Connect with us

Politics

Impeachment: Full Lists Of Allegations Against Gov Fubara, Deputy

Published

on

The Rivers State Assembly on Monday begun proceedings to impeach Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Prof. Ngozi Odu.

The state House of Assembly served a notice of alleged misconduct on the Governor and his deputy on Monday.

Advertisement

This commenced the process of impeaching Fubara and his deputy from office.

Here is full list of the allegations being filed against the Governor by the House:

1. “That His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State refused to present the Rivers State Appropriation Bill, 2024 to the Rivers State House of Assembly contrary to Section 121(1)(2) of the Constitution and disobeyed the order of the Federal High Court in Suit no. FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023 which declared that “thus as it stands in law, no Appropriation Bill of Rivers State has been presented neither has any of such Bill being passed into law as the purported presentation, passage and signing into law of the Appropriation Bill 2024 of Rivers State is void ab initio” and ordered him to present the Appropriation Bill 2024 to the House.

Advertisement

2. “That His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State authorized or approved withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Rivers State in the 2024 financial year of Rivers State without an appropriation law duly passed by the Rivers State House of Assembly contrary to Section 120 of the Constitution.

3. ”That His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State violated Section 122 of the Constitution by authorizing expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Rivers State even after the Rivers State House of Assembly declared a shutdown on Rivers State Government expenditure in a resolution passed at the 4′ Legislative day of the Second Session of the 10th Rivers State House of Assembly which held on Monday the 15* day of July 2024, thereby relegating the constitutional resolution passed by the House to the background.

4. ”That on Friday the 28th of February 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria before their Lordships Uwani Musa Abba Aji JSC, Ibrahim Mohanned Musa Saulawa JSC, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC, Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme JSC and Jamilu Yammama Tukur JSC in Suit no. SC/CV/1174/2024 restored the Judgement of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 which confirmed that Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State never presented an Appropriation Bill for 2024, still does not have an Appropriation Law for 2025 so, ordered that “the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation should forthwith stop releasing and paying to the Government of Rivers State, its organs, departments and officials any money belonging to Rivers State until an Appropriation law is made by Rivers State House of Assembly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution”.

Advertisement

5. “Hindering or obstructing the Rivers State House of Assembly which is another arm of government protected by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) from performing her constitutional duties.

6. “That His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS ordered and personally supervised the demolition of the Rivers State House of Assembly Hallowed Chamber and Auditorium at the Rivers State House of Assembly Complex, Moscow Road, Port Harcourt on the 13th day of December 2023. This action was in contravention of the ex parte order of the Federal High Court in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2013 issued on the 30* of November, 2023 which declared “that the Rivers State House of Assembly is a constitutional institution that needs to be preserved pending the determination of the Motion on Notice dated and filled 29th November, 2023.”

READ ALSO: FULL TEXT: Rivers Assembly’s Accusation Against Fubara, Deputy

Advertisement

7. “That the Judgement delivered on the 220d of January 2024 in favour of the Rivers State House of Assembly where the presiding judge-Justice J.K Omotosho in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2013 condemned the act of demolition and stated that “this Court finds it strange that the 11th defendant as Chief Executive of the State would go to the extent of stopping the authentic House of Assembly from sitting through devious means such as destroying the House of Assembly Complex” is noteworthy.

8. “That the Supreme Court in Suit No.: SC/CV/1174/2024 delivered on the 28 of February 2025 took judicial notice of the illegal demolition and condemned the action of the Governor of Rivers State wherein it was stated that “surprisingly on 13-12-23, in gross violation of the subsisting Order of the trial Court, the appellant demolished Rivers State House of Assembly complex at Moscow Road and secretly arranged four members of the 15 Respondent led by Rt. Hon, Ehie Ogerenye Edison to a place outside the premises of the said House of Assembly and held a sham sitting of the 1s Respondent”.

9. “Appointment of persons to occupy offices/positions in the Rivers
State Government without allowing for the requirement of screening and confirmation as prescribed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), other extant laws but making the request for screening to persons other than the legitimate Rivers State House of Assembly.

