Opinion
The Oracle: The NASS Cannot Amend the Constitution Through the Back Door (Pt. 2)
Published
4 years agoon
By
Eric
By Mike Ozekhome
INTRODUCTION
SECTIONS 84 AND 318 OF THE CONSTITUTION CONSIDERED (Continues)
Last week, we commenced our analysis of sections 84(12) and 318 of the 1999 Constitution. Today, we x-ray these sections further to demonstrate that the sections have been so gravely misinterpreted that the NASS could frontally assail the sanctity of the Constitution by enacting section 84(12) of the amended Electoral Act.
More significantly, we must look at the definition of “public officer” in part 1 of the 5th schedule of the Constitution. There, a “public officer” is defined as “a person holding any of the offices specified in part II of this schedule. The person holding the said offices specifically include, amongst others, the President; Vice President; Senate President and his Vice; Speaker of the House of Representatives; Governor; Deputy Governor; CJN; Justices of the Supreme Court; Appeal Court; Attorney General of the Federation and of States; Ministers and Commissioners; SGF; Ambassadors; Chairman; Members and Staff of CCB/CCT; of LGCs; Statutory corporations and companies in which the federal or state Governments or LGCs have controlling interest.”
This category of persons therefore fall within the scope of “public officers” and “public servants”. I humbly submit therefore that political appointees fall within the scope of public servants, such as to enjoy whatever favours are granted to persons within the public service of the Federation or of the State. “Service” is defined by by the Cambridge Dictionary as “as helping or doing work for someone”; “or providing a particular thing that people need”.
The word “includes” as defined Meridian Webster Dictionary, means “to take in or comprise as a part of a whole or group”. It becomes clear therefore that section 318 did not exhaustively list all those envisaged as “public servants”. Those listed merely comprise of “a part of a whole or group”, and nothing more. Can anyone seriously argue that ministers, Commissioners and such persons who are in the “service” of the Federation and States in different capacities are therefore political appointees not then in the public service of such governments? I humbly submit that the cases of DADA V ADEYEYE (2005) 3 NWLR (920) 1; ONI V FAYEMI (supra); WILSON V AG FEDERATION (supra); AG BENDEL STATE v AIDEYAN (supra); ADAMU V TAKORI (supra); have been grossly misapplied and misinterpreted exponents of the now struck down section 84(12).
In any event, why should the NASS be involved in legislating for political parties as to who should be their contestants or voting delegates, thus restricting their constitutionally guaranteed rights? In deepening the plenitude and amplitude of democracy, are the political parties not entitled to be accorded the freedom and latitude to regulate their own activities? I think they are.
Why then should the NASS make a law discriminating against political appointees when they themselves are free to contest, vote and be voted for as delegates at the same congress and conventions? How fair is that, on both moral and legal grounds, aside its unconstitutionality as I have strenuously pointed out above?
NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VOTING AT GENERAL ELECTIONS AND VOTING AT POLITICAL PARTY CONGRESSES OR CONVENTIONS
I have heard the argument that the eligibility to vote or be voted for only affects general elections, and not elections at party congresses or conventions. I humbly disagree. Voting is voting; and election is election, whether at a general election, or at an election to elect candidates of political parties at party conventions or congresses. Both have to do with exercising one’s right to make a choice as between two or more candidates at an election through the ballot, or a show of hands. This is clear from the provisions of sections 82, 83 and 84 of the Electoral Act, 2022 (as amended). As in any general election, election by a political party at its congress or convention is invalid without the involvement of INEC. “Every registered political party shall give INEC 21 days notice of any convention, congress, conference or meeting convened for the purpose of ‘merger’ and electing members of its executive committee, other governing bodies or nominating candidates for any of the elective offices specified in this Act” (section 82(1)). See also sections 82 (2) and 82 (4).
The clincher is found in sections 82 (5), which provides that “failure of a political party to notify the Commission as stated in subsection 1 shall render the convention, congress, conference or meeting invalid”.
The non-observance of this critical provision was part of the reasons both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court declared the votes cast at the 2015 APC primaries in Zamfara state “wasted votes”. I personally handled both cases against the APC. The Supreme Court agreed with my invocation of the doctrine of “consequential relief”, which I had commended to it, and ordered that the CANDIDATE of the political party (NOT the POLITICAL PARTY) that had the next highest number of votes and constitutional spread in the local Government Areas of Zamfara State should produce the next Governor. That was how Dr Bello Mohammed Matawalle became Governor of Zamfara State under the platform of the PDP. See APC & ANOR VS. KABIRU MARAFA & 170 ORS (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt 1721) 383; APC & ORS VS KARFI & 2 ORS (2017) LPELR – 47024 (SC).
This point becomes clearer when one reads section 84 (3) of the Electoral Act, 2020, as amended. It prohibits a political party from imposing nomination qualification or disqualification criteria, measures, or conditions on any aspirant or candidate for any election in its Constitution, guidelines, or rules for nomination of candidates for elections, except as prescribed under section 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 177 and 187 of the Constitution. Why will the same NASS audaciously ignore section 84 (3) and make section 84 (12) and (13) in the same Act to bar certain persons from contesting in those same elections which it had warned political parties not to go into, when the Constitution itself has not specifically provided for such? Respectfully, the provision of section 84(12) is not only strange, but bizarre.
We must bring in here the rule of statutory interpretation, to the effect that the provisions of the Constitution are to be read as a whole; and not in parts. Can such critics argue that the same Constitution will take away with the left hand in sections 84 (12) and 318 what it has itself donated in sections 40, 42, 65 (1) and (2), 66 (1), 106, 107 (1), 137 (1) (g), 147 (4), 182 and192 (3), thereof? Can it be argued that the same section 84 which in it sub-section (3) forbade political parties from imposing nomination qualifications or disqualifications criteria, or impose conditions on aspirants or candidates for any election, will turn around in subsections 12 and 13 to outrightly ban such candidates from voting or being voted for, simply because they are political appointees? I think not. See the cases of Nafiu Rabiu v. The State (1980) 8-11 SC-130; Abegunde v. Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors (2015) LPELR-24588 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court emphasized the need to read provisions of the Constitution together as a whole and not in parts.
Some people have cited in aid of their arguments the provisions of section 228(a) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that:
“The NASS may by law provide guidelines and rules to ensure INTERNAL DEMOCRACY within political parties, including making laws for the conduct of party primaries, party congresses and party conventions”.
This section actually encourages INTERNAL DEMOCRACY within political parties, which is designed to open up the political space and give every member a feeling of belonging. It was never designed or intended to restrict such members from voting and being voted for. The section actually frontally defeats section 84 (12) and (13) of the Electoral Act, 2022, as amended, and renders them unconstitutional, null and void.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IN UMUAHIA
It is with the solid background of the law and constitutionalism espoused above that I totally agree with the judgment recently delivered by Honourable Justice Evelyn Anyadike of the Federal High Court, Umuahia Division. She scored the bull’s eye in striking down the offensive subsection 12 of section 84 of the new Electoral Act in Suit No. UM/CS/26/2022: CHIEF NDUKA EDEDE V AG FEDERATION.
Most critics have never even cared to read the full order made by Justice Anyadike, so as to understand its true import and purport. She did not just restrict her order to only political appointees as is erroneously widely believed. She actually extended it to “any political appointee, political or public office holder”, as envisaged (according to these critics) in sections 84 and 318 of the 1999 Constitution. She actually aligned her order with these sections with the intention to deepen, widen and liberalize the political space. She thus held as follows:
“1. I Declare that Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, cannot validly and constitutionally limit, remove, abrogate, disenfranchise, disqualify, and oust the constitutional right or eligibility of any political appointee, political or public office holder to vote or be voted for at any Convention or Congress of any political party for the purposes of nomination of such person or candidate for any election, where such person has “resigned, withdrawn or retired” from the said political or public office, at least 30 days before the date of the election”.
2. I Declare that the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which limits, removes, abrogates, disenfranchises, disqualifies, and ousts the constitutional right and eligibility of any political appointee, political or public office holder to vote or be voted for at any Convention or Congress of any political party for the purposes of nomination of such person or candidate for any election, where such person has “resigned, withdrawn or retired” from the said political or public office, at least 30 days before the date of the election, is grossly ultra vires and inconsistent with Sections 6(6)(a) & (b), 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(g) and 182(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and therefore unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. I hereby nullify and set aside Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, for being unconstitutional, invalid, null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(g) and 182(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
4. I hereby order the Defendant (The Attorney General of the Federation) to delete the provisions of Section 84(12) from the Electoral Act, 2022, with immediate effect.”
I respectfully agree with this judgment which remains valid until set aside by a higher appellate court. See the cases of AGBON-OJEME V. SALO-OJEME (2020) LPELR 49688(CA); NKWOKEDI & ORS V. OKUGO & ORS (2002) LPELR-2123(SC); EKPE V. EKURE & ANOR (2014) LPELR-24674(CA); UNITY BANK V. ONUMINYA (2019) LPELR-47507(CA). We shall continue our discourse next week, by God’s grace.
FUN TIMES
“Four men are in the hospital waiting room because their wives are having babies. A nurse approaches the first guy and says, “Congratulations! You’re the father of twins.” “That’s odd,” answers the man. “I work for the Minnesota Twins!” A nurse then yells the second man, “Congratulations! You’re the father of triplets!” “That’s weird,” answers the second man. “I work for the 3M company!” A nurse goes up to the third man saying, “Congratulations! You’re the father of quadruplets.” “That’s strange,” he answers. “I work for the Four Seasons hotel!” The last man begins groaning and banging his head against the wall. “What’s wrong?” the others ask. “I work for 7 Up!”-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

