News

Fate Of 7 Govs Uncertain

Published

5 years ago

January 9, 2020

Niger and Taraba states in the March 9, 2019 governorship polls while seven other governors await the determination of appeals challenging their elections.

The states whose governorship elections are yet to be decided are: Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Imo, Kano, Plateau and Sokoto.

A five-member panel of justices presided by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, yesterday dismissed the appeals before the Supreme Court and affirmed the elections of governors Okezie Ikpeazu (Abia, PDP); Ifeanyi Okowa (Delta, PDP); Abubakar Sani Bello (Niger, APC); and Darius Ishaku (Taraba, PDP).

In the first judgement on Abia delivered by Justice Adamu Galinje, the apex court held that the candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Alex Otti, failed to prove the allegation of over-voting against Ikpeazu and the PDP by relying solely on the card reader.

He ruled that the position of the apex court has been that where documents are dumped on the court, it would not attach any probative value to it.

He added that the makers of Forms EC8As, which statements of results contained names of accredited voters and number of voters, should have been called to demonstrate them.

Ruling on the appeal filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) challenging the election of Governor Darius Ishaku of Taraba State, Justice Ejembi Eko held that a Federal High Court having disqualified its original candidate, the party had no flag bearer in the March 9 governorship election and ought not to have challenged the election.

Photo credit: dailytrust.com

Citing the provisions of sections 141 and 285 of the Electoral Act, Justice Eko said Professor Muhammad Sani Yahaya, who was presented by the party in Taraba, did not participate in all the processes of the election and is prohibited by law to be a successor to a candidate who was disqualified by a Federal High Court.

He explained that since the party proceeded to participate in the election despite the subsisting court order disqualifying its candidate, Abubakar Danladi, the votes cast for it are not valid but “wasted votes.”

“The appeal is mere academic exercise and will serve no useful purpose,” he said.

On the Niger appeal brought by PDP’s Umar Mohammed Nasko, Justice Uwani Abba-Aji dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the issue of non-qualification and false information against Governor Bello had become statute barred having been brought outside the 180 days allowed by law.

She said the apex court cannot interfere with the decision made by the Court of Appeal on the judgement of the Niger State Election Petitions Tribunal, adding that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on the matter.

In the appeal by Great Ogboru of APC against Governor Okowa of Delta, Justice Cletus Nweze ruled that the appellant dumped documents on the tribunal without demonstrating their relevance to his case.

He held that Ogboru relied too much on hearsay evidence in his allegations of over-voting and other electoral malpractices in the March 9, 2019 governorship election.

S/Court to decide petitions against 7 state govs

The Supreme Court is expected to decide within this month, the remaining seven cases including the appeal by former governor of Adamawa State, Jibrilla Bindow (APC) against Governor Ahmadu Fintiri (PDP); Bauchi appeal between former governor Mohammed Abubakar (APC) against Governor Bala Mohammed (PDP); and Benue appeal brought by Emmanuel Jime (APC) against Governor Samuel Ortom (PDP).

Other cases are those against Imo Governor Emeka Ihedioha (PDP) by the APC candidate, Hope Uzodimma.

There are other appeals by Action Alliance (AA) candidate, Uche Nwosu and the candidate of APGA Ifeanyi Ararume, all of them challenging the validity of the election of Ihedioha.

In Kano, there is the appeal by Abba Kabiru Yusuf (PDP) against Governor Umar Ganduje of Kano; the appeal by Jeremiah Useni (PDP) against Simon Lalong of Plateau State; and in Sokoto, the appeal was brought by APC’s Ahmed Aliyu challenging the election of Governor Aminu Tambuwal.

Other cases dispensed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court had earlier ruled on the appeals involving Akwa Ibom, Ebonyi, Kaduna, Katsina, Lagos, Nasarawa, Ogun, Oyo and Rivers affirming the election of the governors.

But the petitions filed against governors of Cross River, Enugu, Gombe, Kebbi and Kwara did not make it to the Supreme Court.

