Connect with us

Headline

End of the Road For Justice Onnoghen

Published

on

By: Ajibade Morakinyo

When the 80s boy band, Boys II Men sang the song, End Of The Road, they described a loving relationship that had gone sour but one of the parties was living in denial pleading and hoping that the relationship continues though it was teaching what was technically it’s last bus stop.

This scenario can be likened to the situation that has occurred in the life of Nigeria’s Chief Justice, Justice Walter Onnoghen.

His love affair with the judiciary which hit its zenith with him ascending the No.1 role had ended but he was holding on tight, hoping for a miracle or a turnaround of fortune but it is now obvious that it is over and he had reached the end of the road with a reported resignation.

THE GENESIS

It all started on Friday, January 11, 2019, when the presidency presented a 20 point text which revealed that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mr. Walter Nkanu Onnoghen, has committed chronic offences as alleged by a petition by a whistle blowing NGO.

The reaction was that of incredulity in some quarters while others doubted.the motive and asked if this was not a politically motivated witch hunt of Justice Onnoghen.

On Monday January 7, 2019, a petition was written by the Anti-Corruption and Research Based Data Initiative (ARDI); on Tuesday January 8, the petition was submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB); on Wednesday January 9, the petition was received by the office of the CCB Chairman; on Thursday January 10, charges against CJN Onnoghen were filed by the CCB; and on Friday January 11, the CJN was served at his official residence in Abuja.

According to the petition, Onnoghen is the owner of sundry accounts primarily funded through cash deposits made by himself up to as recently as 10th August 2016 which appear to have been run in a manner inconsistent with financial transparency and the code of conduct for public officials.

The group, in the petition, said Onnoghen made five different cash deposits of $10,000 each on March 8, 2011, into Standard Chartered Bank Account 1062650; two separate cash deposits of $5000 each followed by four cash deposits of $10,000 each on June 7, 2011; another set of five separate cash deposits of $10,000 each on June 27, 2011, and four more cash deposits of $10,000 each the following day.

Aside this, they said Onnoghen did not declare his assets immediately after taking office, contrary to section 15 (1) of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act; and that he did not comply with the constitutional requirement for public servants to declare their assets every four years during their career.

Another allegation against him was that his Code of Conduct Bureau Forms (Form CCB 1) for 2014 and 2016 were dated and filed on the same day and the acknowledgement slips were issued for both on December 14, 2016 — at which point, they said, he had become the CJN – Onnoghen assumed CJN office on March 6, 2017.

ARDI alleged that prior to 2016, Onnoghen appeared to have suppressed or otherwise concealed the existence of these multiple domiciliary accounts owned by him, as well as the substantial cash balances in them and that these domiciliary accounts were not declared in one of the two CCB Forms filed by Justice Onnoghen on the same day, 14th December 2016.

The cash balances in them were as follows: The Standard Chartered Bank dollar account 1062650 has $391,401.28 as at January 31, 2011; The Standard Chartered Bank Euro account 5001062686 has 49,971.71 Euro as at January 31, 2011; and The Standard Chartered Bank pound sterling account 5001062679 has balance GBP23,409.66 as at February 28, 2011.

THE EFCC ANGLE

As if this body punch was not bad enough, the Chief Justice got a blow yo the face from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

In the commission’s petition which no doubt cast more aspersions on Onnoghen’s intergrity, it disclosed that he refused to declare his assets upon his appointment as a judicial officer in 1989.

The EFCC also made various discoveries including hidden accounts and undeclared houses and businesses.

As a result of the weighty allegations, he was dragged before the Justice Danladi Umar-led Code Of Conduct Tribunal.

In one of the sitings, the State Prosecutor, Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN) asked that Onnoghen steps down or be suspended while the trial was going on.

The CCT had adjourned sitting but it was started that it had granted the prayer of that he should step aside.

This was challenged at a high court by Onnoghen’ s lawyers and before you could say Jack Robinson, President Muhammadu Buhari relying on the CCT recommendation suspended Onnoghen and swore in Justice Tanko Muhammed as Acting CJN.

The battle for his survival now began at the CCT

THE CCT DRAMA

At the CCT, it was discovered that the CCB had not conducted any investigation rather it was the EFCC that investigated Onnoghen.

The Commission had been contacted to investigate the petition and said Onnoghen had no evidence of ever declaring his assets until 2016 and upon his appointment as a judicial Officer in 1989 as Justice of the High Court of Cross River State.