Advertisement

10. “That His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State made several appointments which are in contempt of the Order of the Federal High Court in a Judgement delivered in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023 that prohibited him from dealing with any other persons or House other than the Rivers State House of Assembly under the leadership of Rt. Hon. Martin Chike Amaewhule as Speaker.
This judgement which was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court stated among other things that “AN ORDER is hereby made restraining the 11th Defendant from howsoever or in whatsoever manner making any request, presentation or nomination to the Rivers State House of Assembly except to the Rivers State House of Assembly under the leadership of the 2d Plaintiff as Speaker”.

READ ALSO: UPDATED: Rivers Assembly Accuses Fubara, Deputy Of Misconduct, Issues Notice

11. “That His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State failed to forward the name of a nominee for appointment as Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in line with Section 192(2) & (6) as well as Section 195(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended to the legitimate Rivers State House of Assembly as declared by the Judgement of the Federal High Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023 but chose to announce one Mr. Dagogo Iboroma to assume the said position.

Advertisement

12. “That His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS illegally swore-in several other persons who were purportedly confirmed by certain individuals for appointment into the Rivers State Executive Council on Tuesday 21st May, 2024 namely- Prince Charles O. Beke; Collins Onunwo; Solomon Eke; Peter Medee; Elloka Tasie-Amadi; Basoene Joshua Benibo; Tambari Sydney Gbara and Ovy Orluideye Chinendum Chukwuma without screening and confirmation by the Rivers State House of Assembly in full compliance with Section 192(2) & (6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. Others who were sworn in on Tuesday 13th of August 2024 are Illamu Arugu; Rowland Obed Whyte; Samuel Anya; Samuel Eyiba and Austin Emeka Nnadozie while Israel Ngbuelu; Evans Bipi;
Otamiri Ngubo and Benibo Alabraba were sworn in on Monday 7th October 2024. Emmanuel Frank-Fubara was sworn-in on the 8th of July 2024 amounting to a total number of 19 persons parading themselves and misleading Rivers people that they are Commissioners with your tacit approval.

13. “That His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State illegally swore-in Mr. Lawrence Oko-Jaja as Chairman; Earnest Ibekwe Ekwe; Mina Ogbanga; Iseleye Amachree and Adokiye Oyagiri as members of the Rivers State Bureau on Public Procurement on Friday 30th of August 2024 without screening and confirmation by the legitimate Rivers State House of Assembly as stipulated in Section 4(a) of the Rivers State Public Procurement Law No. 4 of 2008. Others are Gift Alex-Hart; Grace Osaronu and Selinah Amonieah as members.

14. “That His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State engaged Mr. Goodlife Ben as Chairman;
Emmanuel Jaja; Betty Warmate; Jerome Chimenem; Prince Ohochukwu; Philip Okparaji and Christian Amadi as members of the Rivers State Local Government Service Commission without screening and confirmation by the legitimate Rivers State House of Assembly contrary to Section 44(3) of the Rivers State Local Government Law No. 5 of 2018.

Advertisement

15. “That His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State made the illegal appointments and refused to rescind his actions even after several letters were sent to him and published in the electronic and print media following resolutions of the house.

READ ALSO: JUST IN: Rivers Assembly Members Accuse Fubara, Deputy Of Gross Misconduct

16. “His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State seized salaries of some members of the Rivers State House of Assembly which were hitherto paid monthly from the Ministry of Finance of Rivers State. The month of April, 2024 was the last time monthly salaries were paid to Rt. Hon.
Martin Chike Amaewhule; Rt. Hon. Dumle Maol; Hon. Major Jack; Hon. Franklin Uchenna Nwabochi; Hon. Christopher Ofiks Kagbang; Hon. Azeru Opara and Hon. Enemi Alabo George. Others in the same fate are Hon. Granville Tekenari Wellington; Hon. Solomon Wami; Hon. Bernard Mgbar; Hon. John Dominic Iderima; Hon. Queen Uwuma Tony Williams and Hon. Lolo Isaiah Opuende. Hon. Peter Abbey; Hon. Igwe-Obey Aforji; Hon. Justina Emeji; Hon. Ignatius Onwuka; Hon. Chimezie Nwankwo; Hon. Lemchi Prince Nyeche as well as Hon. Barile Nwakoh; Hon. Emilia Lucky Amadi;Hon. Nkemjika Ezekwe; Hon. Davids Arnold Okobiriari; Hon. Sylvanus Nwankwo and Hon. Gerald Oforji are also affected.