The governorship elections in Yobe and Jigawa did not attract any petition, while Kogi election, which held on November 16, 2019, is still at the tribunal.

Controversial appeals still at the S/Court

Adamawa

Governor Umar Fintiri will know his fate when the appeal by Bindow is heard at the Supreme Court.

At the tribunal, Bindow alleged over-voting and non-compliance with the Electoral Act as well as irregularities during the March 2019 re-run governorship election.

Fintiri polled 376,552 votes to defeat the incumbent Bindow who got 336,386 votes. Fintiri won by 40,166 votes.

Bauchi

The appeal filed by Abubakar who sought for a second term in Bauchi but was defeated by Mohammed is expected to deepen legal understanding on election litigation in Nigeria.

The ex-governor filed his petition after conceding defeat to his would-be successor.

INEC initially declared the election of March 9 inconclusive as Mohammed polled 469,512 votes while Abubakar, who was rounding up his first term scored, 465, 453 votes.

The re-run election held on March 23, 2019 in 36 polling units across 15 local government areas, including results of Tafawa Balewa Local Government Area, were stalled by a Federal High Court in Abuja on March 19, 2019 after the former governor and the APC brought an ex parte motion before it.

The court, however, lifted the ban on March 25 to allow the conclusion of the collation which returned the opposition Mohammed as winner.

Kano

The appeal by Yusuf against Governor Ganduje at the Supreme Court will be dealing with the controversial issue of inconclusive and supplementary elections in Nigeria.

Yusuf polled 1,014,353 votes against 987,829 votes by Ganduje before the election was declared inconclusive.

During the rerun, Ganduje won and was declared winner but Yusuf approached the election petition tribunal insisting that he won at first ballot. The verdict of the tribunal did not favour him but the PDP candidate decided to approach the apex court.

Sokoto

The appeal by APC’s Aliyu against Governor Tambuwal is another matter that will be of interest to Nigerians. Aliyu lost by the narrowest of margins of 512,002 votes to 511,661 votes he polled. This was after the collation was declared inconclusive on March 9, 2019, forcing a re-run on March 23, 2019 during which Tambuwal was returned as winner.

So far, the APC controls 20 states, PDP 15 and APGA 1.

(DAILY TRUST)

Send Us Press Releases @ editor@infodailyng… Call Us For Your Event Coverage On 08067027581

News

Divestment: CSOs Throw Weight Behind King Dakolo’s Suit Against Shell

Published

21 minutes ago

June 21, 2025

Editor

The Plaintiff, Agada IV of Ekpetiama Kingdom (Right) and environmental rights activist, Dr. Nnimmo Bassey at the court proceedings yesterday, June 20, 2025 in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.

By Joseph Ebi Kanjo

A coalition of civil society organisations has thrown its weight behind the suit filed by His Royal Majesty, King
Bubaraye Dakolo, Agada IV of Ekpetiama Kingdom, Bayelsa State, against Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited in its divestment bid.

The civil society organisations drumming support for King Dakolo in his suit before Justice Ayo Emmanuel of the Federal High Court, Yenagoa, are: Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF); Social Action Nigeria; International Working Group on Petroleum Pollution and the Just Transition in the Niger Delta
(IWG); Bayelsa State Non-Governmental Organisations Forum (BANGOF); HEDA Resource Centre; Kebetkache Women Development and Resource Centre, among others.

In the suit marked: FHC/YNG/CS//2025, HRM, King Bubaraye Dakolo, Agada IV of Ekpetiama Kingdom, is the Plaintiff while Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC) (1st Defendant); Shell Petroleum N.V.(2nd Defendant); Shell PLC (3rd Defendant); Attorney General of the Federation (4th Defendant); Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) (5th Defendant); Minister of Petroleum Resources (6th Defendant) and Renaissance African Energy Limited is the 7th Defendant.

The Plaintiff, through is lawyer, Chuks Ugburu, is seeking a declaration by the honourable court that “the purported sale, assignment, transfer or divestment of the onshore and shallow-water oil and gas assets of the 1st Defendant to the 7th Defendant executed without strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) Regulatory Divestment Framework, and without due consultation with and consent from the Plaintiff is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.”

