The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is central to Nigeria’s democratic process. Established with the mandate to oversee elections and ensure free, fair, and credible outcomes, INEC carries immense responsibility. Yet, despite its title as an “independent” body, questions surrounding its true autonomy remain a subject of heated debate.

Without a doubt, INEC’s independence is enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution. It is meant to function as an impartial institution that can withstand political influence, financial manipulation, and societal pressures. The Electoral Act of 2010 provides a legal framework for INEC’s operations, granting it the powers to regulate political parties, conduct elections, and oversee voter registration. This framework is designed to foster a fair democratic process, where no political party or individual has undue influence over the results.

However, while INEC’s independence is legally guaranteed, the effectiveness of this constitutional safeguard often depends on the interpretation and enforcement of the law, which may be influenced by political will. Legal provisions alone cannot protect an institution from external pressures if there is no concerted effort to shield it from political interference.

A key factor in the debate over INEC’s independence has been persistent allegations of political interference. Over the years, opposition parties, civil society organizations, and observers have often questioned the impartiality of the commission. Accusations range from tampering with election results to collusion with ruling parties, and these concerns are not new to Nigeria’s political landscape.

For example, in the 2007 elections, widely regarded as one of the most flawed in the country’s history, there were widespread allegations of vote rigging and ballot box stuffing, with INEC criticized for failing to maintain control of the electoral process. In more recent times, the 2019 and 2023 general elections were also shadowed by claims of irregularities, including issues with result collation and vote transmission delays. These incidents often lead to public distrust in the electoral process and raise questions about the actual level of independence INEC enjoys from the ruling government.

In a similar vein, just recently, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), which monitored the Edo State governorship election on Saturday, issued a damning review of the exercise, declaring that the results from several polling units were altered at coalition centres.

The civil society coalition, the Situation Room, said the conduct of the election lacked credibility.

Also, Yiaga Africa, said it deployed the Process and Results Verification for Transparency (PRVT) methodology for the Edo election, involving 300 stationary and 25 roving observers, covering a representative sample of polling units (PUs) across all 18 local government areas of the state, and ostensibly against the foregoing backdrop, faulted the conduct of the poll and the declared results as lacking integrity.

However, the electoral body has, at various times, refuted these allegations, citing challenges such as logistical problems, election-day violence, and sabotage. However, these denials often do little to change the public’s perception, as the pattern of electoral controversy continues to haunt Nigeria’s elections.

Another critical aspect of INEC’s independence is its financial autonomy, or the lack thereof. INEC, like most government institutions, depends on the federal budget to finance its activities, including election preparations, voter education, and technological upgrades. While the government allocates a specific budget for INEC’s operations, the process through which funds are disbursed remains a potential lever for political control.

For instance, delayed release of funds for electoral activities has been cited as a reason for INEC’s inability to adequately prepare for elections in the past. When funding is not timely or sufficient, the commission struggles to meet its obligations, leaving it susceptible to external pressures. Critics argue that if INEC had its own independent source of funding, it would be more empowered to carry out its mandate without fear of financial blackmail from political authorities.

Furthermore, the question of financial accountability arises. INEC’s spending is scrutinized by the National Assembly, which also wields significant political influence. This arrangement has led to questions about whether INEC can truly stand on its own, especially when the same politicians it oversees hold the power to approve its budget.

INEC’s ability to operate independently in the field is crucial to ensuring fair elections. The commission’s introduction of various electoral reforms, such as the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the electronic transmission of results, was aimed at reducing human error and the potential for manipulation. However, while these reforms were steps in the right direction, their implementation has not been without challenges.

The 2023 general elections highlighted some of these operational hurdles. Despite the deployment of electronic systems, several polling stations reported delays, equipment malfunctions, and in some cases, a complete failure of the technology. This raised suspicions about whether these lapses were due to INEC’s own inefficiencies or deliberate sabotage from political actors seeking to manipulate the process.

INEC has often found itself at the center of these controversies, facing backlash from both the public and political parties. The commission claims that it is not immune to the broader infrastructural and security challenges that affect Nigeria, especially during elections. For instance, election-day violence, ballot snatching, and intimidation of voters are issues beyond INEC’s direct control but have significant implications for the commission’s ability to operate independently.