Advertisement

17. “His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State seized funds standing to the credit of the Rivers State House of Asembly since the month of April 2024 in a bid to frustrate the House and cripple her activities as well as relegate the Judgement of the Federal High Court in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023 to the background. The Judgement stated that ” AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION is hereby granted restraining the Governor of Rivers State (the 11th Defendant) whether by himself or his servants or agents and/or the executive arm of the Government of Rivers state, including the 12th, 13th and 14th Defendants (by themselves individually or collectively), or by their servants or subordinates from withholding any amount standing to the credit of Rivers State House of Assembly in Consolidated Revenue Fund of Rivers State including salaries and emoluments due and payable to the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and other members of staff of the House or in any manner whatsoever denying the Rivers State House of Assembly of the due fund for running its affairs including the payment of salaries, allowances, emoluments and meeting its financial obligations no matter how described.”

18. “His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, Governor of Rivers State illegally withheld the salary of the Clerk of the Rivers State House of Assembly contrary to the Judgement of the Federal High Court in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023 which stated that ” AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION is hereby granted restraining the Governor of Rivers State (the 11h Defendant) whether by himself or his servants or agents and/or the executive arm of the Government of rivers state, including the 12th, 13th and 14th Defendants (by themselves individually or collectively), or by their servants or subordinates from withholding any amount standing to the credit of Rivers State House of Assembly in Consolidated Revenue Fund of Rivers State including salaries and emoluments due and payable to the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and other members of staff of the House or in any manner whatsoever denying the Rivers State House of Assembly of the due fund for running its affairs including the payment of salaries, allowances, emoluments and meeting its financial obligations no matter how described.”

“Mr. Speaker, we conclude by stating that the Governor has shown that he is not prepared to govern Rivers State in line with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and his oath of office. The Supreme Court in Suit No.: SC/CV/1174/2024 condemned his actions when it stated that “the 8th respondents fear of impeachment by the House of Assembly is no justification for his attacks on the House of Assembly, the Constitution, the Government of Rivers State and the rule of law. Political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the Governor of a State or any person. What the 8th respondent has done is to destroy the government because of fear of being impeached”.

Advertisement

Politics

Court Ruling Clears Jonathan For 2027 Presidential Bid Amid Pressure From Parties

Published

on

As the possibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan contesting the 2027 presidential election continues to heat up political discussions, a previously unpublished  judgment delivered by a Federal High Court in Yenagoa,  Bayelsa State, affirmed that Jonathan was well qualified to contest presidential election.

Two members of the APC in Bayelsa had gone to court in 2022 to determine Jonathan’s position, given the high stakes northern lobby to mobilise Jonathan to replace late President Muhammadu Buhari before the now President Tinubu eventually clinched the APC ticket.

Advertisement

Aides to the former President said he is still consulting on whether to throw his hat in the ring for  2027.

Sources close to the former President told THISDAY last night, that he has been approached by three political parties each wanting him to contest the presidency on their platforms. The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP,  the New Nigeria Peoples Party, NNPP and the recently formed coalition, the African Democratic Congress, ADC all jostling for the former President who many see as one of the most viable candidates that can give the incumbent President Bola Ahmed Tinubu a good run for his money.

This calculation is based on the fact that Jonathan can only legally seek one more term and could assuage the feelings of northern voters who accuse President Tinubu of marginalisation.

Advertisement

A claim that the presidency has vigorously denied.

The judgment delivered by Justice Isah Dashem  of the Federal High Court, Yenagoa, on May 27, 2022 but obtained by THISDAY on Monday, put to rest the contentious constitutional amendment of Section 137(1)(b) and 3, as it affects Jonathan.

Various analysts led by the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development and Learned Silk, Festus Keyamo, had claimed that the PDP may put  its presidential chances in 2027 at “risk” should they field Jonathan going by  the provisions of the above section from the amended Constitution in 2018. However, Keyamo did not disclose or was unaware of the judgement of Justice Dashem.

Advertisement

The judgment, which has not been appealed or set aside remains subsisting. And it is now out of time for any appeal after 3 years since it was delivered In the 2022 suit with number: FHC/YNG/CS/86/2022, the two APC members sued Jonathan, APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), over rumour that the APC had planned to field the former president as its presidential candidate in the 2023 general elections.

Their grouse was that Jonathan’s participation would ruin the chances of the APC having taking oath of office twice as president.

