-holder or political party,” the organisation stated.

It also urged the minister to publicly invite the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to monitor the programme’s implementation and expenditure, investigate allegations of corruption and help ensure that funds reach intended beneficiaries.

SERAP expressed concern over reports that some Nigerians who received notifications of the N50,000 assistance had been unable to access or withdraw the funds, while others reportedly received messages indicating that they were ineligible.

“These reports raise questions about the accuracy of beneficiary verification, the reliability of payment arrangements and the effectiveness of mechanisms for resolving failed or disputed payments,” it said.

The organisation urged the ministry to investigate the complaints, publish its findings and ensure that all eligible beneficiaries received the assistance.

It also asked the government to disclose agreements with the digital financial service providers engaged to administer the payments, including ALAT, MoMo PSB, NairaGram, OPay and Moniepoint.

SERAP requested details of the providers’ roles, fees and performance, as well as information on how beneficiaries’ personal data would be protected.

“The use of the National Social Register and national identity records to identify beneficiaries must be governed by clear rules and appropriate data-protection safeguards. The Ministry should disclose how these records are being used and ensure that beneficiaries’ personal information is protected, while making anonymised and aggregated information available for public scrutiny,” it said.

The group further asked the ministry to publish anonymised information showing the number of beneficiaries and the amounts paid or scheduled for payment in each state and local government area.

It also sought records of any involvement of political actors in beneficiary selection, payments, access to beneficiary databases and the use of public resources to promote the programme.

To strengthen accountability, SERAP cited concerns raised by the Auditor-General of the Federation in the 2024 Annual Report regarding more than N78.8bn in public funds allegedly diverted or unaccounted for in the administration of social intervention and cash transfer programmes.

It also referred to concerns over N33.751bn in cash transfers made in 2023 for which relevant REMITA records and other supporting documents were reportedly not provided for audit.

“These findings underscore the importance of adequate financial controls, proper record-keeping, independent verification and effective oversight from the outset of the new intervention,” SERAP said.

The organisation said the information requested would enable Nigerians to assess whether the programme was reaching eligible beneficiaries and whether public funds were being properly accounted for.

It added, “Disclosure would also strengthen public confidence in social protection programmes and help ensure that resources intended for vulnerable Nigerians are used for their intended purposes.”

SERAP gave the minister seven days from receipt or publication of the letter to provide the requested information and take the proposed measures.

It warned that it would consider legal action to compel the ministry and other relevant authorities to fulfil their constitutional and statutory obligations if they failed to respond within the stipulated period.

News

Tinubu Didn’t Borrow ?120trn In Three Years, Presidency Replies Opposition

Published

2 days ago

November 9, 2026

The Tide

The Presidency has dismissed as misleading claims that President Bola Tinubu borrowed ?120 trillion in just three years while also removing the fuel subsidy.

In a statement posted on X yesterday, Special Assistant to the President on Social Media, Dada Olusegun, described the figures as the product of “Opposition’s propaganda machines.”

He said the claim that 16 past Nigerian leaders borrowed a combined ?46 trillion over 63 years, while Tinubu borrowed ?120 trillion in three years, does not reflect the full picture.

“Opposition’s propaganda machines claim that in 63 years, 16 past Nigerian leaders borrowed ?46 trillion combined, while President Tinubu borrowed ?120 trillion in just 3 years and still removed the fuel subsidy.

“But in reality, the ?46 trillion figure from late 2022 hid ?22.7 trillion in Central Bank ‘Ways and Means’ overdrafts that weren’t officially put on the books until May 2023,” Olusegun stated.

He added that earlier calculations converted foreign debt using an artificial exchange rate of ?448 to $1, when the street value was over ?700.

“When the exchange rate was unified in June 2023, the exact same dollar debt instantly looked ?13.4 trillion larger on paper overnight without a single new dollar being borrowed.”

In actual dollar terms, he said, Nigeria’s public debt rose from $113.4 billion in June 2023 to $120.9 billion by June 2026 — an increase of only $7.5 billion.

On the fuel subsidy, Olusegun noted that its removal had boosted monthly Federation Account Allocation Committee funds shared to states and local governments from ?656 billion in April 2023 to ?2.4 trillion by September 2026.

The claims being rebutted originated from a viral social media graphic that compared cumulative borrowing under previous administrations with the Tinubu government’s record and highlighted the subsidy removal.

Fact-checkers have described the graphic as misleading because the ?46 trillion figure represented outstanding debt at the end of 2022 rather than total borrowing by 16 leaders over 63 years, and because it did not adequately account for exchange-rate effects or the formal recognition of previously off-book obligations.

Nigeria’s total public debt stood at approximately ?87.38 trillion (about $113.4 billion) in June 2023, shortly after Tinubu took office.

By June 2026 it had risen to about ?166.79 trillion ($120.93 billion), according to Debt Management Office figures.

A large part of the naira increase stemmed from the 2023 naira float and the securitisation of Ways and Means advances inherited from the previous administration.

The latest rebuttal comes after Tinubu asked the Senate to approve the implementation of a $7.7bn external borrowing plan to part-finance the 2026 budget deficit.

The request, which translates to about N10.79tn at the budget exchange rate of N1,400 to the dollar, was conveyed in a letter read by the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, during Wednesday’s plenary.

The request replaced an earlier approval for $20.52bn and €1.045bn borrowings that the President had asked the Senate and the House of Representatives for a week earlier.

However, opposition parties, including the Nigeria Democratic Congress, criticized the request, citing concerns about the country’s rising debt burden and its implications for future generations.