Election security is another factor that complicates INEC’s independence. While the commission is responsible for overseeing elections, it relies heavily on security agencies to ensure safety and maintain order at polling units. The Nigerian Police, Army, and other security agencies are tasked with preventing violence, but their deployment is often overseen by the ruling government.

This reliance on state-controlled security forces has led to concerns about how neutral these agencies can be during elections. There have been instances where security forces were accused of aiding or abetting electoral malpractice, particularly in ruling party’s strongholds. When security agencies act in favor of one party, INEC’s ability to conduct free and fair elections is significantly compromised.

In the 2019 and 2023 elections, reports of military interference in the electoral process were widespread. There were accounts of voters being intimidated and opposition politicians being harassed, all of which contributed to the belief that INEC was not in full control of the election environment. Although INEC can set guidelines, it is at the mercy of security forces when it comes to enforcing them.

The success of any electoral body hinges on public confidence in its ability to act fairly and independently. Unfortunately, in Nigeria, public trust in INEC has often been low, primarily due to past electoral malpractices and inconsistencies in election results.

A survey conducted by a Nigerian civil society organization revealed that many Nigerians believe INEC is not free from political influence. This perception of bias diminishes the legitimacy of the electoral process and discourages voter participation. When people lose faith in the neutrality of the electoral umpire, it creates a cycle of apathy, where citizens are less likely to engage in the democratic process.

In response, INEC has consistently called for patience and understanding, emphasizing its commitment to improving election management. Despite this, the commission must work harder to rebuild trust. Public engagement, transparency in election logistics, and prompt communication are essential for changing this narrative.

Finally, the judiciary plays a crucial role in determining the extent of INEC’s independence. When disputes arise over election results, courts are tasked with adjudicating the outcomes. INEC’s decisions are often subject to judicial review, and election tribunals have, on occasion, overturned results declared by the commission.

While the judiciary serves as a check on INEC, the frequent involvement of courts in electoral matters suggests that the commission may not always get it right. Moreover, political actors have often used the judiciary to challenge election results in what some view as an attempt to manipulate the processthrough legal avenues. This dynamic further complicates the perception of INEC’s autonomy, as its decisions are constantly under scrutiny and often reversed by the courts.

In assessing how independent INEC truly is, it becomes clear that while it has made significant progress, it is still constrained by a host of challenges. Political interference, financial dependence, operational difficulties, security concerns, and public mistrust all combine to undermine the commission’s full independence.

In fact, for INEC to truly fulfill its mandate, a multifaceted approach is required, and this includes greater financial autonomy. Given the foregoing view, INEC should be allowed to manage its own budget with minimal interference from the executive and legislative arms of government.

In a similar vein, reforms to the Electoral Act must be continuous, with a focus on closing loopholes that enable political manipulation of the process, and INEC must invest more in public education and transparency, explaining its processes clearly to the electorate and making sure citizens are well-informed.

In a similar vein, there should be clear protocols on the role of security forces during elections, with measures in place to ensure their neutrality, and while the courts play an essential role in adjudicating election disputes, the process should not be politicized. Therefore, strengthening the integrity of the judiciary is necessary to complement INEC’s independence.

In conclusion, while INEC is designed to be an independent body, the reality on the ground suggests that its autonomy is limited by numerous external pressures. To ensure that Nigeria’s democratic process remains credible, urgent reforms and a renewed commitment from all stakeholders are needed to guarantee that INEC can function without undue influence. Only then can Nigeria’s elections be truly free, fair, and independent.

On October 1, 2024, unarguably less than 24 hours from now, Nigeria would be 64 years old, Nigeria stands like a weathered patriarch, a man with vast riches, many wives, and countless children. His wealth, once envied by his neighbors, is now the subject of bitter conversations at family meetings. From the shimmering oil fields of the Niger Delta to the fertile farmlands that stretch across the northern plains, this man should be living a prosperous and peaceful life. Yet, despite his enormous fortune, his children have become his biggest burden, each one more reckless than the last.

This old man, whom we call Nigeria, was once brimming with youthful optimism. In his prime, he was a proud member of a global community, endowed with resources that seemed endless. But as the years have passed, his wealth, rather than multiplying under prudent management, has been plundered by his own blood. His children, entrusted with the family’s fortune, have become entitled and corrupt, using their father’s riches not for the good of the family but for their personal gain.

