Opinion
The Oracle: The NASS Cannot Amend the Constitution Through the Back Door
Published
4 years agoon
By
Eric
By Mike Ozekhome
In these trying times of our beleaguered Nation, the NASS should concentrate more on creatively making laws for the peace, order and good government of Nigeria. The recent amendment to the Electoral Act has caused too much needless national hoopla and ruckus. It ought not have been at the centre stage in a sane society. Is barring certain classes of persons from contesting elections simply because they are government appointees Nigeria’s bane at the moment? I think not.
Earlier, the NASS had, by its earlier proposed section 52(3) the amendment bill, sought to strip INEC of its control over elections and subject INEC to the control and supervision of the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) on the critical but sore issue of electronic voting and transmission of results.
This fatal step was later reluctantly reversed after Nigerians rose against it. I had spilled buckets of ink and made several television appearances, advocating to get it extirpated, root and branch, from the amendment bill. The NASS had ignored the fact that under section 158 of the 1999 Constitution, INEC “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person”. They comfortably forgot that it is INEC and INEC alone that is responsible for organizing and supervising all elections to political offices; registering, monitoring of political parties; and conducting voter and civic education, including promotion of sound democratic processes. See also section 153 (f).
THE ALBATROS IN SECTION 84(12), (13) OF THE AMENDED ELECTORAL ACT
The NASS while amending the Electoral Act inserted subsections 12 and 13 into section 84 which, unlawfully, illegally and unconstitutionally disenfranchised serving political office holders from voting or being voted for at conventions or congresses of political parties. The offensive section 84(12) had provided thus:
“No political appointee at any level shall be voting delegate or to be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election”.
Section 84 (13) drives this home, more pungently, thus:
“Where a political party fails to comply with the provisions of this Act in the conduct of its primaries, its candidate for the election shall not be included in the election for the particular position in issue”.
THE ALARMING OUSTER CLAUSE IN THE AMENDED ELECTORAL ACT
I am surprised that all the critics of the Federal High Court judgement in Umuahia delivered by the Honourable Justice Evelyn Anyadike have not adverted their minds to the more worrisome provision in section 84 (15), which, after granting the Federal High Court jurisdiction in section 84 (14), to entertain cases from “an aspirant who complains that the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress”, went on to oust the jurisdiction of all courts on matters concerning primaries, thus:
“Nothing in this section shall empower the courts to stop the holding of primaries or general elections under this Act pending the determination of a suit”.
Interpreted in another way, section 84(15) is saying:
“Courts, please, allow political parties to first do maximum damage during their primaries and general elections, and subsequently entertain emerging suits thereafter after the wrong candidates would have emerged and after resources, time and energy would have been wasted by individuals, political parties, INEC and the electorate to conduct sham elections”. I am worried by this obnoxious ouster clause.
I believe that the above subsections are totally unconstitutional. They are ultra vires the powers of the NASS. What the NASS intended to do by subsections 12 and 13 of section 84 is to amend the Constitution through the backdoor, without going through the tortuous process prescribed in section 9 thereof; which deals with the mode of altering the provisions of the Constitution.
PRESIDENT BUHARI’S EARLIER OBJECTION
President Muhammadu Buhari had initially kicked and refused to assent to the Electoral Bill as initially amended by the NASS, which contained the above sub section. To escape from the avalanche of criticisms that trailed his initial withholding of assent, Buhari later reluctantly signed the Bill into Law; but with a caveat vide a letter to the NASS, to consider amending section 84(12) subsequently. He believed that subsection 84(12) imported into the Constitution extraneous matters such as blanket restriction and disqualification of political appointees who ought to be accorded protection. His argument is that a public officer could resign his office, withdraw or retire from service 30 days before the date of election in accordance with section 66(1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution. I think his handlers should have simply done an Executive amendment bill to the NASS; not a mere letter. But, I agree with his serious reservations about section 84(12).
WHY SECTION 84(12) AND (13) ARE OFFENSIVE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
QUALIFICATION AND DISQUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION
Sections 66 and 107 of the 1999 Constitution provide for circumstances under which certain public officers are qualified or disqualified from contesting for election.
QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION
Let us start with sections 65 (1) and (2) and 106 of the Constitution which deal with qualification for election, as a member of Senate and House of Representatives; and House of Assembly respectively. See also sections 137(1) (g) and 182(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution.
These sections provide that such a person for Senate or House of Representatives or member House of Assembly of a state shall be qualified to contest election if he is a citizen of Nigeria and has attained the age of 35 years (30 years for a House of Representatives members; and 25 years for a House of Assembly member); is educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent; and he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party.
DISQUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION
By virtue of sections 66 (1) and 107 (1) respectively any of the above the Constitution, persons also is disqualified if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a country other than Nigeria; adjudged to be a lunatic or a person of unsound mind; is under a sentence of death, imposed on him by a court of competent jurisdiction; or a sentence of imprisonment or fine involving dishonesty or fraud. Such a person is also not qualified if he is an undischarged bankrupt; is a member of any secret society; or he has presented a forged certificate to INEC.
The most critical subsection for our discussion here, is section 66(1) (f) which provides that if such a person is employed in the “Public service of the Federation” or “Public service of a state” and has not resigned, withdrawn or retired from such employment THIRTY DAYS before the date of election for a State, he shall be disqualified from contesting or being voted for.
Sections 107 (1), 147 (4) and 192(3) deal with offices of ministers of the Government of the Federation and Commissioners in a state, respectively. A minister or Commissioner shall be deemed to have “resigned” his membership of the National Assembly or a state House of Assembly upon taking the Oath of office as a minister or Commissioner.
THE EXTANT LAWS
It is therefore clear, per adventure, that aside the circumscribing and inhibiting factors restricting a public appointee from contesting offices as described above, section 84 (12) and 13 are unconstitutional, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever in so far as they import other extraneous disqualifying factors not provided for or envisaged by the Constitution. The NASS cannot import into the Constitution other additional disqualifying factors.
SECTION 84(12) & (13) ALSO CONTRAVENE SECTIONS 40 AND 42 OF THE CONSTITUTION
Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution grants every Nigerian the right to assemble and associate freely with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests. See Motorcycle Transport Union of Nigeria & ors vs. Delta state Motorcyclist Assoc & ors (2010) LPELR 4503 (CA); Lafia LG vs. Executive Governor Nassarawa state & Ors (2012) LPELR 20602 (SC).
In addition to the above, section 42 accords every Nigerian the right to freedom from discrimination. See Okafor & ors vs Ntoka (2017) LPELR – 42794 (CA); NMCN vs Adesina (2016) LPELR – 40610 (CA) The question is, why will any Nigerian be prevented or barred from being “a voting delegate or to be voted for at the convention or Congress of any political party for the nomination of candidates for any election” when the Constitution (the supreme law) has exhaustively outlined factors barring a person from contesting?
SECTIONS 84 AND 318 OF THE CONSTITUTION CONSIDERED
Section 66(1) (8) only provides for “public service” of the federation or the “public service of a state”. Do political appointees such as ministers, commissioners and personal aids qualify to be protected by these sections. I believe so.
Some people have argued that it is only public servants envisaged in section 84 and as defined in section 318 of the Constitution that are covered by the 30 days resignation notice. Political Appointees who hold offices at the pleasure of their appointor are not public servants within the meaning and intendment of sections 84 and 318 of the Constitution, they pontificate.
Specifically, the Court of Appeal in ONI v. FAYEMI & ORS (2019) LPELR-46622(CA) held that:
“A Minister, being a mere political appointee, cannot be regarded as an employee in the Public Service of the Federation and is consequently not constitutionally caught by the 30 days resignation rule imposed on employees in the Public Service”.
See also the following apposite cases:
Wilson v. Ag, Bendel state & Ors. (1985) LPELR-3496 (SC); PPA v. PDP & ORS (2009) LPELR-4865(CA); Shitta-Bey v. AG Federation & Anor (1995) LPELR-3055 (SC); Abubakar v. The Executive Governor, Gombe state & Ors (2002) LPELR-1124 (CA); MILITARY GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE V. ADEWUNMI (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 82) 280; Ojukwu v. Yar’ Adua (2008) 4NWLR (Pt. 1078/435; AG BENDEL STATE V. AIDEYAN (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 118) 646; ADAMU V. TAKORI (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt 540) 1387 (CA).
