The Independent National Electoral Commission on Wednesday officially recognised the David Mark-led leadership of the African Democratic Congress.

This development followed a period of internal restructuring within the party, which culminated in the emergence of new national officers aimed at repositioning the ADC ahead of future electoral contests.

READ ALSO:Why We Are Yet To Recognise ADC Leadership – INEC

Alongside Mark, other principal officers now officially acknowledged by INEC include Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary, Dr. Ibrahim Mani as National Treasurer, Akibu Dalhatu as National Financial Secretary, and Professor Oserheimen Aigberaodion Osunbor as National Legal Adviser.

With this formal endorsement, the ADC leadership is expected to commence a nationwide reconciliation and mobilisation effort, as the party seeks to strengthen its presence across the country ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Details later….

The Ijaw and Urhobo ethnic extractions of Warri Federal Constituency have declared boycott of the ongoing Continuous Voter Registration (CVR) exercise, demanding that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) implements the final report of the Supreme Court-ordered fresh delineation of electoral wards and units in the constituency.

In a peaceful protest to the INEC headquarters, Abuja, Tuesday, they expressed deep worry over the ongoing INEC’s CVR in the Federal Constituency.

The protesters who carried placards with inscriptions such as “Warri Federal Constituency: No Ward, No Units for CVR”, “CVR Today is Political Fraud in Warri Federal Constituency”  and “INEC, Give Us the Final Report,” were drawn from Warri North, Warri South and Warri South West local government areas making up the Federal Constituency.

Spokesman of the groups, Chief David Reje from the Egbema Clan of Warri North Local Government Area, accused INEC of undermining the constitutional rights of the people by conducting the CVR with the “defunct arrangement” that the Supreme Court had earlier nullified.

READ ALSO:[JUST IN] Warri Delineation: DSS Arrests British Army Officer, Others, Seizes 57 AK 47, Six Pump Action, Others

Reje, expressed who displeasure over such old arrangement, noted that despite INEC’s field exercise and stakeholders engagements, which produced a new delineation report in compliance with the apex court judgment, the commission has failed to release and implement the final report.

“Our patience and cooperation are being taken for granted as machinery has been set in place to disenfranchise us from participating in future elections.

“We can no longer wait while our democratic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court judgment are being eroded” Chief Reje warned.

He said they had travelled from Warri to Abuja to draw INEC’s attention to their plight, warning that they might be compelled to occupy the commission’s premises until their demands were met.

“They described the move as the second phase of their “non-violent struggle to restore political dignity.”

READ ALSO:Warri Constituency Delineation: Ijaw Leaders Tackle Itsekiri Over Claim

Reje further noted that they had come under “consistent pressure” from their people and could not guarantee that the agitation would remain contained if INEC continued to ignore the court order.

He demanded that INEC must immediately release and implement the delineation report and the CVR should only proceed on the basis of the newly approved electoral arrangements.

“We shall not stand idly by and watch our democratic rights and franchise frittered away. A stitch in time saves nine,” he maintained.

INEC National Commissioner, Abdullahi Abdulzuru, in his response assured the peaceful protesters that their concerns over the implementation of the Supreme Court-ordered delineation of electoral wards and units will be addressed.

READ ALSO:Renewed Tension In Warri As Itsekiri, Urhobo Youths Clash

He commended the groups for adopting a peaceful approach in presenting their grievances and acknowledged receipt of their formal petition.

“I have listened carefully to your demands and read through your submission. I will tender the documents to the commission,” Abdulzuru said.

He further stressed that INEC is a law-abiding institution with no intention of disenfranchising any group of Nigerians.

“As a commission, we are committed to upholding the law. There is no intention, as far as INEC is concerned, to disenfranchise anybody from any exercise. We will get back to you be rest assured,” he added.

The controversy over the eligibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan to join the 2027 presidential race took a twist last week when it emerged that a court had cleared the obstacle to his being sworn in for the third time as president.

