Politics

Why G5 Betrayed Atiku, PDP In 2023 — Ortom

Published

2 months ago

July 18, 2025

Editor

Former Governor Samuel Ortom of Benue State, yesterday, explained why he and other members of the G5 Governors’ Forum opposed the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, in the 2023 elections.

But in a push back, the former Vice President, described them as frustrated opportunists, who are searching for relevance.

Also, the PDP similarly, accused Ortom of acting out of personal interest rather than genuine concern for fairness and equity in the 2023 elections.

This came as a former Presidential aspirant, Mr Dele Momodu formally resigned from the PDP, citing what he described as the hijacking of the party by antidemocratic forces.

Ortom, a leading member of the G5 group of PDP governors, said the party’s failure to respect equity, fairness, and justice was the reason they chose to stand against it.

Speaking on Arise TV, yesterday, Ortom said the G5 had insisted that the presidency should shift to the South after eight years of Northern rule under President Muhammadu Buhari, but the PDP’s decision to field Atiku, also a Northerner, went against that principle.

“I acted as I did because we had expected the PDP to uphold equity, fairness, and justice, values I hold dear.

“When the majority of PDP members supported a Northern candidate, we deemed it unjust. We’ve always stood for equity, fairness, and justice, and we felt the presidency should alternate between the North and South for eight years each,” he said.

As chairman of the PDP’s zoning committee, Ortom noted that although the committee recommended an open contest, he personally pushed for a Southern candidate.

He stressed that the party’s National Executive Committee, NEC, had the final say, which led to Atiku’s candidacy.

“I presented the committee’s report as it was, and the NEC made the final call. I couldn’t override the collective decision,” Ortom explained.

On the role of Nyesom Wike, now Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, in the crisis, Ortom revealed, “We fought for Wike to be the PDP’s presidential candidate, but unfortunately, he didn’t secure the nomination. We also believed he should have been the running mate. I was part of the 20-member committee tasked with selecting a running mate, and 16 of us supported Wike. However, the candidate and the party leadership decided otherwise.”

Ortom defended supporting opposition candidates in 2023, saying politics was based on interests. “Politics revolves around interests. There’s no permanent enemy or friend in politics. It’s about protecting the interests of your community, your people, and yourself,” he stated.

He also addressed criticism that he and Wike tried to “destroy” the PDP by supporting opposition candidates. Ortom compared their strategy to that of other PDP members who backed Peter Obi of the Labour Party or Bola Tinubu of the APC.

“Peter Obi wasn’t in the PDP, but we agreed on a strategic partnership to demonstrate our influence. Some of us supported Peter Obi, others supported Tinubu, and we ended up with the current government. If God has given us President Bola Tinubu, why shouldn’t we support him?” Ortom added.

Looking to the 2027 elections, Ortom reaffirmed his support for a Southern presidential candidate and stressed the importance of respecting power rotation.

“My position is clear. I will support a Southern candidate. I see no reason to support a Northern candidate in 2027. By 2031, if someone from the South expresses interest in the presidency, I will still advocate for it to shift to the North. That’s based on my belief in equity and fairness.”

Ortom on criticism over alleged bias in Benue State politics, where he is accused of favouring the Tiv ethnic group, said: “I’ve fought for fairness and have advised other ethnic groups on what they need to do. I agree it’s unfair for one group to dominate the governorship since the creation of Benue State. However, politics also involves the majority. The Tiv people occupy Zones A and B, while the Idoma and Igede are in Zone C. It’s a matter of political dynamics, and I’ve encouraged other groups to organise and assert themselves.”

On crisis in the PDP, he said: “As politicians, we understand that politics revolves around interests. There’s no permanent enemy or friend in politics. It’s about protecting the interests of your community, your people, and yourself.”

Ortom, others opportunists—Atiku

Reacting to Ortom’s claims, the former Vice President said there was nothing noble about the G5’s rebellion.
Atiku, who spoke through his Special Assistant on Public Communication, Mr. Phrank Shaibu said the Benue governor was trying to play the ostrich.

He said: “Let us be clear: there was nothing noble about the G5’s rebellion. It was not a stand for justice—it was a gamble rooted in personal ambition, ego, and frustration over political miscalculations. The PDP’s zoning committee, which Ortom himself chaired, recommended an open contest. That decision—adopted by NEC—was not imposed by Atiku Abubakar or any Northern bloc. It was a democratic resolution, endorsed by the party’s highest decision-making body. To now feign surprise or outrage over a process one midwifed is to play the ostrich.

“Furthermore, the notion that Atiku Abubakar was the continuation of ‘northern rule’ ignores the critical reality that Atiku is, first and foremost, a democrat—a bridge between regions, religions, and ideologies. His ambition has never been based on geography.

“As for Ortom’s newfound allegiance to a ‘Southern Presidency,’ the question must be asked: which South? In one breath, he endorsed Peter Obi of the Labour Party, and in the next, stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Nyesom Wike, who threw his weight behind Bola Tinubu of the APC. This ideological hopscotch betrays not a devotion to justice, but an opportunistic drift in search of relevance.”

Their motives were self-serving— PDP

Similarly, the PDP tackled Ortom, accusing him and his group of acting out of personal interest rather than genuine concern for fairness and equity in the 2023 elections.

A member of PDP National Working Committee, NWC, who spoke to Vanguard in confidence, questioned Ortom’s motives and role in forming the G5 group, suggesting his opposition may have been more political than principled.

The party leader noted that Ortom and the then PDP National Chairman, Senator Iyorchia Ayu, are from the same local government area and ethnic group.

The NWC member said: “If Ortom is talking about fairness, he should remember that both he and Ayu come from the same place. He was the one who recommended Ayu for the chairmanship. There was no disagreement until Atiku emerged as the party’s candidate.

“Now that the PDP is planning to zone the presidential ticket to the South in 2027, will Ortom support the party? Will he go back on his endorsement of Tinubu and work for the PDP?

“Politics is about teamwork. One person’s opinion should not override the decisions of the majority. If you want to play solo, then start your party.”

The PDP urged Ortom and others to put aside personal ambitions and support the party’s rebuilding efforts ahead of the next general elections.
(VANGUARD)

Politics

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

Published

4 hours 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

22 hours 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

23 hours 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.