Headline

Read MKO Abiola’s Letter to Gani Fawehinmi Two Days Before His Death

Published

6 years ago

June 13, 2020

Eric

My dear Gani,

Praise be to God for your life and the courage, fortitude and determination with which He endowed you. May we live long to be of service to each other in the contribution we make to the development, peace and justice/fairplay in Nigeria and beyond. The “Express” story is a hoax. True, both Anan and Anyaoku (apparently working together, although I saw them separately), wanted me to sign a statement that I will not, once again, demand my mandate, once released. They both believed such undertaking would expedite my release.

To each of them, my answers were:

(1) Having been cut off from all media and human contacts for 4 years, I was like a man put in an open grave. I quoted Rt. Hon. Harold Wilson’s statement made in Glasgow on 2nd October, 1964, a few days before his first Labour victory in 13 years: “24hrs is a long time in politics.”
If 24hrs is a long time, 4 years cut off from politics can be likened to eternity. Diplomats can guess: political leaders must be sure because credibility once lost can never be regained.

(2) Both diplomats spoke of arranging my UNCONDITIONAL release. With the demand for that kind of statement that will render me a “deserter”. Any release obtained on that basis would be the worst form of capitulation.

(3) The declaration of 11/06/94 was made at a major public rally to thousands of cheering supporters. A statement under the table of AGUDA House purportedly negating it will not be acceptable as authentic. My rejection will naturally read “duress” into it. Judged by the circumstances (therefore) it will not be worth the paper on which it was written. A declaration made publicly (at a major rally) and clear ( in the most unambiguous terms) at any similar rally. You cannot render a man naked at the marketplace and prefer to dress him up in the bedroom!

(4) That a declaration, like that of 11/06/94, once made and in great circulation, needs no repetition, which, will be superfluous. Made when June 12 was suffering from a terminal illness – in-fact in a COMA – the June 11 shot-in-the-arm had over the years not only revived the patient (June 12) but has also established it firmly on its own base, such that its right to exist would today no longer be denied.

In this situation, I could well concentrate on my release, on revamping my health, attending to the wedding of 4 or 5 of my children, re-establish the cohesion of my family, which has been almost totally eroded, especially after the brutal assassination of my Kudi whilst my leading supporters who have done wonders in my absence, take the full steps necessary for formal VICTORY by God’s grace. It is this point (4) that have might been twisted or misunderstood by Annan and /or the section of the press who got it wrong.

(5) Finally, I reviewed the history of June 12. I told them that quite at the beginning, Obasanjo in July 1994 came to me with 26 traditional rulers to seek a similar statement. He was told off in no uncertain terms in the presence of the retinue of traditional fathers, after I had explained that the issue is one of God Vs a few “powerful elements”. The voice of the people is the voice of God, “Vox Populi Vox Dei” , a popular maxim long before Jesus Christ arrived.

I told them that IBB’s only reason for cancelling the free, fair and peaceful poll – a fact he could not deny – was that his leading officers (who would have been retired with him) threatened to kill him and to kill me if he ever swore me in. I did not allow him to use the Koran to swear to “blackmail”. IBB made the assertion to two Northern Emirs – mutual friends of the two of us and Chief Sonekan at a peace meeting called at the presidential wing of the ABUJA airport. I would not accept the cancellation on that ground or any ground hence my “hijra” of August 2 to mount worldwide campaign, as the local press had then been silenced. I said that if I had accepted what was done, it would have created a most dangerous precedent, not only for Nigeria but most of the third world. The saying would then have been – “who are you to resist what could be forced on Abiola?”. The ultimate effect is that Nigeria would then become a land of “guided democracy “, of the type in the imagination of the late President Sukarno of Indonesia who used to issue “voting directives” to his nation of 230 million. God forbid bad thing!

The lapse of five years since the election of 12/06/93 was regarded as fatal to the mandate. Both diplomats told me nobody will recognise me on the basis of the out-of-date mandate. Chief Anyaoku went on further to say he had sought and obtained legal opinion which confirmed the “death of the mandate”. My reply:
Firstly, there’s no statue of limitation on valid elections, provided the winner did not willfully refuse to take office. The struggle in Sierra Leone more than three decades ago between Milton Margai and Siaka Stevens is a case in point. The Haiti issue re-Aristide is partially relevant.

Secondly, if that were so, then, criminals would have had a lawful right to take advantage of the criminal situation they have created! That, in my opinion, is against equity and the rule of law and, therefore, invalid. They illegally cancelled the election ( which they had no power to do) and promoted their usurpation by putting in the most wicked incarceration ever known – 4 years without exercise, access to the sun or even the corridor outside my room.

Thirdly, no nation ever solves her nagging political problems through legal opinion. The Bar of public opinion has a code of practice totally different to that of a formed point of law. I asked Chief Anyaoku what was his interest in seeking the so-called legal opinion? I got no answer because by that time the exchange had become eyeball to eyeball. He looked most embarrassed and dumbfounded. Annan must know that if the majority of OAU member nations gave me recognition, the UN must automatically do the same e.g. the Angola situation between MPLA and UNITA.

The call for the recognition in the London Times of last Friday has taken the wind out of the sail of the “five leg” argument. There was no substance to it.