Critics had cited Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which provides that no elected person into public office in Nigeria shall be sworn-in more than twice, basing their argument on the former president’s swearing-in in 2010 after his predecessor, the late President Umaru Yar’Adua, died in office, and 2011 when he won his own election. He left office in 2025 after losing reelection and the Section 137(3) wasn’t law until 2018, three years later, triggering the argument on whether or not the law can apply to him retroactively.

Significantly, some leaders of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) are pushing for him to contest on the platform of the party the 2027 presidential election.

Vanguard obtained the judgment of the Federal High Court Yenagoa which heard the case and the trial judge, Hon. Justice Isa H. Dashen, while reviewing the submissions made before him on May 27, 2022, quoted copiously from the Counter-Affidavit in which Jonathan made his case, saying he could not be legally stopped from participating in presidential election in the future based on Section 137(3) of the Constitution.

Dashen agreed with the former president’s position.

Curiously, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which were both joined as Defendants in the suit filed by two persons who described themselves as APC members (Andy Solomon and Ibidiye Abraham), failed to make appearances despite being served with all the processes, forcing the presiding judge to remark that they agreed with all the facts of the case as pleaded by the Plaintiffs and Jonathan who was the First Defendant.

On this, he noted: “As earlier stated, both 2nd and 3rd Defendants (APC and INEC) did not file any processes in response or reaction thereto despite service of the Originating process on them.

“In the locus classicus case of OYEYIPO VS OYINLOYE (1987) I

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

NWLR (Part 50) 350, the Apex Court held thus: ‘A Defendant who fails to enter appearance or file Counter-Affidavit in response to the averments in support of the Originating Summons would be presumed to have Demurred and admitted the facts deposed to in the Affidavit filed in support Originating Summons.

“See the recent case of FUTMINA & ORS VS OLUTAYO (2017)

LPELR- 43827 (SC) and CHEVRON (NIG) LTD VS IMO STATE

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY AND ORS (2016) LPELR- 41563 (CA) where the Appellate Courts confirmed the above position”.

The Jonathan case
Dashen, in his judgment while referring to Jonathan’s Counter-Affidavit in which he made his case, said: “The 1st Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit is of Twelve (12) paragraphs and is deposed to by one Engr. Peletiri John Debetimi who described himself as an Assistant to the 1st Defendant.

“One (1) exhibit marked as Exhibit EKOI was annexed to the said Counter-Affidavit.

“Exhibit EKOI is a copy of the Official Gazette containing the 4th Alteration to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

“In summary, the 1st Defendant’s response, as stated in his Counter-

Affidavit, is that he has never been ‘elected’ into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on Two (2) previous occasions.

“The 1st Defendant stated that the oath of office he took on the 6th of May, 2010 was taken upon his ‘Election’ as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“The 1st Defendant further asserted that he took the said oath to complete the aborted tenure of the late President Umar Yar’ Adua.

“The 1st Defendant referred the Court to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of CYRIACUS NJOKU VS.GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN (2015) LPELR-24496 wherein the Court of Appeal held that the oath of office he took on 6th May, 2010 cannot be taken into account in the interpretation of the provisions of Section 137(1) (b) of the Constitution.

“The 1st Defendant, thereafter, stated that he has only been elected to the Office of President once and in year 2011.

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

“With respect to the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution, the 1st Defendant stated that from Exhibit EKOI (i.e. the Official Gazette of the 4th Alteration of the Constitution), ‘Commencement’ date of the said amendment to the provisions of Section 137 of the Constitution therein contained is said to be ‘7th Day of June, 2018’. “Therefore, the 1st Defendant contended that the amendment introduced by sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution came into effect and became operational from 7th June, 2018.