READ ALSO:APC Mocks Jonathan As ADC Woos Him For 2027 Race

Advertisement

The sole issue raised for determination was “Whether, in view of the provisions of | Section 137(1)(b) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as altered) and the fact that Jonathan had earlier been sworn-in as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2010 and 2011 respectively, whether he is qualified to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections to be organized by the 3rd Defendant.”

The plaintiffs, Andy Solomon and Idibiye Abraham, through their lawyer, Seigha Egbuwabe, further urged that if the answer to (1) above was in the negative, then the court should determine “Whether the no 2” Defendant was entitled to field the 1st Defendant as its Presidential Candidate in the 2023 General Elections.”

The court was also to determine, “Whether the 3rd Defendant is entitled to disqualify the 1st Defendant from contesting and/or from being presented as the 2nd Defendant Presidential Candidate in the 2023 General Elections.”

Advertisement

Dashem, after taking arguments from plaintiffs’ lawyer and Jonathan, who was represented by Eric Omare, held that Jonathan was eminently qualified to contest in 2023.

Before arriving at the conclusion, Dashem observed that Jonathan was elected first as president in 2011.

The office into which the ‘election’ stated in Section 137(1)(b) of the Constitution applies to the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and not into the Office of the Vice President. I have perused the entirety of the Plaintiffs supporting affidavit and Written Address and I am unable to find where the Plaintiffs referred this Court contested apart from the elections conducted in year 2011.

Advertisement

“I, therefore, find the Plaintiffs’ contention that the 1st Defendant has been elected to the Office of President on Two (2) previous occasions spurious, baseless and unsubstantiated.

READ ALSO:Keyamo Warns PDP Against Fielding Jonathan, Obi In 2027

“And I so hold.”

Advertisement

He clarified that although elections into the offices of President and Vice President were conducted simultaneously and upon a joint ticket submitted by a political party, such as the 2nd Defendant, to the 3rd Defendant, the positions of President and Vice President were two different offices.

According to the judge, election of a person, such as the 1st Defendant, into the Office of the Vice President is not the same as his election into the Office of the President and vice-versa.

The judge stated, “A person who is elected into the Office of Vice President cannot by virtue of such election simpliciter, occupy the position of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I so hold.

Advertisement

“As I have noted above, the Plaintiff did not file a Reply Affidavit to dispute the facts contained in paragraphs 4(i) — (y) of the 1st Defendant’s Counter Affidavit. The legal implication of this failure is that the contentions of the 1st Defendant are deemed to be true.

“In the final analysis, I find that, the evidence before this Court points to the conclusion that the 1st Defendant has only been elected into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on one (1) previous occasion, which said occasion was in the General Elections conducted in year 2011. And I so hold.”

On the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution, Dashem stated that Jonathan was sworn in as president in 2010, to complete the tenure of late President Umaru Yar’Adua and again in 2011, after he won the 2011 presidential election.

Advertisement

He agreed with Jonathan’s submissions that the said provisions, which sought to bar persons who completed another’s tenure from contesting twice, did not apply to him because the law was passed in 2018, when he already had the right to contest and contested in the 2015, general elections.

READ ALSO:2027: Jonathan’s Cousin Tackles Keyamo Over Ex-president Not Qualified Comment

Dashem said, “As I have held above, the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution was not part of our Constitution prior to June 7, 2018, when same took effect. It, therefore, follows that the provisions of sub-section (3) was not the position of our law at all material times before June 7, 2018. It also follows that, prior to June 7, 2018, no restriction was placed on the number of times a person who was sworn-in to complete the term of office of a President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can be re-elected into that Office.

Advertisement

“The 1st Defendant has argued that, since he acquired his right to contest and, if successful, be sworn-in as President after he lost his re-election bid, in 2025, to the current President – President Muhammadu Buhari  it would be unethical to the spirit and intendment of the legislature to take away the right he acquired in year 2015 on the basis of a law that came into effect in 2018.

“Now, the position of the law on retroactive or retrospective application of laws is quite settled. Retroactive laws are which relate or cover matters or acts which occurred before its commencement date.”

The judge added, “Despite my best efforts, I fail to see where the legislature expressed their intention, by express and unequivocal words, that the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution should be accorded retrospective application.

