Politics

Osun LG Crisis: Adeleke, Oyetola In Verbal War

Published

7 months ago

February 17, 2025

Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, on Sunday, called on President Bola Tinubu to warn the Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Adegboyega Oyetola, against unleashing mayhem in the state, starting from today (Monday).

But in a swift response, Oyetola, in a press statement on Sunday, refuted Adeleke’s claim that he was plotting to destabilise Osun State, saying his antecedents, pedigree and track records of public service in the last 15 years do not support Adeleke’s claim.

“For the four years he governed Osun, he gave a good account of himself as a man of peace, a respecter of the rule of law and one not given to violence. If he is given to violence, he would certainly have fought back violently in 2022 when was brazenly rigged out,” a statement by Oyetola’s media team said.

The statement said anyone accusing Oyetola of violence “needs to have his/her head properly examined.”

Speaking at a press conference in Osogbo on Sunday, Adeleke accused Oyetola of orchestrating a plan to enforce the verdict of the Court of Appeal, Akure Division of February 10, which allowed the appeal filed by the local government chairmen elected on the platform of the All Progressives Congress in the October 15, 2022 election.

The elected LG officials were sacked by a decision of Justice Nathaniel Ayo-Emmanuel of an Osogbo Federal High Court on November 25, 2022.

But following the Court of Appeal’s decision, they have been angling to return, a situation that did not sit well with the Adeleke-led administration, which has fixed February 22 to conduct a fresh LG poll.

At the weekend, Oyetola, who is the immediate past governor of Osun, held a meeting with APC stakeholders in Osogbo and called on the security agencies to facilitate the return of the sacked APC LG chairmen back to office.

In response to Oyetola’s call, Adeleke, on Sunday, held a press conference, where he declared Oyetola’s call as an invitation to anarchy or violence in the state.

Adeleke, who was flanked by the state Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Oluwole Jimi-Bada, and the Commissioner for Information, Kolapo Alimi, insisted that the Court of Appeal judgment, which the APC LG chairmen were bandying, did not make an express order returning them to office.

He alleged that Oyetola had met with and given instructions to security chiefs in the state, including the Osun State Commissioner of Police, Mohammed Abbar, the Director of the Department of State Services and the Commandant of the Civil Defense Corps, Mr. Igbalawole Sotiyo, to help the sacked LG chairmen back to office.

“Before I continue this address, let me affirm that I know Mr. President to be a true democrat, a lover of the rule of law, and a believer in the sanctity of the judicial process. I know, as a matter of fact, that Mr. President will never authorise a dictatorial violation of the constitution irrespective of who is involved. It is crucial to add that Mr. President will never support any action that is capable of generating bloodbath and bloodshed.

“I, however, regret to inform Mr. President and the public that Mr Gboyega Oyetola has concluded an arrangement to cause mayhem in Osun State, starting from Monday. He is issuing illegal directives to security operatives to enforce illegality simply because he is the nephew of Mr. President.

“I chose to alert the nation before my people are killed or maimed by a minister dropping the name of Mr. President in connivance with the Osun state security operatives obeying unlawful orders,” Adeleke said.

He described Oyetola’s push to return the sacked LG chairmen to office as “brazen effrontery”.

Adeleke said, “Let me make it clear that the said council chairmen were sacked before I was sworn in as governor of Osun State, contrary to the lies being peddled, that the chairmen and councilors were sacked by my Executive Order.

“For emphasis, l want to state that I had nothing to do with the sacking of the chairmen and councilors produced by the Osun 2022 local government polls. The chairmen and councilors were sacked by two different judgments of the Federal High Court in Osogbo.

“The script Mr Oyetola is playing is about the most reprehensible abuse of power in this Fourth Republic, capable of untold and unforeseen consequences on the polity.

“The general public is aware that there were two different Federal High Court judgments on the local government election of 2022. The first judgment was on the suit filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, which sacked the product of the 2022 polls. The second judgment was on the suit filed by the Action People Party, which also sacked the chairmen and councillors produced by the said 2022 Osun local government polls.

“The APC appealed against the judgment obtained by the PDP was partially successful, and the said judgment was struck out based on the timing of filing, having been filed before the notice of election was published.”

Adeleke insisted that no consequential orders were given by the Court of Appeal to return the sacked APC LG chairmen to office.

“It needs to be emphasised that the judgment contains no consequential orders. The APC, in its amended Notice of Appeal, asked the Court of Appeal to reinstate the sacked chairmen and councillors, but the Court of Appeal, in its wisdom, said it had become an academic exercise. The request for the reinstatement of the chairmen and councillors was not granted.

“However, the appeal by the APC against the APP judgment did not succeed at the Court of Appeal, which makes the judgment still subsisting and alive.