EFCC stated that further that the respondent has not ever declared his asset until 2016 when he filled annexure E and F of exhibits R 6 and R7.

In exhibit R7, the Respondent admitted that he failed to comply with the Constitutional provisions requiring him to declare asset on the ground that he forgot due to pressure of work.

“My lords, even in the conventional court where rules of evidence is applicable every admitted facts need no further prove. See Agbakoba v. SSS (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt.351) p. 475 and the case of Gov. of Akwa-Ibom State v. John Amah (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.767) 730 at 778,” the commission revealed.

Also, he was accused of depositing the sum of $1,716,000 in a United State Dollars account operated with the Standard Chartered Bank in 2009, marked as exhibit P4 C, between 2009 and 2016.

According to EFCC, Onnoghen’s earnings as a judicial officer could not satisfactorily account for the amount found in the account.

They also said the Respondent (Onnoghen) failed to declare all the accounts and funds in exhibit P4-P4D when he declared his 2014 asset in November 2016. And that he only declared his Salary account with the Union Bank exhibit P3 and failed to declare P4-P4D, which are the accounts that warehoused funds that are far above Onnoghen’s known and provable lawful income.

It stated that by the provisions of Rule 1.2 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, it is clear that because members of the public expect a high standard of conduct from a judge, Onnoghen is under the obligation to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities both in his professional and private life.

Insisting that any conduct of the Respondent that give rise to the appearance of impropriety is a judicial misconduct and same is punishable under the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.

The EFCC said that having studied the petition,

“It is our humble submission that the petitioner proved before this Honourable Panel that the Respondent was in possession of funds which are fairly not attributable to his known, provable and legitimate source of income.

“The evidence shows that my lord earned a monthly salary in the sum of N750,819.87 which is about N9,000,000.00 per annum,” the petition read.

As shown in exhibit P10A page 14 paragraph XXVI from the petition, the Respondent only earned the sum of N91,962,362.49 as salary between September 2005 and October 2016, and that the exhibit P3 is the salary account wherein his salaries are paid.

The commission further said, “the evidence before this Honourable Committee shows clearly that the Respondent opened United State Dollars account with the Standard Chartered Bank in 2009, exhibit P4 C, which was opened by Mr. Joe Agi SAN and the first cash depositor of United State of America Dollars into the said account with entry of the 29th day of June, 2009.

Responding to this, Onnoghen claimed he gave the learned SAN, Joe Agi the $30,000.00 to deposit to exhibit P4 C. Although he could not give any reasonable explanation as to source of this money, he admitted under cross-examination that the USD was not his salary and that he only received dollars as estacodes which is meant to for his official trips.

The commission also made it known that upon the opening of the USD account exhibit P4C, a lot of cash deposits in Dollars were made to this account between 2009 and 2016.

The amounts in the said account were deposited as follows: $74,200 (2009); $291,800 (2010); $340,000 (2011); $625,000 (2012); $298,000 (2013); $40,000 (2015) and $47,000 (2016). The total was $1,716,000.

The suspended CJN was quoted to have stated that: “The sources of these are from my savings from my days as foreign student and a successful private legal practitioner, as well as estacodes for annual for annual vacations, medical expenses, international conferences, my earnings as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Gambia (See Annexure “B” referenced as ZD 129/186/01/P.II/(148), among others; and the conversion of Naira to Dollars which sometimes ago was very favorable.

According to him, returns from his off-shore investments in the foreign currencies which are clearly documented by the bank with an overdraft of $500,000 approved for me in the USD Dollars account in November, 2018.

He disclosed that up till now, the proceeds from the investments are paid into the account as and at when due, and that his investments with Standard Chartered Bank also include Federal Government Bonds as can be seen from the records of dividends.

The commission however said Onnoghen’s explanation was “laughable” and that when he was a foreign student in Ghana he accumulated such amount of money but was not stated to the Panel.

It was said by the commission that the respondent who purportedly cannot afford to pay N7,000,000.00 to Joe Agi SAN in 2009 wanted the Panel to believe that he accumulated dollars to the tune of $1,716,000.00 in his house.

In addition, it was said that he never declared having $1,716,000.00 in his asset declaration form as cash in hand and was therefore inexplicable that he wanted the panel to believe that he accumulated the said sum in his house and only deposited them in the bank between 2009 and 2016 in cash.