Advertisement

“In the absence of such express words, I am constrained to hold that the provisions of Section 137(3) do not enjoy retrospective application. The application and enforceability of the said subsection can only be construed to apply with effect from June 7, 2018. And I so hold.

“In my opinion, the position being propounded by the 1st Defendant is not only tenable but accords with the position of the law. It is the duty of the Plaintiffs to point or direct this Court to where the legislature stated that the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution apply to events and/or rights which have been acquired and/or have been vested in parties prior to June 7, 2018.

“The law is that, he who asserts must prove. See, Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. It therefore, behoved the Plaintiffs to provide this Court with facts to support their case. In the absence of such proof, I find that the Plaintiffs have not discharged the burden of proof placed on them by law.

Advertisement

READ ALSO:2027: Jonathan May Get Automatic Ticket, If… – PDP

I, therefore, find merit in the argument of the 1st Defendant that the introduction of sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution does not affect his right to contest for the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections and be sworn-in as such, should he be victorious at the polls.

“As I have noted above, before, in year 2015 when the 1st Defendant lost his re-election bid into the Office of the President, the restriction imposed by subsection (3) to Section 137 was not in existence. This is why the 1st Defendant despite having been sworn-in as President on May 6, 2010 and May 29, 2011, was able to contest for the Office of the President in the 2015 General Elections.

Advertisement

“Had the 1st Defendant been victorious at the 2015 polls, he would have been sworn-in for a third time without any legal impediment. Therefore, the 1st Defendant acquired his right to contest for the Office of the President immediately his term as President ended on May 29, 2015. Clearly, it is incontrovertible that the Ist Defendant’s right to contest and be sworn-in as President accrued to and was vested in him on May 29, 2015. And I so hold.

“In the final analysis, I answer Question 1 formulated by the Plaintiffs in their Originating Summons in the affirmative.

“I declare that, the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution acquired the force of law with effect from June 7, 2018 and same does not have retrospective application.

Advertisement

“I also declare that, the 1st Defendant is not disqualified by the provisions of Section 137(1)(b) and (3) of the Constitution from contesting for election into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections.

“Having answered Question 1 in the affirmative, the necessity to answer Questions 2 and 3 have been obviated. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I answer Question 2 in the affirmative also whilst I answer Question 3 in the negative.

“In the final analysis, I answer questions 1 and 2 posed in the Originating Summons in favour of the 1st Defendant and question 3 in the negative and therefore against the 3rd Defendant.

Advertisement

“Consequently, I enter Judgement for the I Defendant and all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs in their Originating Summons dated May 16, 2022 (but filed on May 17, 2022) fail and are all hereby dismissed.”
Source: Arise News

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

El-Rufai Hits Back At ONSA, Kaduna, Insists Agencies Paying Bandits

Published

on

Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, on Monday rebutted the statements from the Office of the National Security Adviser and Kaduna State Government that accused him of politicising national security.

He maintained his previous accusation that the agencies turn security into a political tool and are complicit in payments to bandits.

Advertisement

In a lengthy response posted on his social media accounts, El-Rufai said the ONSA and Kaduna government were deflecting from the “core issues” he raised in a Channels Television interview.

He levelled fresh allegations that state actors have been involved in “greasing the palms” of non-state armed groups in Kaduna and neighbouring states.

The statement read, “As usual, the combined voices of the Government of Kaduna State (KDSG) and ONSA, instead of responding to the core issues I raised, seek to deflect responsibility by alleging that exposing them amounts to politicising security.

Advertisement

READ ALSO:Father, Son, 72-year-old Arrested For Defiling Minors

As a person whose three siblings served in the Nigerian Army and the Air Force, with one of them rising to the rank of general, I will also continue to appreciate the immense work that continues to be done by gallant officers of the military and security agencies.

“It is a well-known fact to discerning Nigerians that the face of the politicisation of national security for politically intended purposes resides, for the first time in our recent history, in the ONSA under its present leadership.

Advertisement

“If the ONSA thinks Nigerians are not following its unclear and incompetent management of terrorism and banditry in Northern Nigeria and beyond, in collaboration with a certain senator, also from the North, then it is high time it carried out an in-depth evaluation and review of its actions.”

El-Rufai asked a string of pointed questions, urging authorities to explain what he described as the mechanics of alleged payments to bandits: who delivers the money, how much is handed over, and whether middlemen skim funds before delivery.