My final point is that although Time searches out and destroys all things MATERIAL, a point made most convincingly by Shakespeare in his sonnets 5, 12 and 64, his emphasis on “never resting time” and the Spencer in “of time and the River” where he stated that “dark times remind us of the briefness of our days”. TRUTH, which is what June 12 is, is SPIRITUAL – AL-HAQQU in Islam – one of the sacred names of God. Therefore, since all things in nature, life and creation are subservient to God(K2:116) willingly or unwillingly, TIME IS IN FACT AND INDEED ON THE SIDE OF TRUTH, K17:81, K34:49, K2:42 etc. and Gospel according to St. John 8:32, Psalm 62:1-2, Isaiah 40:30-31 etc.

It is falsehood, with its associated varieties and crookedness that must varnish as foam on the ” Torrent of time”.

The FMG, probably did not want to meet me at this stage. Hence, the arrangement made for the two to meet me.

The very top meeting I had on Monday night with two of our service chiefs was to inform me about the death of General Abacha and my friend Ya’adua and talk generally. The atmosphere was most cordial and the service chiefs were most sympathetic. It enabled me to asses the quality and calibre of the two which are most high, indeed. I have gone into this minute detail because I heard you were upset when you read the exclusive report. You probably did not know me well enough! If I refused to listen to IBB, my personal friend of long standing, and ignored Abacha, will it be 2 international civil servants who would force my surrender? Please, have more confidence than that in the future.

All my life I had worked for the result which God in His mercies, gave us on June 12, 1993. Quoting Jesus Christ (Luke 9) “No man having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God”. The spiritual consequence of any desertion of a sacred cause like June 12 is HELL, which God forbids.

ANOTHER DIFFERENT POINT – on 13/1/95, Abacha sent Prince Ajibola to me to say he (Abacha) would not allow me to get any trial because he knew I had large sum of money abroad to my recognition which will force him out of office. I asked Prince what he advised. He sad ” Patience” – Suru ni. I told him to tell my family and lawyers.

When Ore Falomo saw me on 10/5/97, I sent him to you on that. Did you get the messages? Remember me to the family with best personal regards.
I LOVE YOU.

Signed
MKO Abiola

Headline

Opposition Parties Reject 2026 Electoral Act, Demand Fresh Amendment

Published

15 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

Headline

Unlawful Invasion: El-Rufai Drags ICPC, IGP, Others to Court, Demands N1bn Damages

Published

4 days ago

February 23, 2026

Eric

Former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has slammed a ₦1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for what he claimed was an unlawful invasion of his Abuja residence.

El-Rufai, in a suit filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, also listed the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.

According to the suit filed through his lawyers, led by Oluwole Iyamu, El-Rufai prayed the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT (2nd respondent), authorising the search and seizure at his residence as invalid, null and void.

Security operatives had stormed and searched the former Governor’s residence in the ongoing investigations against him.

However, he argued in the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, that the search was in violation of Section 37 of the Constitution, and urged the court to declare that the search warrant was “null and void for lack of particularity, material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, overbreadth, and absence of probable cause thereby constituting an unlawful and unreasonable search.”

In the suit dated and filed February 20 by Iyamu, ex-governor, who is currently under detention, sought seven reliefs.

He prayed the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on Feb. 19 at about 2pm and executed by agents of ICPC and I-G, “under the aforesaid invalid warrant, amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.”

He urged the court to declare that “any evidence obtained pursuant to the aforesaid invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.”

El-Rufai, therefore, sought an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using, or tendering any evidence or items seized during the unlawful search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him.

“An order directing the Ist and 3rd respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.

“An order awarding the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, and the resultant psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.”

The breakdown of the ₦1 billion in damages includes “a N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security;

“A ₦400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate the applicant’s rights.

“A ₦300 million as aggravated damages for the malicious, high-handed and oppressive nature of the respondents’ actions, including the use of a patently defective warrant procured through misleading representations.”

He equally sought ₦100 million as the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses.

Iyamu argued that the search warrant was fundamentally defective, lacking specificity in the description of items to be seized, containing material typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives, and no verifiable probable cause.

He added that the warrant violated Sections 143-148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences (ICPC) Act, 2000, and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusions and several other constitutional provisions.

“Section 146 stipulates that the warrant must be in the prescribed form, free from defects that could mislead, but the document is riddled with errors in the address, date, and district designation;

“Section 147 allows direction to specified persons, but the warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to “all officers is overbroad and unaccountable.

“Section 148 permits execution at reasonable times, but the contradictory language creates ambiguity, undermining procedural clarity,” he submitted.

Iyamu stated that the execution of the invalid warrant on Feb. 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s premises, constituting violations of the rights to dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36), and privacy (Section 37) of the Constitution.

He further argued that the search was conducted without legal justification and in a manner that inflicted humiliation and distress.

“Evidence obtained without a valid warrant is unlawful and inadmissible, as established in judicial precedents such as C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137, where the court ruled that evidence procured through improper means contravenes fundamental rights and must be excluded,” he said.

In the affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred that on Feb. 19 at about 2p.m., officers from the ICPC and Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about Feb. 4.

According to him, the said warrant is invalid due to its lack of specificity, errors, and other defects as outlined in the grounds of this application.

He said the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”

Shaba stated that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as provided by the law before proceeding with the search.

“That the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district wherein he sits.

“That during the invasion, the officers searched the applicant’s premises without lawful authority, seized personal items including documents and electronic devices, and caused the applicant undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.

“Now shown to me and marked as ‘EXHIBIT B’ Is the list of the items carted away.

“That no items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence.

“That the applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce same,” Shaba said.

Source: Naijanews.com