Also Onnoghen attempted to suggest to the panel that the $1,716,000.00 cash deposit in exhibit P4C was earned by him upon his part-time appointment as Justice of the Supreme Court of Gambia, but was accepted because he was appointed on the 22nd day of November 2012.

On the face of his appointment letter, it is clear that Onnoghen was entitled to the Five Thousand pounds Sterling (5,000 GBP) and Twenty Thousand Dalasis which is payable per session to be determined by the Chief Justice of Gambia in line with the Rules of the Supreme Court of Gambia.

However, he failed to show the panel that consequent upon his appointment in November 2012 and the assumption of that office in 2013 the number of sessions he sat as a member of the Supreme Court of Gambia.

Onnoghen also failed to state how much he earned from Gambia, how he was paid whether cash or through his account.

The petition concluded that if Onnoghen is to earn any fee from Gambia it will be GBP and not USD, and that he has failed to show with credible evidence how he legitimately earned the sum of $1,716,000.00 which is far above his lawful and provable income.

The Prosecution went on with his case declaring that it was going to call six witnesses.

The prosecution presented three witnesses before closing its case against the suspended judge.

Witness 1

The first persecution witness, James Akpala, an investigative officer with the bureau, told the court that the CCB received the petition against Mr Onnoghen from a petitioner, Denis Aghanya, on January 9.

Mr Akpala, whose testimony was given on March 18, said he was asked to investigate the content of the petition from Mr Aghanya, a member of the All Progressives Congress, on January 10.

With Mr Akpala in the witness box, the lead prosecution lawyer, Aliu Umar, admitted six documents said to have been investigated by the first prosecution witness.

The documents included Mr Aghanya’s petition, which gave rise to the six count charge against Mr Onnoghen, and two of Mr Onnoghen’s asset declaration forms, which were both filed by Mr Onnoghen in December, 2016.

The other documents admitted were Mr Onnoghen’s Supreme Court identity card, his traveling passport and a Standard Chartered Bank document which all made up Mr Onnoghen’s account opening package.

Also admitted in evidence was Mr Onnoghen’s handwritten statement taken by a team of investigators at his office on January 11.

According to the witness, one of the declaration forms submitted by Mr Onnoghen had two bank accounts while the other had seven bank accounts.

He said the bank accounts included two Union Bank details and five others with Standard Chartered Bank.

Mr Akpala was asked during cross examination to read out the dates written on the charge sheet earlier submitted at the tribunal.

The information read out by Mr Akpala proved a point made by the defence that the charge sheet was prepared before the investigation team visited Mr Onnoghen at his office.

That submission was not objected by the prosecution.

Asked whether the charge sheet was filed within 24 hours of commencement of investigation, Mr Akpala responded in the affirmative.

Mr Akpala declined comments when asked to speak on the reason the bank statements shown to Mr Onnoghen by the CCB was addressed to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC).

Witness 2

During his testimony, the second witness, Awwal Yakassai, also a staff of the bureau, testified that the asset declaration forms submitted by Mr Onnoghen were yet to be verified by the Code of Conduct Bureau.

Mr Yakassai was presented before the tribunal on March 21.

He reiterated a point made by Mr Akpala that the forms were both submitted the same day by Mr Onnoghen, and also confirmed that the forms were the basis upon which the charges against the suspended Chief Justice were filed.

Mr Yakassai was the CCB officer who collected the forms when they were filed by Mr Onnoghen in December 2016.

During cross examination, Mr Yakassai was shown the portion of the forms expected to have been signed as a measure of verification by the CCT. The portion shown to Mr Yakassai were confirmed blank by the witness.

Mr Yakassai also admitted, when confronted with a submission by the defence, that the content of the petition written against Mr Onnoghen was a ‘practical duplication of the details entered by Mr Onnoghen in his asset declaration forms.’

Witness 3

In her testimony, the third prosecution witness, Ifeoma Okagbue, a staff of the Standard Chartered bank who was also presented on Thursday told the tribunal that Mr Onnoghen did not have as much as $1million or £1 million in all the bank accounts, a denial of a major plank upon which the charges against him were built.

Ms Akagbue, who told the tribunal that she started to manage Mr Onnoghen’s account in 2015, added that all five accounts mentioned in the charges had the Bank Verification Numbers.

The witness also told the tribunal that the various accounts were domiciliary, not foreign. It was after this that it said it was not calling any other witnesses and decided to close the case.