The story of Nigeria is a tragedy of mismanagement. Blessed with oil, gas, minerals, and fertile land, this patriarch should be the wealthiest man in his region. But his children, greedy and short-sighted, have squandered his assets. Instead of investing in businesses that could make the family fortune last generations, they spend recklessly, siphoning funds into foreign bank accounts, building extravagant mansions, and buying luxury cars that will eventually rust.

Nigeria’s children, those in charge of his estates, bear the most responsibility for his troubles. They are the politicians, the leaders who have been entrusted with managing his fortune. But instead of upholding the legacy of their father, they engage in power struggles, siphoning off money meant for family upkeep, schools, hospitals, and roads. The basic needs of their siblings, ordinary Nigerians, are neglected.

Instead of following in their father’s footsteps and ensuring his wealth grows, they have become parasites, milking the old man for every last drop, leaving the house crumbling. Roads are potholed, hospitals are understaffed and underfunded, and many of the children go to bed hungry, despite the family’s vast stores of resources.

The children who are not in power, ordinary citizens, are the ones who suffer the most. Despite their father’s wealth, they live in poverty. They watch helplessly as their older siblings, entrusted with the keys to the family vault (The “Emilokons”), lavish themselves with riches while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves. They struggle to pay school fees, fight to access basic healthcare, and work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, all the while knowing that they are part of a family that should be wealthy beyond imagination.

These ordinary children grow disillusioned. They once believed that their father’s wealth would provide for them, that they would inherit a prosperous future. But now, they see that without change, they are doomed to live in the shadow of squandered potential.

Nigeria, the 64-year-old man, can still recover. His fortune, though mismanaged, is not entirely lost. But for him to prosper once again, his children must change their ways. The family needs unity, accountability, and a sense of responsibility. The wealth he has accumulated over decades should not be treated as an endless supply but as a precious resource to be nurtured and grown for future generations.

Perhaps, in his old age, this patriarch will take a stand. Perhaps he will remind his children of their duties and set them on a path toward restoration. But until then, Nigeria remains a wealthy old man with children who continue to squander his fortune, leaving the rest of the family wondering what could have been.

As Nigeria is set to mark another year in less than 24 hours from now, it is time for his children to reflect on the future. Will they continue on this path of greed and mismanagement? Or will they finally rise to the occasion, protect their father’s legacy, and build a future where every child in the family can thrive? The answers lie in their hands.

In response to the recent remark by former Rivers State Governor, and currently Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, who questioned, “Who has Fubara made?” during a ceremony where he was honored by the Ijaw community, it is essential to set the record straight on what true leadership entails. This question, though seemingly casual, reflects a much deeper issue in the mindset of Nigerian politicians, a fundamental misunderstanding of the true role of governance.

Governance is not, and should never be, about empowering or “making” individuals based on personal ties, political favors, or loyalty. It is not a tool for creating allies or strengthening one’s network of political benefactors. True governance transcends personal ambitions or friendships; it is about creating an environment where every citizen, regardless of connection to those in power, can thrive. A good leader works to uplift their entire constituency, ensuring that the benefits of governance reach everyone, not just a select few who are privileged to be in their inner circle.

There is a dangerous narrative circulating within Nigeria’s political discourse that must be corrected. We often hear that certain politicians have “made” certain individuals, be it a governor, senator, or influential business figure. This notion is often repeated when discussing about some politicians, with some praising their political prowess by stating that they have “made” numerous leaders and politicians who have risen to prominence. But governance is not supposed to be a king-making affair. It should never be about the elevation of a few at the expense of the many.

The reality is that true leadership is measured not by how many individuals one has “made,” but by how well the leader has uplifted the collective well-being of the masses. Governance, at its very essence, is about creating opportunities for everyone, ensuring equitable access to resources, and fostering an environment where the average citizen can achieve their full potential without needing to rely on political patronage.

This culture of “making people” is rooted in the erroneous belief that governance is about personal favors, not about service to the populace. The idea that a leader’s success should be judged by how many individuals they have “empowered” or “made” is fundamentally flawed. It perpetuates a system where political officeholders are seen as gatekeepers to opportunity, rather than stewards of the public good.

When Nyesom Wike posed the question, “Who has Fubara made?” it was as if to suggest that Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s leadership should be evaluated by how many individuals he has personally elevated. But this is a dangerous and short-sighted way of viewing leadership. The purpose of governance is not to create a select group of privileged individuals who rise because of their proximity to power; it is to create a system in which every citizen has the opportunity to rise based on their own merit and effort.