The Plaintiff is seeking “A DECLARATION that the failure and refusal of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to carry out a comprehensive and participatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Host Community Development Plan (HCDP), Decommissioning and Abandonment Plan, prior to initiating and concluding the divestment process, is a violation of the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021 and international environmental law.”

The Plaintiff is also seeking a “A DECLARATION that the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants have failed in their statutory duties under the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, including their obligations to regulate and monitor the divestment process, ensure stakeholder consultation and due diligence and safeguard the rights and Interests of host communities like the Plaintiff.”

The Plaintiff is also praying the court to declare “the exclusion of Ekpetiama Kingdom and its leadership from the divestment process amounts to a denial of their right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) under international law and renders the divestment process procedurally and legally defective.”

Also, “A DECLARATION that the continued degradation of the environment, livelihoods and health of the people of Ekpetiama Kingdom, as detailed in the expert findings of the report titled “An Environmental Genocide: Counting the Human and Environmental Cost of Oil in Bayelsa, Nigeria”, is a violation of the constitutional and human rights of the Plaintiff, and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants are liable for the same.”

“A DECLARATION that the continuous oil spills, gas flaring, and other environmentally harmful activities of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th Defendants in Ekpetiama Kingdom constitute a violation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to a clean, safe and healthy environment.”

The Plaintiff is seeking “A DECLARATION that the 1s, 2nd, 3rd and 7th Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the environmental degradation, economic loss and public health crisis caused in Ekpetiama Kingdom.

“AN ORDER directing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th Defendants jointly and severally to immediately embark on comprehensive environmental clean-up, remediation and restoration of all polluted sites within Ekpetiama Kingdom.

“AN ORDER mandating the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th Defendants jointly and severally to establish and fund a Community Environmental Rehabilitation Fund for Ekpetiama Kingdom to the tune of $1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion United States Dollars).”

“AN ORDER directing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th Defendants to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $2,000,000,000.00 (Two Billion United States Dollars) as general and exemplary compensation for the losses, pain, and suffering occasioned by the 1 ^ m – 3 ^ m Defendants’ negligent and reckless operations.

“AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing operations in Ekpetiama Kingdom without first conducting an independent and transparent environmental impact reassessment.

“AN ORDER nullifying the purported transfer, sale or assignment of oil and gas assets from the 1st Defendant to the 7th Defendant for substantial and material noncompliance with the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, including failures to comply with mandatory environmental, social, and host community obligations.

“AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st 2nd and 3rd Defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, privies or assigns, from taking any further steps in furtherance of the said divestment to the 7th Defendant or any other person, unless and until full compliance with the provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021 is demonstrated and approved through judicial and regulatory processes.

“AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 7th Defendant from entering, operating, managing, or exercising any rights or obligations over the said divested assets located in or impacting the Ekpetiama Kingdom, until lawful compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory obligations is ensured.

“AN ORDER directing the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants to immediately conduct a thorough, independent, and transparent regulatory review of the divestment process, including Environmental and Social Impact Assessments, Financial and technical capacity of the 7th Defendant and Decommissioning liabilities and community obligations.”

“AN ORDER compelling the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to publicly disclose all agreements, undertakings, financial arrangements and environmental plans relating to the divestment and publish a time-bound plan for remediating environmental harm caused in Ekpetiama Kingdom, with the involvement of the Plaintiff.

“AN ORDER directing the Defendants to jointly and severally undertake immediate remedial measures in Ekpetiama Kingdom as recommended in the “Environmental Genocide” report, including but not limited to clean-up of polluted water bodies and farmlands, provision of potable water and cultural heritage.”

Joining their voices to the Plaintiff, the civil society organisations called on the Federal High Court to “act decisively,” and “restrain Shell and its partners from finalising any asset sale or
divestment until full compliance with environmental and human rights obligations is demonstrated.”