I earnestly believe the attention of these courts was NEVER specifically drawn to the definition of “Public Service of the Federation” and “Public Service of a State”. The definition of “Public Service” of the Federation means the service of the Federation in any capacity in respect of the Government of the Federation and includes…….”. The definition of “Public Service of the State” means the service of the State “in any capacity in respect of the Government of the state and includes service as …..”.
Thus, in both cases, the clause “any capacity” is used for both the Federal and State governments. Can anyone plausably argue that ministers, commissioners and other appointees of Mr president or a Governor of a State who draw their salaries, allowances and other perquisites of office from the Federal or State treasury are not engaged in “any capacity” in “respect of the Government of the Federation and State Government”? The other offices lined up in this interpretation section of 318 are merely in addition to, as the section specifically states that the specie of public officers outlined therein is merely in addition to those employed in “any capacity” in both the Federal and state Governments. (To be continued next week)
THE WORLD WE LIVE IN
“If you want to achieve something, you have to forget the boundaries that people create. No one knows your capabilities more than you” – (Anonymous).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” (Henry Kissinger).
Related
You may like
By Boma Lilian Braide Esq.
The water remembers. It remembers when we were queens and kings of the creeks, when our voices carried across the rivers like thunder, and when no external force could dictate the terms of our existence.
Today, as a daughter of the Ijaw nation, I look at our political landscape and my heart breaks into a thousand pieces. The recent withdrawal of Pastor Tonye Cole from the political race reopened a wound that never properly healed. I immediately texted him a single, urgent question: “Why?” His response was a resigned, familiar phrase; “It is well.” At that exact moment, my thoughts were screaming so loudly inside my head, “Not again!” It felt like a brutal repetition of an old script. Every single time, without fail, they treat the Ijaw man badly, pushing him out of the room where decisions are made.
This leadership class continually trades our birthright for political crumbs, leaving me with a profound sadness I cannot shake. Every four years, we are forced to watch the same exhausting, predictable cycle play out. We have become the laughing stock of the Nigerian politics. We roar like lions in the morning, only to allow ourselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter house by nightfall. This pattern is not merely a string of tactical errors. It is a structural and psychological condition that has calcified into our political culture. We begin every election season with unparalleled bravery, massive energy, clarity, and a list of demands. We mobilise, we protest, we declare our rights. Yet at the decisive moment we fold. We trade collective power for personal gain. We accept crumbs while the harvest is taken from our lands allowing our leaders to be used as mere pawns, chess pieces, and foot soldiers on a board completely controlled by outsiders.
Call it what it is, a political Stockholm syndrome. When a people are held hostage by extractive systems for generations, they can begin to see the captor as a provider. When political actors poison our rivers, burn our gas, and extract our wealth, then return during elections with token gifts, the damaged political imagination can mistake those gifts for benevolence. A motorcycle, a solar lamp, a bag of rice, or a ten thousand naira note becomes a substitute for structural justice. We applaud the giver and forget the theft.
This is not a partisan indictment. The major parties have all participated in this system. From the coastal edges of Ondo and Edo, through Rivers and Bayelsa, to the riverine communities of Delta and Akwa Ibom, the script is the same. Political machines arrive with cash and spectacle. They leave with votes. They do not stay to build roads, to clean oil spills, to fund health care, or to restore fisheries. They do not invest in education or in the infrastructure that would make our communities resilient. They know they do not have to. They know that the combination of poverty, fragmentation, and short-term survival instincts will deliver the votes they need.
The spectacle in Rivers State is instructive. The conflict between an incumbent and a predecessor is not only a personal rivalry. It is a mirror of a deeper structural problem. An Ijaw son may occupy the governor’s office, but the expectation of loyalty to an external power broker remains. When disagreements arise, the Ijaw polity does not close ranks. Instead, it fractures. Elders, youth groups, and political actors align with different external centres of power. We tear ourselves apart while the larger system remains intact.
Delta State offers another painful example. The region produces a disproportionate share of the oil wealth that sustains the state and the nation. Yet Ijaw communities are routinely relegated to secondary roles in governance. The highest offices are often out of reach. When an Ijaw candidate shows real ambition, the pressure to step down, to accept a consolation prize, or to be bought off intensifies at the last minute. The result is a steady stream of symbolic representation and token appointments that do not translate into structural change.
Even Bayelsa State, our most homogenous political home, has not been immune. The state has been turned into a dependent outpost. Political life there is often conducted under the shadow of Abuja. During elections, communities are militarized. Young people are paid paltry sums to snatch ballot boxes and intimidate their neighbours. The leaders who emerge from such processes rarely prioritize environmental remediation, health care, or education. They prioritize survival within the national political economy.
Why do we accept this? Part of the answer lies in a minority complex that has been cultivated over generations. We have been taught to believe that because we are numerically small and geographically dispersed across several states, we cannot set national terms. That belief is false. Our geographic position along the southern maritime border gives us leverage. Nigeria’s economy cannot function without the peace of our creeks. Yet we negotiate from a position of weakness because we lack a unified, non-partisan political command structure.
Other major ethnic blocs in Nigeria have developed cultural mechanisms that protect collective interests across party lines. They maintain consensus on key strategic questions and punish those who betray the collective. The Ijaw political house, by contrast, is fragmented. We are divided into Western, Central, and Eastern blocs. Internal jealousy and rivalry consume us. When an Ijaw son or daughter rises to prominence, it is sometimes their own people who are recruited to pull them down. This internal sabotage is a major reason we are treated as expendable by national political machines.
Our representatives in national assemblies and federal boards are often the most silent and compliant. They vote for policies that harm our region because they want to protect their personal seats and committee positions. We have forgotten the intellectual foundation of our struggle. Our fathers did not rely on muscle alone. They fought with logic and strategy.
Harold Dappa Biriye used constitutional arguments to demand minority rights during the pre-independence conferences. Isaac Adaka Boro presented a detailed economic manifesto during the twelve-day revolution, exposing the systematic underdevelopment of the Delta. The Kaiama Declaration of 1998 linked environmental justice with true federalism in a way that remains a model for strategic political thinking. Today, that intellectual tradition has been eroded by a culture of thuggery, praise singing, and the pursuit of quick money.
The social and economic costs of our political submission are visible everywhere. Schools sink into the mud. Primary health centres lack basic medicines. Women die in childbirth because there are no functional boats to transport them to urban hospitals. Rivers that once sustained us are coated with crude oil. Gas flares burn day and night, releasing toxins that cause cancers and respiratory diseases. In any functioning democracy, such environmental devastation would provoke electoral punishment. But our people accept ten-thousand naira, wear party uniforms, and return the same leaders to office.
This pattern is not only morally wrong. It is strategically suicidal. The global energy transition is underway. The world is moving away from fossil fuels. In a few decades, crude oil will no longer be the primary driver of the global economy. When that happens, the Nigerian state’s willingness to distribute minor rents, amnesty stipends, and pipeline contracts will evaporate. If we remain politically domesticated and economically dependent, we will be discarded once our resources lose value. We will be left with a ruined environment and a population unprepared for the modern economy.
Breaking this cycle requires a radical transformation of our political behaviour. It requires both immediate reforms and long-term institution building.
First, we must refuse to sell our votes for temporary relief. If politicians bring money during elections, take it because it is a fraction of your stolen wealth, but enter the voting booth and vote fiercely against them if they have not delivered real, systemic progress. The act of taking money and voting against the giver is not a moral ideal. It is a pragmatic tactic that recognizes the reality of survival while asserting political agency.
Second, we must create a culture of community accountability. Any Ijaw politician, elder, or youth leader who sells out the collective interest for personal gain must face social consequences. They should be stripped of traditional honours, excluded from community gatherings, and greeted with public disapproval rather than celebration. The cost of betrayal must be made higher than the reward offered by external actors.
We must also institutionalize our collective strength. The Ijaw nation needs a permanent, non-partisan political and economic council composed of our finest minds. This council should include intellectuals, legal experts, economists, and community builders from across the globe. Its mandate would be to define a multi decade Ijaw National Agenda that transcends party lines. Any Ijaw person entering politics should be bound by that agenda. Any external political force seeking our cooperation should be required to commit to its verifiable execution.
Again, we must build strategic alliances with other coastal minority groups. From Calabar to Badagry, the coastal communities share common interests in environmental protection, maritime economies, and regional development. A unified coastal voting bloc would create a political force that no national party can ignore. Such an alliance would also strengthen bargaining power for federal resource allocation and environmental remediation.
Fifth, we must shift our economic focus from pipelines to the blue marine economy. Our future lies in the ocean. We must invest in community owned industrial fishing fleets, deep sea shipping logistics, local shipbuilding yards, and aquaculture networks. We must develop port infrastructure and maritime training centres. Economic independence is the foundation of political courage. When our communities can fund their own schools, hospitals, and water systems through independent marine enterprises, we will no longer beg for crumbs.
Sixth, we must invest in education and leadership training. Political courage is not loud rhetoric. It is disciplined strategy. We must train a new generation of leaders who understand constitutional law, public finance, environmental science, and international trade. We must teach negotiation skills, coalition building, and institutional design. The Ijaw struggle must be intellectualized and professionalized.
Seventh, we must reclaim our narrative. For too long our story has been told by others. We must document our history, our legal claims, and our environmental evidence. We must use the courts, the media, and international forums to hold polluters and complicit officials accountable. We must turn our lived experience into verifiable claims that can be litigated and publicized.
Finally, we must practice disciplined solidarity. Political unity does not mean uniformity of opinion. It means a shared commitment to core strategic objectives. It means agreeing on red lines that cannot be crossed. It means supporting candidates who commit to the Ijaw National Agenda and sanctioning those who betray it.
The hour is late. The cost of our political naivety is visible in every polluted river, every jobless youth, and every broken promise. We cannot enter another election cycle with the same broken playbook. We must reject transactional politics and demand structural change. We must hold our leaders accountable and refuse to celebrate personal appointments that bring no collective benefit.
We must heal ourselves of this political Stockholm syndrome. We must stop loving the systems that destroy us and begin the difficult work of building lasting political infrastructure. The future of the Ijaw nation depends on our ability to transform our pain into strategic power. The water is watching. The spirits of our ancestors who resisted colonial domination are watching. We must rise, cleanse our minds of dependency, and stand with dignity. The era of last minute surrender must end. The time for strategic, sovereign Ijaw political courage has arrived.
Related
Opinion
Leadership in Africa: Forging a New Era of Self-Reliance, Unity and Global Relevance (Pt. 3)
Published
1 month agoon
May 23, 2026By
Eric
By Tolulope A. Adegoke
“True leadership in Africa is not the pursuit of power, but the courage to serve — to turn the pain of yesterday into the promise of tomorrow, to bind broken hearts into one destiny, and to raise a continent where every son and daughter can stand tall, not by pulling others down, but by lifting one another higher.” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD
Building upon the foundational principles and practical pathways discussed in Parts 1 and 2, this continuation explores the deeper implementation strategies, institutional reforms, cultural shifts, and long-term vision required to translate African leadership into tangible, sustainable transformation. It addresses the realities on the ground while offering forward-looking, actionable recommendations that can help Africa move from potential to performance on both regional and global stages.
Institutional Reforms as the Backbone of Transformative Leadership
Visionary leadership without strong institutions is like a beautiful dream without a foundation. Africa’s progress depends on building institutions that are resilient, transparent, and people-centred.
Leaders must prioritise civil service reform, judicial independence, and anti-corruption mechanisms that are not only punitive but preventive. For example, Rwanda’s use of performance contracts (imihigo) for public officials has created a culture of accountability and results. Similarly, Ghana’s strong electoral commission and relatively independent judiciary have helped sustain democratic stability. These models show that when institutions are strengthened, leadership becomes less about individual charisma and more about systemic effectiveness.
Regional institutions such as the African Union, ECOWAS, SADC, and the East African Community must also be reformed. They need greater financial autonomy, faster decision-making processes, and clearer enforcement mechanisms. The African Union’s current efforts to reform its Peace and Security Council and operationalise the African Standby Force are steps in the right direction, but they require consistent political will and adequate funding from member states.
Cultural and Mindset Transformation
Leadership that builds Africa must also transform mindsets. Many of the continent’s challenges are rooted in colonial-era thinking, dependency syndromes, and a culture of short-termism.
Progressive leaders should invest in cultural renewal programmes that celebrate African excellence, innovation, and resilience. This includes supporting the creative industries — Nollywood in Nigeria, Afrobeats music, and contemporary African literature — which are already projecting positive African narratives globally. Educational systems must move beyond rote learning to foster critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and entrepreneurial spirit.
Youth leadership development is particularly crucial. With over 60% of Africa’s population under the age of 25, the continent’s future depends on preparing young people not just for jobs, but for leadership. Initiatives like the African Union’s Youth Agenda and national youth service programmes should be expanded and made more impactful.
Economic Transformation and Self-Reliance in Practice
True self-reliance requires deliberate economic restructuring. Leaders must champion value addition in agriculture, mining, and natural resources. Instead of exporting raw cocoa, cotton, or crude oil, African countries should invest in processing facilities that create jobs and capture more value domestically.
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offers a historic opportunity. When fully implemented, it can boost intra-African trade, reduce dependence on external markets, and create new industries. Leaders who actively remove non-tariff barriers, harmonise standards, and invest in cross-border infrastructure will be remembered as the architects of Africa’s economic renaissance.
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) should be strengthened, with clear frameworks that protect national interests while attracting responsible investment. Countries like Morocco and Ethiopia have shown how strategic industrial policies can attract foreign direct investment while building local capacity.
Global Relevance: Africa as a Solution Provider
Africa must stop seeing itself solely as a recipient of global solutions and begin positioning itself as a contributor. The continent’s vast renewable energy potential, youthful population, and rich biodiversity give it unique advantages in addressing global challenges such as climate change, food security, and digital innovation.
Leaders who understand this will invest in research and development, patent African innovations, and engage confidently in global forums. The success of African pharmaceutical companies during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of African tech unicorns demonstrate that the continent can compete and lead when given the right environment.
A Balanced and Hopeful Conclusion
Africa stands at a historic crossroads. The challenges — poverty, inequality, climate vulnerability, and governance gaps — are real and significant. Yet the opportunities — a youthful population, abundant natural resources, cultural richness, and growing regional integration — are even greater.
Leadership remains the decisive variable. When leaders rise above narrow interests to serve the collective good, Africa does not just survive — it thrives and offers the world new models of resilience, innovation, and inclusive growth.
The path forward requires a new covenant: between leaders and citizens, between nations and regions, and between Africa and the global community. This covenant must be rooted in trust, mutual accountability, and shared vision. With the right leadership — courageous, ethical, inclusive, and strategic — Africa can forge a new era of self-reliance, unity, and global relevance.
The question is not whether Africa can rise. The question is whether its leaders, supported by an awakened citizenry, will summon the will, wisdom, and courage to make that rise unstoppable. The world is watching, and history is waiting to record the choices made in this decisive decade.
Africa’s story is still being written. With visionary leadership, it can become one of triumph, dignity, and global excellence.
Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke, AMBP-UN is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His mission is dedicated to advancing ethical governance, strategic human capital development, resilient nation building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.com, globalstageimpacts@gmail.com
Related
Related


Alleged Coup: Court Orders DSS to Probe VDM over Leaked Trial Video
Glo Extends “Borrow Me Credit” Services for Customer Inclusion
Senate Passes Bill Establishing State Police in Nigeria
US Govt Releases Names of Terrorism Financiers Amid Growing Insecurity
How I Made Buhari President in 2015 – Amaechi
Presidential Ambition: Is Donald Duke a Spoiler?
Insecurity: Why Tinubu Must Wake Up
Senate Passes Bill Establishing State Police in Nigeria
US Govt Releases Names of Terrorism Financiers Amid Growing Insecurity
Glo Extends “Borrow Me Credit” Services for Customer Inclusion
Alleged Coup: Court Orders DSS to Probe VDM over Leaked Trial Video
Trending
-
National8 hours agoSenate Passes Bill Establishing State Police in Nigeria
-
World14 hours agoUS Govt Releases Names of Terrorism Financiers Amid Growing Insecurity
-
News5 hours agoGlo Extends “Borrow Me Credit” Services for Customer Inclusion
-
National4 hours agoAlleged Coup: Court Orders DSS to Probe VDM over Leaked Trial Video