“The Court of Appeal dismissed the APC appeal against the judgment obtained by the APP. The only legal recourse open to the APC is to appeal the APP judgment and the subsequent rulings of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.

“The Certified True Copies of both judgments had earlier been forwarded to the Osun State Commissioner of Police, the state Director of the DSS and the state Commandant of Civil Defence by the Osun State Attorney General, for their information and records.

“The Certified True Copies of both judgments are in the public domain. The judgment of the Court of Appeal on the PDP case was not ambiguous whatsoever. It simply struck out the PDP suit and did not in any of its paragraphs order the reinstatement of the sacked council chairmen and councilors.”

Adeleke called on legal experts and the Nigerian Bar Association to fact-check by reading and interpreting the judgments on Osun’s last local government elections, noting that it remained “illegal, unconstitutional, and anti-democratic to take the law into your own hands.”

“For a serving minister, the person of Mr Gboyega Oyetola to lead the charge to violate the Constitution and foment violence over a judicial process is not only shameful but is sadism and treason taken too far.

“We have it on good authority that Mr Gboyega Oyetola has instructed the Osun State Commissioner of Police, the state Director of the DSS and the state Commandant of civil defence corps to mobilise security operatives from within Osun to effect the non-existent judgment by forcefully taking over the local governments on Monday.

“Mr Oyetola and the police boss have been holding a series of meetings on how to effect the illegal operations. We affirm that Mr Gboyega Oyetola has no constitutional authority to issue directives to the security agencies.

“The fact that Mr Oyetola is nephew of Mr. President does not confer any such authority on him. We see this as a gross betrayal of trust reposed in the Osun State security officers by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“I want to state that the current nefarious activities of Mr Oyetola and the bosses of Osun security agencies constitute grave incitement. These need to stop because we are neither interested in resorting to self-help nor in support of violence to resolve political matters. As much as we are law-abiding people, we are fierce protectors of our rights, at night and by the day.

“I want to place on notice the Nigerian public, and our friends in the diplomatic community and the lovers of democracy and rule of law that our people will not accept any attempt to impose illegality and anarchy on us.”

Adeleke, therefore, appealed “to Mr President, who is a renowned democrat, to insist on the rule of law by instructing the Inspector General of Police, the Director General of DSS, the Commandant General of the Civil Defence Corps not to obey an illegal order from his nephew, Mr Gboyega Oyetola.”

“I call on Mr President, to instruct the National Security Adviser, and the Attorney General of the Federation, to personally verify the fact that the Court of Appeal judgment did not reinstate the sacked local government chairmen and councillors and the fact that there is a subsisting judgment of the court that sacked the chairmen and councillors produced by the 2022 local government polls.

“The Nigerian public should hold Mr Gboyega Oyetola and the Osun State security chiefs responsible for any breakdown of law and order in the state tomorrow, Monday, and beyond.

“It is unfortunate that the Osun state security chiefs are taking instructions from Mr Gboyega Oyetola just because he is the nephew of Mr. President. As much as we will do our best to maintain peace, we call on men and women of goodwill to intervene before it is too late,” Adeleke stated.

But while reacting, Osun APC Chairman, Tajudeen Lawal, dismissed the allegations and urged Adeleke to comply with the court order and give protection to the reinstated council chairmen and councillors.

Lawal, at a press conference held at Tinubu/Shettima House in Osogbo on Sunday, accused Adeleke of whipping up sentiments to seek undue public sympathy.

“As a responsible party, we have been civil and law-abiding; that is why we have been seeking every legal means to ensure that the law takes its due course,” Lawal said.

He described Adeleke’s press conference as “yet another media tactic to mislead members of the public in the state and beyond over his government’s continued disobedience to a valid appeal court judgment delivered on 10th February 2025 that reinstated the lawfully elected local government officers.”

Commenting in a similar vein, ex-governor Oyetola, in a statement made available to journalists in Osogbo, debunked the allegation that he was plotting to destabilise Osun State, saying his antecedents, pedigree and track records of public service in the last 15 years does not support Adeleke’s claim.

The former governor has appealed to his successor to respect the Appeal Court judgment, rather than resort to cheap blackmail, which has no place in the law.

“Again, in 2022, when Governor Ademola Adeleke employed extra-judicial means to sack democratically elected council officials, Oyetola as the leader of the party, never preached violence. Instead, he led the party members to court.

“Thankfully, his party won at the appeal last week. And as a peace-loving leader, he appealed to security agencies to enforce the judgment of the court. How can such a man be accused of a destabilisation plot? I think anyone accusing Oyetola of violence needs to have his/her head properly examined.