They also urged the court to “compel regulators like the NUPRC to enforce the Petroleum Industry Act
and protect host communities; affirm the rights of indigenous peoples of the Niger Delta to clean environments, safe livelihoods, and full consultation.”

News

SEC Bans CEOs From Becoming Chairmen Without 3-year Break

Published

15 hours ago

June 21, 2025

Editor

The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a new directive prohibiting Chief Executive Officers and Executive Directors from immediately assuming the position of Board Chairman within the same company or group after leaving office.

A mandatory three-year “cool off period” has been introduced before such transitions can take place.

The directive is part of a wider effort to strengthen corporate governance and prevent the concentration of power in public companies and capital market operators deemed to be of significant public interest.

This was disclosed in a circular released by the Commission and signed by the management on Thursday on its website titled “Circular to All Public Companies and Capital Market Operators on the Transmutation of Independent Non-Executive Directors and Tenure of Directors.”

The SEC expressed concern over what it described as a “worrying trend of the transmutation/conversion of Independent Non-Executive Directors (INEDs) to Executive Directors, including to the position of the Chief Executive Officer.”

It warned that such practices undermine board independence.

The Circular reads,”This practice clearly erodes the neutrality of the transmuting INEDs, compromises their ability going forward to provide objective judgment and is generally antithetical to the principles which underpin independent directorship as outlined in both the National Code of Corporate Governance (NCCG) as well as the SEC Corporate Governance Guidelines (SCGG).”

As a result, the Commission has directed the immediate discontinuance of the conversion of INEDs into Executive Directors within the same company or group structure.

The new rules also introduce strict tenure limits. Directors in Capital Market Operators considered to be of significant public interest will now be limited to 10 consecutive years in the same company, and 12 years within the same group structure.

“A Chief Executive Officer or Executive Director who steps down after 10 or 12 consecutive years, as the case may be, cannot be appointed as Chairman until the expiration of a 3-year ‘cool off period’.

“The tenure of such former Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director as Chairman shall be for a maximum of 4 years and no more.”

The SEC said these changes are backed by its powers under Section 355(r)(iv) of the Investments and Securities Act (ISA) 2025, which authorises it to set governance standards for regulated entities.

“The foregoing directives take immediate effect and compliance is mandatory. Public Companies and Capital Market Operators are therefore required to take the directives into account in their board appointments and succession planning,” the statement added.

The Commission also clarified that years already served by current officeholders will count toward the newly established tenure caps.

News

We’ve Initiated Policies, Reforms For Sustainable Health Delivery System — Edo Deputy Gov

Published

18 hours ago

June 20, 2025

Editor

Deputy Governor of Edo State, Hon. Dennis Idahosa has
said that the Senator Monday Okpebholo-led administration has initiated policies and reforms that will ensure a sustainable healthcare delivery system.

Idahosa stated this while chairing the second meeting of the state taskforce on Primary Health Care (PHC), at the New Festival Hall, Government House in Benin.

According to statement by his Chief Press Secretary, Mr. Friday Aghedo, the meeting included the taskforce members, stakeholders, and developmental partners.

In his keynote address, the deputy governor called for societal vigilance and surveillance to help curtail the effects of the outbreak of Dengue Fever and Diphtheria.

He mentioned that the state was putting up concerted efforts at building a responsive and resilient PHC system.

He encouraged members of the taskforce to be solutions driven, as well as be an instrument of change in their quest to disseminate, enlighten and champion a result driven health process that benefits locals across the eighteen local government areas.

He noted that the plan was to make primary healthcare the most accessible form of healthcare in the state to aid better maternal and health outcomes.

Idahosa singled out and commended the Egor local government chairman, Hon. Kelvin Eguaekun, for his concerted effort to network and maintain cleanliness in his council area.

Idahosa informed the state government move to implement a reward system for local government chairmen who play critical roles in their domains by disseminating and implementing processes that showcase the benefits of a cleaner environment to drive down diseases.

Amongst chairmen who pledged to implement reached decisions at the stakeholders meeting included Hon. Haruna Mohammed of Owan East and Hon. Joy Ohonyor of Owan West.