Defense counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), led in evidence one Lawal Busari, who is Justice Onnoghen’s driver.

In his evidence, Busari told the court how he drove Onnoghen to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) Office on July 28, 2010, to obtain an assets’ declaration form, saying he paid N200 fee for Onnoghen’s form on November 3, 2010.

Busari, who told the court that he was a chief driver and mechanic with the Supreme Court, added that while he was still with Justice Onnoghen at the CCB, he (Onnoghen) asked him to also get his own assets declaration form.

He explained that he obtained his form as directed, adding: “When we got back to the office, I filled my own form and on November 3, 2010, my Lordship gave me N200 to pay into the treasury account for the form.

“I collected the receipt from the cashier and I gave the receipt back to my lord and on November 4, 2010, I did mine by paying N200 to the cashier.”

The testimony of the 60-year old witness aimed at countering the prosecution’s charge that Justice Onnoghen did not declare his assets between 2005 and 2016 in line with public office law.

But when Awomolo sought to tender the receipt as exhibit, the prosecution counsel, Aliyu Umar (SAN), objected to its admissibility.

He hinged his objection on the fact that the ‘Revenue number’ was not on the receipt, insisting that its authenticity was doubtful, and that Busari, not being the originator of the document, was not the right person to tender it in court.

The prosecution was, however, overruled and the receipt admitted as an exhibit, after which the tribunal adjourned for that day.

It was also to call Mrs Theresa Nwafor, a Director of the CCB now based in Benin, after asking that she be issued subpoena to appear, the Defence counsel, Chris Uche (SAN) informed on the next trial date of the tribunal that the defendant was done with his case.
Uche, while addressing the tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, said:”My lords, today is for continuation of trial.

“But my lords, after a deep review of the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, the defence has come to conclusion and we have closed our case.

He stated “Pursuarnt to paragraph 14 of the Practice Direction of this honourable tribunal, we apply to file our final written addresses.”

Uche prayed the tribunal for 14 days to enable him file his client’s final written address.
Lead prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN), said the defence informed him before hand that it would close its case.

Umar urged the tribunal to allocate time to the parties as it wishes.
The tribunal’s chairman directed the defence to file and serve its address on or before April 8.

THE NJC ANGLE

Following an uproar by Nigerians on the case, especially that his trial did not follow due process and his suspension too was wrong because he could only have been suspended through the recommendation of the National Judicial Council ( NJC), the NJC stepped into the arena.

It stated that it has received two petitions, one was the one that formed the basis for the CCT trial against Justice Onnoghen and the other was by Olisa Agbakoba, SAN against Justice Tanko Muhammed for accepting to be sworn in as Acting CJN

The NJC summoned bith men to respond to the petitions after which it would take a decision.It set up a 5-man panel to handle the matter.

The council however decided that the allegations relating to assets declaration that were levelled against Hon. Mr. Justice W. S. N. Onnoghen, GCON were subjudice and therefore abstained from considering them.

Thereafter, the Council reached a decision on the petitions written by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and others, of which it has conveyed its decision to President Muhammadu Buhari.

Also, the council resolved that by the nature of the decision reached, it would be inappropriate for it to publicise it before conveying it to Mr. President.

THE END

Every film.or drama, there must be an end.And it seems the one involving Onnoghen is gradually cruising to an end with his reported resignation.

Though no official statement has so far been made by the Presidency, it was widely reported that Justice Onnoghen had tendered his resignation on Thursday and now we all await what will certainly be his final farewell from the exalted position of Chief Justice of Nigeria.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headline

Atiku Rejects Senate’s Approval of Mixed Transmission of Election Results

Published

on

By

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has opposed the use of a combination of electronic and manual transmission of election results, warning that such an approach could create confusion within the electoral system.

Atiku, who spoke to journalists in Minna after a closed-door meeting with former Military Ruler, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (retd.), at his residence, said he favours full electronic transmission of election results.

According to him, electronic transmission remains the most credible option for ensuring fairness and transparency in the electoral process. He added that the current approach falls short of the expectations of Nigerians, many of whom anticipated real-time electronic transmission of results across all levels of elections.

The former Vice President urged opposition political parties to unite and pursue the matter collectively, insisting that the issue should not be allowed to rest where those in power want it to be.

“The mixture of electronic and manual transmission undermines the integrity of the electoral process and does not align with the reforms Nigerians had hoped for,” he said.