“On the basis of the foregoing, the Defendant contended that since he took the first oath of office as President in year 2010 and the second oath of office in year 2011 respectively, the 4th Alteration of the Constitution which took effect from th June, 2018 cannot be applied retrospectively to prevent him from exercising his right to contest for the Office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which said right accrued to him since year 2015 before the 4th Alteration to the Constitution was effected.

Three questions
“In his written address, the 1st Defendant formulated three (3) questions for the determination of this Court.

“Whilst the 1st Defendant adopted questions 2 and 3 submitted by the Plaintiffs, he re-phrased question 1 submitted by the Plaintiffs.

“Therefore, the questions submitted by the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant are congruent and are not substantially different.

“The questions submitted by the 1st Defendant read as follows:

1. Whether in view of the provisions of:

a. Section 137(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered); and

b. Section 137 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) (as contained in the 4th Alteration (No.16) Act 2017), the 1st Defendant is qualified to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections.

2. If the answer to 1 above is in the affirmative, then: Whether the

2nd Defendant is entitled to field the 1st Defendant as its presidential candidate in the 2023 General Elections.

3. Whether the 3rd Defendant is entitled to disqualify the 1st Defendant from contesting and/or from 2nd Defendant’s presidential candidate in the 2023 General Elections.

“Again, at paragraphs 4.00 4.05 of his written address, the 1st Defendant raised a Preliminary Point challenging the locus standi of the Plaintiffs to institute the instant suit.

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

“I shall deal with this preliminary point whilst considering the substantive Originating Summons.

“On the basis of the foregoing, the 1st Defendant asserted that he is eminently qualified to contest for and/or nominated for election into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“The 1st Defendant therefore urged the Court to discountenance the Plaintiffs’ contentions and answer the questions submitted in the Originating Summons in his favour and against the Plaintiffs and refuse the reliefs sought for by the Plaintiffs”.

For the part of the Plaintiffs, the questions they wanted resolved by the court, according to the judge, are:

1. 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 the 1st Defendant had earlier been sworn-in as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2010 and 2011 respectively, the 1st Defendant 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 (INEC).

2. If the answer to 1 above is in the negative, then: Whether the 2nd

Defendant (APC) is entitled to field the 1st Defendant as its presidential candidate in the 2023 General Elections.

3. Whether the 3rd Defendant (INEC) is entitled to disqualify the 1st Defendant (Jonathan) from contesting and/or from being presented as the 2nd Defendant’s (APC) presidential candidate in the 2023 General Elections.

Juxtaposition
Reading his judgment, Justice Dashen said: “Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties, I am of the view that the determination of the application or otherwise of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution to the 1st Defendant lies on the juxtaposition of the date when the 1st Defendant claims to have acquired his present right to be sworn-in as President and the date on which sub- section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution took effect.

“The starting point is to acknowledge the fact that sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution was not originally part of the corpus of the Constitution. Sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution was introduced by the 4th Alteration to the said Constitution.

“Although the 1st Defendant attached the Official Gazette wherein this alteration was published as Exhibit EKO I (i.e. Exhibit) to his Counter-Affidavit, this Court is empowered to take judicial notice of the law by virtue of the provisions of Section 122(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2011. A cursory look at Exhibit EKO1 (i.e. Exhibit) will reveal that the 4th Alteration introduced a restriction with regard to the number of times a person, sworn-in as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to complete the term for which another person was elected, can be sworn-in as President after completing the remainder of the said term.

“Sub- section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution states that any person who was so sworn-in shall, after completing the term of such other person, be eligible to be only elected to the office of President for a single term.

“Further scrutiny of Exhibit EKOI (i.e. Exhibit) also reveals that the 4th Alteration was enacted by the National Assembly in 2017; however, the ‘commencement’ date for same was expressly set for ‘7th Day of June, 2018’.

“Having the benefit of reading the Official Gazette (i.e. Exhibit ÉKO1), I therefore have no difficulty in holding that provisions of subsection (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution took effect from 7th June, 2018. And I so hold”.
(VANGUARD)