Politics

Presidential Election: Atiku, Obi Move To Replicate Kenya, Malawian Rare Judgements

Published

2 years ago

March 16, 2023

Weeks after the presidential election, many Nigerians have kept hopes alive, believing that their preferred candidate can still be declared winner, this time, not by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, but by the court- the last hope of the common man.

According to the laws of the land, INEC has done its job by conducting, concluding and declaring the winner of the presidential election. The electoral umpire is also bound by the law to review some of its decisions as demanded by some political parties during the collation of results.

The election was said to have witnessed cases of irregularities, votes suppression, massive rigging, manipulations (in the form of rewriting of results and destruction of ballot boxes).

During the collation of results at the national collation centre of the INEC, Abuja, some political parties had staged a walkout over the Commission’s refusal to halt collation of results and to review the process.

The Commission went ahead with the process and announced candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the winner of the election,

The INEC said that Tinubu polled a total of 8,794,726 to defeat his closest rivals and candidates of the PDP, Atiku and Obi who, according to the Commission, scored 6,984, 520 and 6,101,533 respectively.

However, the presidential candidates of the Labour Party, LP, Peter Obi and that of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Atiku Abubakar, made their intent to go to court clear.

Peter Obi categorically said he won the election and expressed the hope of reclaiming his allegedly stolen mandate at the apex court, vowing to do whatever is necessary within the law.

However, hardly any presidential election is annulled in Nigeria. This is despite the fact that after every election there must be some form of challenge to the results and fairness of the process.

Notwithstanding, two decisive exceptions to this rule stand out in Africa- namely the invalidation of the controversial re-election of president Peter Mutharika by the constitutional court of Malawi in 2019 and the Kenyan Supreme Court invalidating the re-election of president Uhuru Kenyatta in 2017. In both cases, the decision was final and required a rerun.

Kenya’s Supreme Court had annulled the presidential election, citing irregularities, and ordered a new one within 60 days after the election commission had declared incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta the winner by a margin of 1.4 million votes.

Other elections, such as the governorship, Senate, Houses of Assembly, among others, in Africa have been annulled or cancelled but that of Kenya appeared to be the first time on the continent that an opposition’s legal challenge against a presidential poll result was successful.

In the Malawian judgement, the court nullified the election of President Mutharika, who was declared winner by the country’s electoral umpire in May 2019, citing massive irregularities during the process.

The verdict followed a court challenge filed by Saulos Chilima, leader of the opposition United Transformation Movement Party, UTMP and Lazarus Chakwera, leader of the Malawi Congress Party, MCP.

The court called for fresh elections within 150 days and also reinstated former Vice President Saulos Chilima.

Moreover, most observers (international and local) and members of the international community did not pass good judgement on the February 25, 2023 presidential election in Nigeria, with some of them saying it was marred with irregularities.

For instance, the US embassy in Nigeria admitted the election conducted did not meet the expectations of Nigerians.

Speaking after the result was announced, the US Ambassador to Nigeria, Mary Beth Leonard, noted that many citizens are not happy with the results of the polls.

Also, while congratulating the INEC-declared President-elect, Tinubu, the UK, through its Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, called on the Nigerian authorities to address the concern of the opposition parties over the organisation of the election.

Other civil society organisations and international observers also noted that the poll was marred by technical challenges.

A coalition of international election observers had blamed INEC for lack of transparency in the conduct of the elections.

The Joint Election Observation Mission (JEOM), involving the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI), led by Joyce Banda, former President of Malawi, spoke in an official gazette released after the election.

The group said 40 of its members were deployed across all six geopolitical regions of Nigeria to observe the voting process, noting that despite the clamours for reforms to the Electoral Act 2022, “Nigerians were mostly not impressed by the conduct of the 2023 presidential and national assembly elections.”

And as Nigerians on both sides of the coin wait patiently for the final verdict of the Supreme Court, supporters of the opposing political parties and candidates will be hoping that the Kenya and Malawi judgements are replicated in Nigeria, while those on the side of victory would not fancy such a historic ruling.

Speaking to DAILY POST on the possibility of the Supreme Court upturning a presidential election in Nigeria, Barr. Olu Omotayo, President, Civil Rights Realisation and Advancement Network, CRRAN, said it is possible for Nigerians to for once witness such ruling, but added that the petitioners must be able to prove their arguments beyond all reasonable doubts,

“In the history of the world it is very rare where you see courts nullifying presidential elections. In this country, we’ve seen where they annulled governorship elections on several occasions,” he said.

“It’s not that [nullifying presidential election] is not possible, but it’s just that you must be able to prove whatever you’re relying upon. So if you’re saying there’s a problem with the election, you must prove it because it’s something that covers the whole country.

“You cannot just say there were irregularities in Lagos so because of that they should cancel the election. You should be able to prove substantially that the irregularities affected the election all over the country and this is the angle people are looking at, that it is not easy because of the population and how large this country is.

“It will not be easy for the petitioner to prove the burden put on his shoulders because the law is in the view that INEC has done what it is supposed to do. So if you’re going to court, just like the presumption of innocence, it’s assumed, under our law, that someone is innocent until proven otherwise.

“So there’s this presumption that INEC has done well, that once they declare the result they’ve done what they were supposed to do. So you that are going to the court will now prove that they’ve not complied with the law and have not done what they were supposed to do. That’s why the burden is heavy on you as a petitioner to prove them otherwise. You that have taken someone to court, it is on you to prove.

“Civil matter is different from criminal matter. In criminal matters, it is presumed that this person is innocent and it’s on you to prove, but you know this electoral matter is special procedure and not just civil matter per se, so if the law says this is what you’ve to establish, you must establish it.

“State is easier because it’s just a micro of the whole country. So it’s easier for people to prove cases of what happened in Local Governments. In Nigeria we have 774 Local Governments. So I’m not saying it’s not possible but it just creates a heavy burden on the petitioner in the presidential election to prove these things.

“According to the law, there’s that presumption of regularity on what INEC has done. But that presumption can be challenged by the petitioner. INEC is protected under the law but it’s only the court that can say that the [electoral umpire] erred.

“The law is on their side. Political parties were calling on them to review their decision but if INEC feels that they don’t have anything to review, it’s only the court that can say the Commission has not done well. So it’s left for the political parties to convince the court.”
DAILY POST

Politics

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

Published

1 day 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

2 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.

Politics

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

Published

2 days ago

September 1, 2025

Editor

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.

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.

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.”

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.

“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.”

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