Governor Fubara’s success should not be measured by how many political godsons he has made or how many of his friends have found themselves in positions of power. His success, and indeed the success of any leader, should be measured by the overall development and well-being of Rivers State, by the number of jobs created, the quality of education improved, the infrastructure built, and the lives of ordinary people transformed.

The idea of “making” individuals only serves to perpetuate the cycle of patronage politics that has hindered Nigeria’s development for decades. This system places personal loyalty and political allegiance above merit, competence, and the collective good. It also fosters an environment where access to opportunity is limited to those with the right connections, leaving the vast majority of Nigerians on the outside looking in.

We often hear that a certain politician has “made” this person or that person, and while this may be seen as a mark of political influence, it is not the essence of true leadership. Political leaders, like every other leaders in Nigeria, should not be measured by how many individuals they have “made” or by how many allies they have elevated to positions of power. Rather, they should be measured by how effectively their administrations uplift the masses, create equal opportunities, and improve the overall living conditions of Nigerians.

True leadership requires vision, sacrifice, and a deep commitment to public service. It is about creating systems that empower everyone, not just those who are part of one’s political or social circle. In an ideal democracy, every citizen should be able to succeed based on their talent, hard work, and dedication, not on their personal connections or political patronage.

Leaders should focus on creating policies that benefit the general population, policies that improve healthcare, education, infrastructure, and employment opportunities. They should work to create an environment where every citizen, regardless of their background or affiliations, has a fair chance to succeed. This is the true measure of leadership.

A great leader honors the people by ensuring that the resources of the state or country are managed equitably and responsibly. When politicians focus solely on empowering their friends, they dishonor the broader population. Governance should not be about honoring personal relationships; it should be about honoring the mandate given to them by the electorate. The resources and opportunities provided by the government must be made available to everyone, not reserved for a privileged few.

Nigerian politicians must break away from the mindset that governance is about patronage and personal favors. The country cannot progress if its leaders continue to operate as if their primary responsibility is to enrich their friends and allies. True governance is about service, and service means uplifting the entire population, particularly the most vulnerable and disadvantaged.

If Nigeria is to realize its full potential, its leaders must embrace a new mindset, one that focuses on the collective upliftment of all citizens, rather than the personal empowerment of a few. Governance must be about building systems that work for everyone, not about “making” individuals. It is time for our politicians to understand that their legacy will not be measured by how many people they have placed in positions of power, but by how well they have served the people.

A great leader builds institutions that will outlast them, creating opportunities for future generations. They work to improve the lives of the masses, not just a select few. They focus on creating a fair and just society where every citizen has the chance to thrive.

Governance is not about making friends; it is about making a difference in the lives of the people. Leaders who understand this will leave a lasting legacy that benefits all Nigerians, not just those within their inner circle. It is time we held our leaders accountable to this higher standard.

Nigeria is in the grip of a severe economic crisis, with high inflation, volatile exchange rates, and a steep rise in the cost of living. The inflation rate, which soared to over 30% in the second quarter of 2024, has put immense strain on household budgets, making it increasingly difficult for many Nigerians to afford basic necessities such as food, healthcare, and housing. The situation has been worsened by the depreciation of the naira, which plummeted to historic lows against the US dollar, trading at over ₦1600 to $1 in recent days. This economic turmoil, coupled with persistently high unemployment rates of over 33%, is fostering a growing sense of economic despair across the nation. 

This environment of uncertainty has shaken the confidence of the average Nigerian, even those renowned for their resilience. A recent survey conducted in Abuja, Lagos, Kano, and Port Harcourt showed that 70% of respondents expressed pessimism about the country’s future, fearing that things will unlikely improve soon. These sentiments have been reflected in public movements such as the #EndBadGovernance protest, which erupted a few months ago and brought the frustrations of millions of Nigerians to the forefront. Although it started as a protest against bad governance, the movement quickly morphed into a more extensive critique of poor governance, economic hardship, and the perceived disconnect between Nigerian leaders and the everyday struggles of citizens.

Amid this widespread disillusionment, the mere mention of a possible cabinet reshuffle or change has sparked a flicker of hope. While a cabinet change might seem like a small gesture, it often brings a sense of cautious optimism that new leadership might steer the country in a better direction. The presidency’s recent indication of a potential reorganisation of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) has garnered significant national attention. The question is whether this reshuffle will end an ineffective and underperforming cabinet or if it could signal the beginning of genuine efforts to address Nigeria’s pressing crises. The scepticism is rooted in past experiences where cabinet changes have failed to bring tangible improvements. For example 2019, after President Muhammadu Buhari’s second-term victory, a similar cabinet overhaul raised hopes of economic reform, but little changed. Key sectors such as power, infrastructure, and healthcare continued to struggle, leading to widespread public disillusionment.

A personal experience offers a fitting analogy. A close friend of mine was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. Faced with this alarming news, we didn’t simply choose any available doctor—we searched for a specialist with proven expertise in treating prostate cancer. We knew that his survival depended on finding the right medical expert. Nigeria’s economy is similarly dire; it is “cancerous” and desperately needs leaders with the necessary skills, knowledge, and commitment to enact meaningful change. Anything less would jeopardise the nation’s collective survival.

For many Nigerians, a cabinet reshuffle holds the potential for two distinct outcomes. On one hand, it could signal the end of an ineffective Executive Council that has failed to tackle the country’s challenges, much like the underperforming cabinets of the past. On the other hand, it could herald the beginning of a new era, where the government finally prioritises reforms, implements policies to alleviate economic hardship, and rebuilds trust between the government and the people. While public expectations are high, there is also a lingering sense of scepticism. However, the potential for positive change is a beacon of hope in these uncertain times. 

The current Federal Executive Council can be broadly divided into three groups. The first group consisted of ministers who were appointed out of political indebtedness. These individuals were chosen not for their competence but because the President owed political favours. As a result, their loyalty lies with the President, and they feel little obligation to serve the nation or its people. The second group consists of those who gained their positions through nepotism or the famed “Nigerian connection”. These individuals bring little value to governance and often lack the expertise needed to address the complexities of Nigeria’s socio-economic challenges. For instance, critics have pointed to appointing ministers without relevant experience in the ministries they oversee, leading to poor policy decisions and a lack of direction. The third group, unfortunately, the smallest, is composed of competent technocrats and politicians who have the capacity to deliver meaningful results. However, their influence is often overshadowed by the ineffectiveness of the other groups.

A cabinet dominated by individuals focused on short-term political gains rather than the public good has far-reaching implications for governance. Ministers prioritising personal or partisan agendas are unlikely to prioritise the nation’s needs. Some argue that even the most capable ministers would struggle to make a difference in the current political, social, and economic environment. The primary function of policymaking has been sidelined, and this dysfunction has only fueled public discontent. The quality of the Federal Executive Council has significantly contributed to the country’s broader dissatisfaction.

Many Nigerian commentators have expressed frustration with the government’s inefficiency, attributing it mainly to the substandard quality of the cabinet. This inefficiency has also contributed to the normalisation of corruption in various sectors. Significant reforms in critical sectors have been noticeably absent, leading to widespread doubt as to whether the average Nigerian feels any positive impact from the actions of the Federal Executive Council. The government’s credibility is increasingly being questioned, and many wonder whether any real progress can be made under the current leadership.

As the country eagerly anticipates the formation of a new Federal Executive Council, there are clear expectations. Nigerians are not just hoping for a change in personnel, but for a fundamental shift in governance priorities. The nation urgently needs ministers who are dedicated to solving its pressing problems, not advancing personal interests. The new cabinet must be transparent and accountable, addressing the concerns of a public that has grown weary of opaque leadership. Furthermore, competence must take precedence over party loyalty when selecting ministers. The country cannot afford appointments based on political allegiance; it needs individuals with the technical expertise to implement effective policies and follow through on their promises.

Effective governance requires competent ministers, a clear vision and roadmap from the President, and accountability mechanisms to guarantee policies are efficiently executed. Our President must clearly define his mission: what kind of government does he want to run? Restorative, transformative or visionary? The President’s vision and mission would provide the guardrail of how his ministers would be chosen and how they operate. The SGF and Chief of Staff will use that to set targets and milestones. The President’s mission is required to define the roles of ministers and their mode of operation.

Economic growth and job creation must become central priorities. In 2024, youth unemployment was estimated at over 42%, leaving millions of young Nigerians without meaningful opportunities. This unemployment crisis, combined with a lack of public services, continues to drive young Nigerians toward dangerous migration routes in search of better lives abroad. There is little meaningful discussion on these crucial issues, as the focus remains on personal or political agendas. The country’s progress depends on a renewed focus on sustainable development, economic expansion, and the creation of employment opportunities for its people.