He also challenged officials to account for recent purchases of prime real estate in Abuja, which he suggested could be linked to illicit flows.

Advertisement

READ ALSO:How Atiku, El-Rufai, Amaechi Can Learn From Tinubu’s School Of Politics

This charade by ONSA is being done gleefully at a steep cost to the finances of the country and the ethical fabric of our society.

“The constitutional, legal and patriotic duty the government owes to security is to better support our military and security agencies with more resources like personnel, equipment and technology, rather than further endangering the country by mollycoddling bandits.

Advertisement

“What exactly constitutes ‘negotiations with bandits’? Why is non-kinetic approach to addressing banditry and criminality equal to withdrawals of huge amounts of money from state treasuries and handing them over to bandits and terrorists?

“Which officials and their intermediaries deliver this money, and how much personal withholding tax do they apply before delivery of the funds? Who are the most prolific purchasers of prime real estate in Abuja in the last two years, and what is the source of their newfound wealth?

“These are questions many discerning citizens are demanding answers to, while officials of ONSA and KDSG are focusing on protocol, propaganda and international junkets!”

Advertisement

El-Rufai further questioned the effectiveness of recent negotiations with bandits, saying attacks resumed after talks.

READ ALSO:Keyamo Warns PDP Against Fielding Jonathan, Obi In 2027

After the much-publicised negotiations with bandits in Birnin Gwari… did the bandits not kill five citizens in the same Birnin Gwari LGA last month?” he asked, also listing other local government areas where kidnappings and killings allegedly continued.

Advertisement

He criticised what he described as ONSA’s public displays, including the parade of “rescued victims” and the attendance of senior security officers at political events in Kaduna, as examples of politicised security messaging.

The former governor, who led Kaduna for eight years, reiterated his respect for the military and security agencies and recalled working with numerous service chiefs during his tenure.

Our appreciation for the sacrifices made by our military and security officers is deep. That is why we speak out about those saddled with immense responsibility two years ago who seem to view security management as a persistent exercise in propaganda,” he continued.

Advertisement

El-Rufai also accused the Kaduna State Government of sponsoring or enabling violence against political opponents, pointing to last weekend’s disruption of an African Democratic Congress meeting in Kaduna as evidence.

He concluded by urging ONSA and Kaduna authorities to focus on solving insecurity rather than “muzzling” dissent.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

2027: Jonathan’s Cousin Tackles Keyamo Over Ex-president Not Qualified Comment

Published

on

A cousin of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Robert Azibaola, has criticised the Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo and human-rights scholar Prof. Chidi Odinkalu for opposing the speculation that Jonathan may run in the 2027 presidential poll.

Robert said this in a statement posted on his verified Facebook page on Monday.

Advertisement

Keyamo had warned the Peoples Democratic Party against handing its ticket to Jonathan, arguing that his return bid would face legal obstacles since he had already been sworn in twice as president.

READ ALSO:APC Mocks Jonathan As ADC Woos Him For 2027 Race

However, Robert said Jonathan did not welcome “unsolicited legal advice” and insisted the former president is “100% constitutionally and legally qualified to contest, if he chooses to.”

Advertisement

The statement read, “Dear Festus Keyamo (SAN), Chidi Odinkalu (Prof), I greet both of you. For the record, three of us are lawyers. We were all pro-democracy activists in the ’90s, and I was a better activist than both of you combined.

“Rule No. 1: Do not offer legal advice where none is solicited. GEJ (PDP) has numerous, more cerebral, more experienced SANs at his disposal who give him sound, unblemished professional legal advice.

READ ALSO:Keyamo Warns PDP Against Fielding Jonathan, Obi In 2027

Advertisement

“Please note: GEJ is 100% constitutionally and legally qualified to contest, if he chooses to. If he decides not to yield to the overwhelming calls to run, it will not be because he is unqualified.

“Your unsolicited legal view is not of any concern to him and will never be. Don’t waste your precious time dwelling on this. Or should I schedule a meeting so you can be properly educated on the subsisting court judgments on the matter—one of which your party, APC, was a party to?”

Robert added, “This is not a confirmation that GEJ is running, though.”

Advertisement

While Jonathan has not formally declared a 2027 presidential run, his rumoured return has already fuelled debate in political circles.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending