Headline

Abiola’s GCFR Honour: Ex-CJN Belgore, Other Lawyers React

Published

8 years ago

June 7, 2018

Eric

The award of Nigeria’s highest national honour to late Moshood Abiola is illegal, a former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Alfa Belgore, has said.

But other lawyers hold divergent views about the take of the retired top jurist in separate interviews.

President Muhammadu Buhari on Wednesday evening named Mr Abiola, winner of 1993 presidential election that was annulled by former dictator Ibrahim Babangida, a holder of the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic, GCFR, 20 years after his death in 1998.

Gani Fawehinmi, a rights advocate and icon of the June 12 struggle, was also posthumously honoured with the Grand Commander of Nigeria (GCON) by Mr Buhari. Mr Fahinmi died in 2009 at 71.

Mr Belgore, CJN from 2006 to 2007, said the national honours could not be awarded posthumously, much less the GCFR, which is the highest honour in the land.

“It is not done. It is for people living,” Belgore said.

“The only thing they could do is to name a place after him, but national honours award, no,” he added.

Mr Belgore, who was chairman of the 2016 national honours committee, also said he “was not consulted” by the Buhari administration before the decision was taken.

Mr Belgore said under the 1964 National Honours Act, only soldiers or other servicemen could be awarded posthumous medals for their bravery.

The president also declared that Democracy Day would be celebrated on June 12 to further honour the memory of Mr Abiola.

The move has received mixed feelings, with supporters of the government seeing it as a welcomed move while critics dismissed it as a desperate political calculation ahead of 2019 elections in which Mr Buhari has declared he would run for second term.

Evidently, the National Honours Act (PDF), is silent on whether or not the national honours could be bestowed on a deceased citizen of Nigeria.

While the law said a fallen member of the armed forces could be posthumously awarded a medal for “pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice in the presence of the enemy, or for devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy,” it was silent on the national honours, which are civilian honours different from medals.

The relevant section of the law stated the requirements for awarding national honours to a Nigerian as follows:

(I) The President shall by notice in the Federal Gazette signify his intention of appointing a person to a particular rank of an Order.

(2) Subject to the next following paragraph of this article, a person shall be appointed to a particular rank of an Order when he receives from the President in person, at an investiture held for the purpose-

(a) the insignia appropriate for that rank; and

(b) an instrument under the hand of the President and the public seal of the Federation declaring him to be appointed to that rank.

(3) If in the case of any person it appears to the President expedient to dispense with the requirements of paragraph (2) of this article, he may direct that that person shall be appointed to the rank in question in such a manner as may be specified in the direction.

This apparent legal vacuum created by the silence of these relevant sections on the eligibility or otherwise of a deceased has thrown Mr Buhari’s action up for individual opinions of legal experts.

Liborous Oshoma, a legal analyst and public commentator said even though the law is silent on whether or not the honours could be awarded posthumously, the sub-section three that said the president could exercise discretion by awarding it to someone who is not president has rendered his action valid.

“A section said the person receiving the award must be present, then the following section said the president may confer the honour on someone even if the person is not president, as long as the president deemed the awardee appropriate for such honour,” Mr Oshoma said. “That suffices in my opinion.”

Mr Oshoma, a Lagos-based lawyer, also welcomed the development, describing it as long overdue.

Another lawyer from Lagos, Lilian Eronini, disagreed, saying the president flouted the law in conferring national honours posthumously.

“Even though it is important to honour the memory of Mr Abiola, the way the president went about it is illegal,” Mrs Eronini said. “Of course, we know the president did this to get votes from the Southwest people who are very passionate about June 12.”

“But there are so many problems going on in the country, and it seemed the president colluded with Lai Mohammed to distract Nigerians with this controversy,” she added. “They should respond to the resolutions passed by the National Assembly against the transgressions of their government, they should not sweep that under the carpet.”

But Abdul Mahmud, a lawyer in Abuja, hailed Mr Buhari’s decision, saying it was absolutely legal because the National Honours Act gave the president discretionary powers to honour the dead.

“The position of the former CJN Alfa Belgore is wrong,” Mr Mahmud said. “And his assertion is incorrect.’

Mr Mahmud said when former President Goodluck Jonathan failed to honour Stella Adadevoh, the late Nigerian doctor whose bravery helped curb Ebola virus from spreading in Nigeria, posthumously with national honours, he condemned it at the time.

“The decision of Mr Jonathan was wrong and unpatriotic,” Mr Mahmud said. “The law is clear that the president may choose to honour anyone even when they’re not present.”

Also weighing in on the dispute was Chris Uche, who said Mr Buhari stretched the aspect of the law that allowed a president to give national honours to individuals in their absence.

“The section is not flexible enough to accommodate posthumous award on the dead,” Mr Uche, a senior Nigerian lawyer, said. “It would be stretching the law to say because someone who is not present could be awarded then it means a dead person could be awarded, it was more about a person who is alive but unable to make it to the ceremony.”

Mr Uche said he recognised the “nobility of Mr Buhari’s intention” towards Mr Abiola and Mr Fawehinmi, but said it must be done “within the confines of the law.”

“Although the timing appears political,” he added.

Premium Times

Headline

Court Validates PDP 2025 Convention in Ibadan, Affirms Turaki-led NWC

Published

2 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Eric

The Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan has affirmed the validity of the 2025 Elective Convention of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), which produced Dr. Kabiru Turaki as the substantive National Chairman of the party.

Delivering judgment on Friday, Justice Ladiran Akintola upheld the convention in its entirety, ruling that it was conducted in full compliance with the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions governing party elections in Nigeria.

The decision marked a significant legal victory for the party’s leadership and brought clarity to the dispute surrounding the convention’s legitimacy.

The ruling followed an amended originating summons filed by Misibau Adetunmbi (SAN) on behalf of the claimant, Folahan Malomo Adelabi, in Suit No. I/1336/2025.

In a comprehensive judgment, the court granted all 13 reliefs sought by the claimant, effectively endorsing the processes and outcomes of the Ibadan convention.

Justice Akintola held that the convention, organised by the recognised leadership of the party, satisfied all laid-down legal requirements as stipulated in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Electoral Act 2022 (as amended), and the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.

The court found no breach of due process or statutory non-compliance in the conduct of the exercise.

In the same proceedings, the court dismissed the Motion on Notice seeking a stay of proceedings and suspension of the ruling, filed by Sunday Ibrahim (SAN) on behalf of Austin Nwachukwu and two others. The applications were described as lacking merit.

Earlier in the proceedings, the court had also rejected a bid by Ibrahim to have his clients joined in the suit.

Justice Akintola ruled at the time that the joinder application was unsubstantiated and consequently dismissed it.

Headline

Opposition Parties Reject 2026 Electoral Act, Demand Fresh Amendment

Published

23 hours ago

February 26, 2026

Eric

Opposition political parties have rejected the 2026 Electoral Act recently passed by the National Assembly, which President Bola Tinubu swiftly signed into law.

The parties called on the National Assembly to immediately begin a fresh amendment process to remove what they described as “all obnoxious provisions” in the law.

Their position was made known at a press briefing themed “Urgent Call to Save Nigeria’s Democracy,” held at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel in Abuja on Thursday.

In a communiqué read by the Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) Ahmed Ajuji, the opposition leaders stated:

“We demand that the National Assembly immediately commence a fresh amendment to the Electoral Act 2026, to remove all obnoxious provisions and ensure that the Act reflects only the will and aspiration of Nigerians for free, fair, transparent and credible electoral process in our country. Nothing short of this will be acceptable to Nigerians.”

Some of the opposition leaders present in at the event include former Senate President David Mark; former Governor of Osun State, Rauf Aregbesola; former Vice President Atiku Abubakar; former Governor of Rivers State, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi; and former Governor of Anambra State, Peter Obi, all from the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The National Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Ahmed Ajuji, and other prominent members of the NNPP, notably Buba Galadima, were also in attendance.

The coalition said the amended law, signed by Bola Tinubu, contains “anti-democratic” clauses, which they argue may weaken electoral transparency and public confidence in the voting system.

At the centre of the opposition’s concerns is the amendment to Section 60(3), which allows presiding officers to rely on manual transmission of election results where there is communication failure.

According to the coalition, the provision weakens the mandatory electronic transmission of results and could create loopholes for manipulation.

They argued that Nigeria’s electoral technology infrastructure is sufficient to support nationwide electronic transmission, citing previous assurances by officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The parties also rejected the amendment to Section 84, which restricts political parties to direct primaries and consensus methods for candidate selection.

They described the change as an unconstitutional intrusion into the internal affairs of parties, insisting that indirect primaries remain a legitimate democratic option.

The opposition cited alleged irregularities in the recent Federal Capital Territory local government elections as evidence of what they described as a broader pattern of electoral compromise.

They characterised the polls as a “complete fraud” and said the outcome has deepened their lack of confidence in the ability of the electoral system to deliver credible elections in 2027.

The coalition also condemned reported attacks on leaders of the African Democratic Congress in Edo State, describing the incidents as a serious threat to democratic participation and political tolerance.

They warned that increasing violence against opposition figures could destabilise the political environment if not urgently addressed.

In their joint statement, the opposition parties pledged to pursue “every constitutional means” to challenge the Electoral Act 2026 and safeguard voters’ rights.

“We will not be intimidated,” the leaders said, urging civil society organisations and citizens to support efforts aimed at protecting Nigeria’s democratic system.

On February 18, 2026, President Bola Tinubu signed the Electoral Act (Amendment) 2026 into law following its passage by the National Assembly. The Act introduced several reforms, including statutory recognition of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and revised election timelines.

However, opposition figures such as Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi have also called for further amendments, particularly over the manual transmission fallback clause, which critics say leaves room for manipulation.

The president said the law will strengthen democracy and prevent voter disenfranchisement.

Tinubu defended manual collation of results, questioned Nigeria’s readiness for full real-time electronic transmission, and warned against technical glitches and hacking.

The Electoral Act sparked intense debate in the National Assembly over how election results should be transmitted ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Civil society groups under the “Occupy NASS” campaign demanded real-time transmission to curb manipulation.

In the Senate, lawmakers clashed during consideration of Clause 60, which allows manual transmission of results if electronic transmission fails.

Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe (ADC, Abia South) demanded a formal vote to remove the proviso permitting manual transmission, arguing against weakening real-time electronic reporting.

The move led to a heated exchange on the floor, with Senate President Godswill Akpabio initially suggesting the demand had been withdrawn.

After procedural disputes and a brief confrontation among senators, a division was conducted. Fifteen opposition senators voted against retaining the manual transmission proviso, while 55 supported it, allowing the clause to stand.

Earlier proceedings had briefly stalled during clause-by-clause review, prompting consultations and a closed-door session.

In the House of Representatives, a similar disagreement came up over a motion to rescind an earlier decision that mandated compulsory real-time electronic transmission of results to IReV.

Although the “nays” were louder during a voice vote, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas ruled in favour of rescinding the decision, triggering protests and an executive session.

Headline

AFP: How Tinubu’s Govt Paid Boko Haram ‘Huge’ Ransom, Released Two Terrorists for Kidnapped Saint Mary’s Pupils

Published

3 days ago

February 24, 2026

Eric

The Nigerian government paid Boko Haram militants a “huge” ransom of millions of dollars to free up to 230 children and staff the jihadists abducted from a Catholic school in November, an AFP investigation revealed Monday.

Two Boko Haram commanders were also freed as part of the deal, which goes against the country’s own law banning payments to kidnappers. The money was delivered by helicopter to Boko Haram’s Gwoza stronghold in northeastern Borno state on the border with Cameroon, intelligence sources told AFP.

The decision to pay the militants is likely to irritate US President Donald Trump, who ordered air strikes on jihadists in northern Nigeria on Christmas Day and has been sent military trainers to help support Nigerian forces.

Nigerian government officials deny any ransom was paid to the armed gang that snatched close to 300 schoolchildren and staff from St. Mary’s boarding school in Papiri in central Niger state on November 21. At least 50 later managed to escape their captors.

Boko Haram has not been previously linked to the kidnapping, but sources told AFP one of its most feared commanders was behind the mass abduction: the notorious jihadist known as Sadiku.

He infamously held up a train from the capital in 2022 and netted hefty ransoms for the release of government officials and other well-off passengers.

Boko Haram, which has waged a bloody insurgency since 2009, is strongest in northeast Nigeria.

But a cell in central Niger state operates under Sadiku’s leadership. The St. Mary’s pupils and staff were freed after two weeks of negotiations led by Nuhu Ribadu, Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, with the government insisting no ransom was paid. Nigeria’s State Security Service flatly denied paying any money, saying “government agents don’t pay ransoms”.

However, four intelligence sources familiar with the talks told AFP the government paid a “huge” ransom to get the pupils back. One source put it at 40 million naira per head – around $7 million in total.

Another put the figure lower at two billion naira overall. The money was delivered by chopper to Ali Ngulde, a Boko Haram commander in the northeast, three sources told AFP.

Due to the lack of communications cover in the remote area, Ngulde had to cross into Cameroon to confirm delivery of the ransom before the first group of 100 children were released.

Nigeria has long been plagued by mass abductions, with criminals and jihadist groups sometimes working together to extort millions from hostages’ families, and authorities seemingly powerless to stop them.

Source: Africanews