In these challenging times, Nigeria needs ministers who are competent and deeply committed to the nation’s well-being. Patriotism, focus, and dependability will be essential for steering the country through its current crises. The period of trial and error is over. The President and Vice President must now prioritise selecting the best candidates from across the country to form a cabinet capable of delivering results. Governance must shift away from serving a privileged few to addressing the needs of all Nigerians.

Nigeria stands at a pivotal moment where the choices made in the coming weeks could define its path for years. The potential reshuffle of the Federal Executive Council offers both an opportunity and a test for the current administration. On the one hand, it could catalyse significant reforms prioritising economic recovery, job creation, and transparent governance. On the other hand, it could fall into the familiar pattern of superficial changes that fail to address the root causes of the nation’s challenges. What is clear is that Nigerians are no longer willing to accept governance that serves the interests of a select few at the expense of the broader population. They demand competence, accountability, and a renewed commitment to solving the economic, social, and political crises that have plagued the nation for too long.

The stakes are too high for mere half-measures or political gamesmanship. Now is the time for decisive action guided by vision and responsibility. The incoming cabinet must be composed of individuals who are skilled and deeply invested in the country’s well-being. Their actions will either restore faith in the government or further erode it. Ultimately, the success of this moment hinges on whether Nigeria’s leadership can rise to the occasion, recognise the situation’s urgency, and implement policies that will bring real and lasting change. For the nation’s future, the time for meaningful leadership is now.

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday once again stopped the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from providing the voters’ register to the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) for the upcoming local government elections scheduled for October 5, 2024.

In addition, the court prohibited the Inspector General of Police and the Department of State Services (DSS) from offering security for the poll.

Justice Peter Lifu delivered the ruling following a lawsuit filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The APC’s legal team, led by Senior Advocates of Nigeria Joseph Daudu, Sebastine Hon, and Ogwu James Onoja, argued the case.

Justice Lifu ruled that the RSIEC acted prematurely in setting the October 5 election date, stating that it did so without adhering to the necessary legal requirements.

Specifically, the court found that the Rivers State electoral body had failed to comply with provisions of the local government election law, particularly the requirement to publish a 90-day notice prior to the election.

Additionally, Justice Lifu emphasized that the updating and revision of the voters’ register must be completed before a legally valid election date could be set.

As a result, the court ordered INEC not to provide the certified voters’ register to RSIEC until all legal stipulations were met.

RSIEC was similarly instructed not to accept or use any voters’ register from INEC for the October 5 local government elections.

[NaijaNews]

There is tension at the Edo State Government House in Benin City over alleged plans by Philip Shaibu to resume in his office as Deputy Governor.

DAILY POST reports that security has been beefed up within the premises of Government House located at Dennis Osadabey Avenue, Benin City.

It was gathered that the security beef up is aimed at stopping Shaibu from resuming office.

As part of security measures, the state government has banned vehicles including those of Government House staff from entering Osadebe Avenue.

During a visit to the area on Monday, DAILY POST observed that visitors and civil servants parked their vehicles by the roadside and walked long distances to their offices.

Men of the Nigeria Police and the state-owned Police Constabulary mounted a roadblock at the entrance gate.

DAILY POST recalls that on July 17, a Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice J. K. Omotosho, reinstated Shaibu as the Edo State Deputy Governor.

The court had also last week, rejected a motion filed by the Edo State Government and the House of Assembly for a stay of execution of the reinstatement order.

The State House of Assembly had on March 18, 2024, impeached Shaibu as the deputy governor of the state, and in his stead, Governor Godwin Obaseki appointed and swore-in Engineer Godwins Marvellous Omobayo as the deputy governor.

Speaking to DAILY POST on Monday, some civil servants who spoke on condition of anonymity described the security beef up at the Government House as surprising.

“We were surprised to see heavy security in and around the Government House on resumption at the office.

“Election has ended and we expected to see a very more peaceful state,” they said.

The Edo State Government had on Sunday, in a statement, alleged that Shaibu had perfected plans to invade the Government House on Monday, September 30, to enforce his purported reinstatement despite the fact that a stay of execution appeal has been filed challenging Justice J. K. Omotosho’s ruling.

The statement by Mr Crusoe Osagie, the Special Adviser to the Edo State Government on Media Projects, called on the Inspector General of Police and all well-meaning Nigerians to prevail on Shaibu to refrain from his alleged plot.

Osagie opined that the plot was a clear recipe for chaos, given the fact that a policeman was killed the last time Shaibu attempted such action.

“We want to draw the attention of the Inspector General of Police to the intelligence we have gathered regarding a planned move by Shaibu to forcefully enter the Edo State Government House to purportedly enforce the ruling of Justice J. K. Omotosho.

“The stay of execution is still pending at the court of appeal and we appeal to the Inspector General of Police to ensure that the state does not descend to anarchy because of the ambition of one man.

“The last time Shaibu attempted to do this, it led to the death of a police officer. We believe that is one death too many and it is only wise for us to prevent a repeat of such,” he stated.

Reacting to the statement, Shaibu denied the allegation, saying the reality was yet to dawn on Obaseki that he and his followers have been rejected by Edo people.

Shaibu, who reacted through his media aide, Mr Ebomhiana Musa, noted that unlike Obaseki, he (Shaibu) is a peace-loving man who firmly believes in the rule of law and would not want to shed innocent blood for whatever reason.

“We want to put it clearly here that, unlike Governor Godwin Obaseki, Philip Shaibu is a peace-loving, who firmly believes in the rule of law and would not want to shed innocent blood for whatever reason.

“In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of the good people of Edo State and Nigerians, Philip Shaibu is the de jure and de facto Deputy Governor of Edo State.”

He called on the public to ignore the allegation, describing it as fake news spread by Obaseki’s spokesperson.

[DailyPost]

The Federal Capital Territory Police Command said it has commenced deployment of personnel and equipment ahead of the Independence celebration slated for October 1.

The command, which is without a Commissioner of Police, however, was silent over its preparation for the protest scheduled for the same day.

In a statement on Monday, the Police command spokesperson, Josephine Adeh, said the deployment included Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel, anti-riot equipment, and visibility policing, among others.

She added that this was to ensure FCT residents have a peaceful Independence Day celebration.

She said,” The FCT Police Command, in anticipation of the upcoming October 1st Independence Day celebration, has strategically deployed adequate personnel and equipment throughout the FCT.

“These proactive deployments aim to ensure that residents of the FCT enjoy a hitch-free Independence Day celebration. The deployment will include Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel, anti-riot equipment, and visibility policing, among others.”

She also said there would be traffic diversion in areas likely to witness large crowds, especially Eagles Square.

Adeh said, “Traffic diversions will be implemented in areas expected to experience large crowds, including Central Area and Eagle Square.

“While celebrating Independence Day, residents of the FCT are encouraged to remain vigilant and report any suspicious movements or activities to the FCT Police emergency lines: 08032003913, 08028940883, 08061581938, 07057337653, PCB: 09022222352, CRU: 08107314192.”

[Punch]

Events of monumental proportions are happening in the world. The assassination of Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasarallah, may signal the commencement of all-out war in the Middle East.

Those who love conquest would celebrate his elimination. Those who seek peace would recognise that his death drives humanity closer to an avoidable war.

Since we all agree that we now live in a global village, we should be concerned about such events in the world. But Nigerians are not prepared for such a fall-out.

Surely we have Nigerians living in Lebanon who would need protection. But we have no ambassador there who can protect out interest or keep us well informed. We also have no ambassador in Israel who can advance our interest.

Definitely, this is a proxy war in which the United States and its allies like France and Britain are providing Israel with logistics and timely intelligence which has always given it an advantage in armed conflicts with its neigbours. But we do not have ambassadors in any of those countries who can advance our views and interests. Nor do we have in Iran which is providing logistics and support for Hezbollah.

In fact, we have no ambassador anywhere in the world except in the United Nations system and Niger Republic.

Tragically, our best diplomats are at home, rotting away behind bare office desks, waiting to be posted. After one year of waiting, some of them may never make it to the pinnacle of their career as retirement may catch up with them.

Yes, the Tinubu administration has a Four-D foreign policy of Development, Demography, Democracy and Diaspora, but without ambassadors in a competitive world to make our case in various countries? We are concerned about Diaspora, but leave our citizens in all countries like sheep without shepherd. Then we stroll to the UN General Assembly podium to say we want to be a Permanent Member of the Security Council. Who will take us serious?