On the 2027 presidential election, the former Vice President said discussions about his candidacy are premature.

He explained that his party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), is currently focused on strengthening its structures across wards, local governments, states, and at the national level, while mobilising and registering members.

Regarding zoning, Atiku noted that the ADC does not have a zoning arrangement in its constitution, adding that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) remains the only political party in Nigeria with an explicit zoning provision.

Continue Reading

Headline

Nenadi Usman-led Exco Resumes at LP National Secretariat

Published

on

By

The National Caretaker Committee of the Labour Party (LP) led by Senator Nenadi Usman, on Tuesday, resumed at the party’s national secretariat in Abuja, following a court ruling which affirmed its leadership.

Usman and members of her team arrived at the party office, previously occupied by the Bar Julius Abure-led National Working Committee, at 11am.

The Usman-led faction had had a lengthy legal battle with the Abure-led camp, which got to the Supreme Court but was revived at the federal high which recognized her leadership of the party.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) also affirmed her leadership recently via invitation for party meetings.

The Abure camp has, however, kicked against her recognition by the electoral commission and vowed to challenge the high court verdict.

As the first female national chairman of a major political party in Nigeria, Usman’s ascension is considered a milestone for women’s representation in politics.

Details of her plans and agenda are expected to be announced in due course.

Continue Reading

Headline

Who’s Afraid of New Electoral Act?

Published

on

By

By Eric Elezuo

The furore generated with the passing of the Electoral Bill 2026 by the Nigerian Senate, is yet to die down as various groups, sections and institutions, have continued to lend their voices in condemnation of the tactical removal of the proposed real-time electronic transmission of results.

The Civil Society Organisations and Action Aid have declared a protest to kickoff on Monday, February 9, 2026, titled Occupy NASS Protest, until the Senate find reason to listen to Nigerians, and do what is right, and that aligned with the aspirations of Nigerians, according Samson Itodo, the Executive Director of YIAGA Africa.

In the same vein, the African Democratic Congress has pledged to begin a protest in Abuja on Monday over the removal of real-time clause in the new electoral bill.

The Senate, on Wednesday, passed the Electoral Bill 2026 following hours of debate, but ended up rejecting a proposal to mandate real-time electronic transmission of election results while however, approving significant reforms to election timelines, penalties for electoral offences and voting technology.

The Boss learnt that at the centre of the controversy was Section 60, which governs the transmission of polling unit results, where the Senators voted down a recommendation by the Senate Committee on Electoral Matters that would have compelled presiding officers to upload results to the INEC Result Viewing (IReV) portal in real time. The rejection has drawn the irk of majority of Nigerians, who have have wondered if anyone is actually afraid of the new electoral law? If yes, who? And what could be the reason behind such fears as the need to regulate a hitchfree and smooth and fair electoral process have remained the goal and aspirations of politically savvy Nigerian.

But the lawmakers, contrary to the yearnings of most Nigerians, have retained the approach in the 2022 Electoral Act, which allows electronic transmission after votes are counted and publicly announced at the polling unit. In other words, giving approval to transfer of results instead of transmit in real-time of results.

In their defence however, Senators opposing the real-time upload argued that inconsistent network coverage and logistical challenges could trigger legal disputes and undermine electoral credibility.

The rejected proposal was contained in the new Clause 60(5) of the draft bill, which aimed to mandate presiding officers to electronically transmit polling unit results in real time after completing and signing Form EC8A.

The clause was designed to strengthen transparency and reduce electoral malpractice through technology-driven result management.

The motion to reject the electronic transmission clause was swiftly seconded by the Deputy President of the Senate, Barau Jibrin.

Similarly, the Senate also rejected a proposed amendment under Clause 47 that would have allowed voters to present electronically-generated voter identification, including a downloadable voter card with a unique Quick Response (QR) code, as a valid means of accreditation.

In his defensive remarks, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Adeyemi Adaramodu, described the debate as a process subjected to an invisible world of semantics.

“Electronic transmission remains part of the law,” he said, “and results will continue to be available to the public both electronically and through physical forms, ensuring verifiable records for disputes,” Adaramodu said.

In his own defence, President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, though admitted that the Senate deliberately deleted the provision for “real-time” transmission of election results from the Electoral Bill, 2026, noted however, that the Senate took the decision because it believed that “technology must save and not endanger democracy.”