“The minister is further seizing this opportunity to appeal to his successor to respect the appeal court judgment, rather than resort to cheap blackmail, which has no place in law,” the statement reads in parts.

Providing insight into the judgment of the Court of Appeal and it implications, Osun APC Legal Adviser, Mr. Adegoke Ogunsola, said Adeleke misled the public with his claims, urging security agencies not to allow the situation to degenerate into crisis.

Insisting that the appellate court did not only find the APC appeal meritorious but also allowed the appeal in a unanimous decision, which has sought, among others, reinstatement of the elected officers, Ogunsola also said that, “Neither the state government nor the Peoples Democratic Party finds any errors in the judgment in respect of which no any appeal was filed.”

“It is surprising, however, that the state government has begun to deploy so many tactics to avoid enforcement of the judgment which ought to be automatic. Governor Ademola Adeleke and his men had at the initial stage alleged that the judgment did not reinstate the sacked officers but after the colossal failure of this, they rushed to one other lower court judgment of the APP.

“The most disturbing aspect of it occurred when the whole governor of a state descended so low and falsely levelled unfounded allegations against the persons of the Honourable Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Alhaji Isiaka Adegboyega Oyetola and the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

“The governor unsuccessfully attempted to twist the express language of the judgment when he erroneously assumed the duty of the judiciary of interpretation of law. It is very much unfortunate when the governor further in a figment of imagination asserted that the minister was leveraging on a contrived relationship with the President to direct the law enforcement agents to act.

“Finally, the Inspector General of Police and all other security apparatus are called to ensure that the misleading information as released by the government is not allowed to degenerate into crisis as same are capable of inciting crises.”
(PUNCH)

Politics

Edo Govt, PDP Bicker Over Okpebolo’s Absence ,₦4.2bn SUV Budget

Published

2 days ago

September 4, 2025

Editor

The Edo State Government and the state chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on Thursday traded words over an alleged absence of Governor Monday Okpebolo and his deputy , Hon Dennis Idahosa in the state.

In a statement signed by
Chris Nehihkare, Publicity Secretary,
State Caretaker Committee of the PDP, the party also accused the Edo State Government of budgeting a whooping #4.2bn for Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV) and overbloating the State Executive Council with 28 Commissioner nominees.

Nehihkare, who said “absence of both leaders, who are currently on foreign trips, is an unprecedented abdication of duty,” alleged that their absence has left Edo in a “dangerous leadership vacuum.”

“The reckless dereliction of responsibility has plunged Edo into a dangerous leadership vacuum at a time when citizens are groaning under economic hardship, worsening insecurity, and stalled public services—direct consequences of the ineptitude of the APC-led administration at both the federal and state levels,” the statement reads.

The opposition party raised the alarm over what it called a “disturbing level of wasteful spending by the Okpebholo administration.”

According to the PDP, “the government plans to spend ₦4.2 billion on luxury SUVs for these commissioners, with each vehicle priced at an estimated ₦150 million.

“This reckless expansion of government comes on top of a growing army of Special Advisers, board chairmen, members, and heads of parastatals—appointments that have driven the cost of governance in Edo to an all-time high,” the statement added.

The party accused the administration of prioritizing luxury and patronage over the welfare of Edo citizens.

It criticized the government’s failure to follow the lead of other states that are using increased federal allocations to improve worker welfare and raise the minimum wage.

“While other states are prioritizing workers’ welfare by raising the minimum wage in line with increased allocations from the Federation Account, the Okpebholo/Idahosa administration is fixated on buying SUVs, ‘sharing the money,’ and settling political IOUs,” the party noted.

The statement added: “Are Okpebholo and Idahosa unaware that farmers in Uhunmwonde and Ovia North-East have abandoned their farmlands due to attacks by armed gangs?” the statement questioned. “Do they not know that kidnappers continue to terrorize highways and communities across Edo, while markets in Benin and other cities are no longer safe, with traders forced to close early out of fear?”

The PDP, therefore, called on the governor and his deputy to return from their foreign trips and confront the “urgent task of governance,” which it said includes restoring security, paying workers, rehabilitating infrastructure, and improving public services.

However, in a shift reaction, Chief Press Secretary to the governor, Fred Itua, said the Edo State deputy governor, Hon Dennis Idahosa had since returned to the country and is discharging his duty diligently .

He urged the public to disregard the “falsehoods peddled by the PDP.

“Edo State is not rudderless. It is firmly on course under the purposeful leadership of Governor Monday Okpebholo and his deputy, Rt. Hon. Dennis Idahosa,” he added.

Politics

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

Published

4 days ago

September 2, 2025

Editor

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

“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.

“And I so hold.”

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.

“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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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

Politics

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

Published

4 days ago

September 1, 2025

Editor

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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!”

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

“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.

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.

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.