What is quite painful in this is that it was quite avoidable. We had ambassadors across the world when President Bola Tinubu was sworn in on May 29, 2023. After about four months, he recalled all of them with the perceived intention of replacing them. Now over one year later, he has either been incapable of doing so, or has not had the time. Why such self-inflicted injury by the so-called Giant of Africa?

It is also unlikely that this wound can be well treated this year because currently, the focus of the world is on UNGA, then our 64th Independence Anniversary and, we are approaching Christmas season or end-of-year activities. Again, even if new ambassadors are appointed today, they will need to undergo screening by the Senate, training and a period of acceptance by the receiving countries.

So, effectively, Nigerians are orphaned on the international stage.

We are also dispossessed in the country. Nigerians are a mass of alienated, hungry and angry people in a country so richly endowed with resources, including oil and gas and, unarguably, some of the best brains in the world.

We do not add value to our products like oil, are incapable of repairing existing refineries, yet go about destroying what are called ‘illegal’ refineries. In the last one year, the cost of petrol has gone up at least 400 per cent, yet we have to queue for hours to buy the product. We find ourselves being played like football between the new Dangote Refinery and the Federal Government. Talking about the latter, we live a lie that we have a federal system when what we run is a unitary system. A political system in which no group or nationality is happy or at ease.

Another lie is that we run a democracy when we are incapable of even conducting a state election successfully. We just had an election in Edo State where victory went to the highest bidder with ‘federal might’.

We know that the monthly allowances distributed in the National Assembly are illegal, that the constituency projects cannot stand the most rudimentary scrutiny and that our annual budgets are padded, yet we expect the same body to carry out oversight functions. Can a compromised National Assembly check the Executive or call public officials to order?

What, for me, is the most worrying is the growing insecurity in the land with terrorists, bandits and separatists over- running vast swathes of the country. But rather than concentrate on this serious challenge to life and property and the very existence of the country, the military is bogged down with diversions such as stopping public protests on the state of the country. Worse still, the generals bog themselves down with the conduct of elections. What was the business of the Chief of Defence Staff with the state election in Edo? What threat existed there that the police or Civil Defence could not handle? The misuse of the military for civil matters is a danger to the country’s democratic process.

The state of insecurity has become even more frightening after various accusations were made against the Minister of State for Defence, Bello Matawalle. Those making the accusations include the Governor of Zamfara State, Dauda Lawal, who accused his predecessor of keeping bandits in the Government House and receiving ransom on their behalf. Yet, all Matawalle could do was to swear by the Quoran.

Every aspect of our national life is down. The education sector is virtually in comatose and the cries of the Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU, about the sorry state of education in the country does not appear to have receptive ears in government.

As for the people, all they experience are astronomical increases in the prices of goods and services, more taxes and higher tariff for poorer services like electricity.

The country is in a mess and the government must know that people are no longer listening to the trite that things will get worse before they get better. That has been the sing-song of virtually every government since the overthrow of the Shagari administration on December 31, 1983.

Nigerians are a dispossessed people both abroad and at home. We need to review our policies, programmes and governance system. Africans say when a child trips and falls, he looks forward to see if there is anybody coming to help him, but when an elder trips and falls, he looks back to see what tripped him. After 64 years, we should look back to see why we are down. The Tinubu government should reassess its programmes and policies. To do this effectively, he needs to put together intellectually-endowed patriots who do not need his patronage. This advisory body can bridge the yawning gap between the government and the people.

Real Madrid goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois is set to miss a couple of weeks after his club diagnosed him with a hip muscle injury.

Spanish media estimate he will return in mid-October after the impending international break, missing the Champions League visit to Lille on Wednesday and next weekend’s home La Liga match against Villarreal.

“After tests carried out today on our player Thibaut Courtois by the Real Madrid medical services, he has been diagnosed with an abductor injury,” the club said in a statement.

Courtois sustained the injury during Madrid’s derby 1-1 draw at rivals Atletico in La Liga on Sunday, a match in which he was also targeted by home fans of his former club who threw objects including lighters at him.

The Belgian goalkeeper spent most of last season out with a severe knee injury but returned in time to start in Madrid’s Champions League final triumph.

Ukrainian goalkeeper Andriy Lunin is poised to fill in for Courtois as he did last season.

Vanguard News