Speaking at the launch of a book, “The Burden of Legislators in Nigeria”, authored by Senator Effiong Bob, in Abuja, Akpabio likened the issues raised in the book to the challenges faced by lawmakers in the course of their duties, including the controversy and alleged “abuses” directed at the Senate following the passage of the electoral bill.

The Senate President argued that the entire country could be thrown into chaos if, for instance, network or power failure affected the uploading of results.

He insisted that Form EC8A and other official election records should remain the most reliable means of declaring results.

“All we said was to remove the word ‘real-time’ to allow INEC decide the mode of transmission. If you make it mandatory and there is a system failure, there will be a serious problem,” Akpabio told the gathering, further confirming that the bill, as passed, excluded real-time electronic transmission of results.

Continuing, he said, “Real-time means that if there are nine states where there is no network, does it mean elections will not take place there?

“Or in any part of the country where there is a grid breakdown, does it mean there will be no election?”

The Senate President sounded a note of warning to Nigerians amid outrage, saying the legislature would not be “intimidated” into passing a faulty law simply to please opposition political parties, civil society groups and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

He criticised NGOs for insisting that because they organised retreats for lawmakers, where ideas were exchanged on the electoral bill, the Senate must adopt their positions, even if such positions did not align with the interests of all segments of the country.

“Why are people setting up panels on television stations and abusing senators? I leave them to God.

“We will not be intimidated but will do what is right for Nigeria, not what one NGO says. A retreat is not law-making.

“Why do you think that the paper you agreed to in Lagos must be what we must approve?” he asked.

Akpabio frowned at the public attacks on the Senate, saying they were uncalled for, and stressing that any provision rejected by the Senate could be reinstated by the Conference Committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives. He said there was therefore no need to hastily criticise senators.

“We have not even completed it until we look at the votes and proceedings. When we bring out the votes and proceedings, any senator has the right to rise and amend it.

“We can amend anything before we approve the votes and proceedings. Why abuse the Senate when what we have is incomplete?

“I can’t talk until they tell me to drop the gavel. In this case, we are yet to complete the process,” he said.

Besides Akpabio’s defences, many groups and individuals have risen stoutly against the removal of the real-time electronic transmission clause, describing the act as irresponsible and detrimental to the feeling of Nigerians.

In his reaction, the National Chairman of the main opposition party, African Democratic Congress (ADC) Senator David Mark, who himself, was a Senate President, and was also present at the book launch, cautioned Akpabio against speaking for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

“What the ADC is saying is: pass the law and let INEC decide whether it can implement real-time electronic transmission or not. Don’t speak for INEC.

“The position of the ADC is clear: pass the bill and let INEC decide what it will do with it,” Mark harped.

Reacting also, a former governor of Anambra State and presidential candidate of the Labour Party in the 2023 presidential election, Mr. Peter Obi, delivered knocks to the Senate for the rejection, noting that the Senate decision to stick to the 2022 Electoral Act, which concedes the discretion to apply electronic transmission of results to the Independent National Electoral Commission ( INEC), is an assault on democracy.

In a lengthy post in X titled, “We Continue to Confirm our ‘Now Disgraced Status’ as a Nation?” the now ADC chieftain expressed concern that while other nations have embraced the practise of electronic transmission of results, “the supposed giant of Africa, shamelessly lags behind, dragging the continent backwards.”

He wrote: “Let us all pause and pray for the souls of over 150 innocent lives lost in Kwara yesterday. This tragedy is precisely why I delayed commenting on the outrageous and shameful news surrounding our electoral system.

“The Senate’s blatant rejection of mandatory electronic transmission of election results is an unforgivable act of electoral manipulation ahead of 2027.

“This failure to pass a clear safeguard is nothing short of a deliberate assault on Nigeria’s democracy. By rejecting these essential transparency measures, they are eroding the very foundation of credible elections. “One must ask: Does the government exist to ensure order and justice, or to institutionalise chaos? Is its purpose to serve the people, or to fulfil the sinister ambitions of a select few?

“The turmoil, disputes, and manipulations that plagued past elections, especially the 2023 general election, stemmed directly from the refusal to fully implement electronic transmission.

“Nigerians were fed excuses of a fabricated “glitch” that never existed. While numerous African nations adopt electronic transmission to bolster democracy, Nigeria, the supposed giant of Africa, shamelessly lags behind, dragging the continent backwards.

“We are wasting time hosting conferences and drafting papers on Nigeria’s problems while we, the leaders and elite, are the real issue. Our deliberate resistance to reform is pulling the country backwards, dragging us toward a primitive state of governance.

“By rejecting mandatory electronic transmission—a critical safeguard for electoral integrity—we are entrenching disorder aimed at perpetuating confusion according to the whims of a small clique. Have we not reached a point where we must think seriously about the future of our country and our children? Should leadership not focus on building a credible, orderly, and livable nation for the next generation, rather than one permanently ensnared in chaos?

“When the former Prime Minister of the UK, aware of our history, labelled us “fantastically corrupt,” we reacted defensively. When President Donald Trump declared us a “now disgraced nation,” we were incensed. Yet, with every act of resistance against transparency and reform, we continue to affirm their claims. Those responsible will later point fingers at others for harming the country while they quietly suffocate its potential.

“Let there be no illusion, the criminality witnessed in 2023 will not be tolerated in 2027. Nigerians everywhere must start getting ready to rise up, resist, and reject the backward trajectory, legitimately and decisively reclaim our country from the clutches of deliberate malevolence.

“The International community must take heed of this groundwork for continued future electoral manipulation, endangering our democracy and development.”

Another respondent, Akin Osuntokun, who was the Labour Party campaign DG in 2023, noted that the removal is an affront to democracy.

“It (Rejection of e-transmission of election results) does not portend good omen, it does not portend good for the growth of democracy in Nigeria.

“The growth of democracy is rooted in accountability and the integrity of elections.

“So anything that makes elections less accountable makes the election less credible. Automatically, it is a drag and an obstruction of the growth of democracy in Nigeria.

“It does not serve the purpose of democratic consolidation, so far as the elections that are conducted on that basis will not meet the bar or threshold of credible election,” Osuntokun said while fielding questions from NAN.

Also, opposition senators have stepped out as a group, insisting that the Senate passed the Act with provision of real-time in it, stressing that anything other than that, is not a document from the Senate.

In the midst of the public outrage, Akpabio has insisted that senate did not remove or reject electronic transmission, clarifying that it cannot guarantee the transmission of results in real time hence the omission of the status of ‘real-time’.

While presiding over the debate session, Akpabio also dismissed claims that electronic transmission had been removed, emphasising that “Retaining that provision means electronic transmission remains part of our law.”

WHAT THE SENATORS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE FOR THE ELECTORAL BILL

But beyond the brouhaha of real-time electronic transmission, other major amendments to Nigeria’s electoral calendar were approved by the Senate.

The election notice period was reduced from 360 days to 180 days, the deadline for submission of party candidate lists was shortened from 120 to 90 days, and the nomination period was cut from 180 to 90 days.

To deter electoral malpractice, the fine for unlawful possession of voters’ cards was increased from N500,000 to N5 million, though the Senate rejected a proposal for a 10-year ban on vote-buyers, opting for stiffer financial penalties instead. The smart card reader was officially removed from the electoral framework and replaced with the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS).

Under the retained provisions, presiding officers are required to count votes at the polling unit, record results on prescribed forms, announce them publicly and transmit them electronically to the appropriate collation centre.

The e-transmission of results, if approved, would have required INEC presiding officers to upload results from each polling unit to the IReV portal in real time, immediately after completing Form EC&A, which must be signed and stamped by the presiding officer and countersigned by party agents.
Instead, the senators chose to retain the present Electoral Act provision, which mandates that “the presiding officer shall transfer the results, including the total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot, in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.”

Lawmakers voted to retain the existing 2022 provisions requiring voters to present their Permanent Voter’s Card (PVC) for accreditation at polling units.

The Senate further upheld the provision mandating the use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) or any other technological device prescribed by INEC for voter verification and authentication, rather than allowing alternative digital identification methods as proposed in the new bill.

With these decisions, the Senate reaffirmed the use of PVC and BVAS-based accreditation while rejecting efforts to expand digital voter identification and make electronic transmission of results compulsory.

Meanwhile, while Nigerians are planning to occupy NASS beginning from Monday, the Senate has called an emergency plenary for which the agenda is hitherto unknown, but related to votes and proceedings. It is interesting time in the Nigerian political circle now.

The bone of contention has remained ‘real-time’, and Nigerians continue to ask, ‘who is afraid of new electoral act’?

Continue Reading

Trending