Headline

Dangote, BUA Renew Battle Over Mining Sites In Edo State

Published

6 years ago

June 16, 2020

Editor

Years after it seemed that the mega battle between two cement giants, BUA Group and Dangote Industries over mining sites in Okpella, Edo State,has ended, the duo are back at war.

The gladiators in this battle are two Kano-born billionaires: Alhaji Aliko Dangote and Alhaji Abdulsamad Rabiu. And The Boss learnt that there have been moves by mutual friends to settle the rift but it seems the efforts have proved abortive.

The recent spat was occasioned by a statement from BUA Group insisting that following a recent Benin High Court judgment, it owned and can now operate on the sites.

But the Management of Dangote has fired a response insisting the sites in Obu, Okpella, Edo State belongs to to it.

Dangote advised the regulatory agencies to disregard completely the unfounded and mischievous claim and publication by the BUA Group, saying it was riddled with misrepresentations and deliberate distortions of facts

Dangote Group, in a statement signed by the Group Executive Director, Devakumar Edwin, yesterday explained that the Dangote Group through its lawyers had vigorously defended the Suit filed by the BUA Group seeking a perpetual Injunctive Order against further interferences with their purported fundamental rights to property and privacy. He said the Group has appealed the High Court judgment and until the Appellate Court rules, BUA cannot lay claim or even operate on the mining site.

Giving details of the case, Edwin recalled that in 2014, the Dangote Group and AICO entered into an agreement for the transfer of 2541ML from AICO to Dangote Group. “AICO thereafter applied to the Ministry of Mines for the approval of the Transfer vide a Mining Lease Transfer Form dated 11 July 2014. In 2016, the Ministry of Mines wrote to the Dangote Group to convey the approval of the Ministry for the Transfer/Assignment of 2541ML from AICO to Dangote Group with effect from 03 February 2016. Following the approval of the Ministry, the Dangote Group became the legal holder and owner of the Mining Lease No. 2541ML. The 2541ML Certificate was thereafter endorsed to reflect the transfer from AICO to the Dangote Group”, he added.

Dangote Group, therefore, warned the general public and those working with BUA Group not to take any steps to enter, mine or interfere with the disputed mining leases pending the determination of the Appeal and/or the 2 Suits pending before Umar J. as any such steps will be considered a contempt of court. He noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Governor of Lagos State v. Chief Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 18) 621), has held that:

“Once a party is aware of a pending court process, even when the court has not made a specific injunctive order, parties are bound to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the court process”.

Insisting that BUA Group does not have any right to the mining sites, Edwin recalled that though the BUA Group claimed to have title pursuant to Mining Leases 18912 and 18913. “However, as recently as 09 October 2019 while its wholly incompetent Fundamental Right Suit was still pending, the BUA Group through its subsidiary (Edo Cement Company Ltd) applied to the Director-General of Mining Cadastre Office & Centre, Abuja for the renewal of the said Mining Leases Nos. 18912 and 18913. In response to the BUA Group’s renewal Applications, the Mining Cadastre Office, in Abuja in its letters dated 18 October 2019 wrote back to BUA Group to inform them in very categorical terms that the Mining Leases Nos 18912 and 18913 were nonexistent and were not valid Mineral titles”, the GED noted.

Edwin further explained that “Interestingly and to show the character of the BUA Group, these supremely critical facts were never brought to the attention of the Federal High Court in the Fundamental Rights Suit even though the Mining Cadastre Office letters were written about 8 (eight) months before the Judgment of the Court was delivered. In effect and significantly so, when that Court was handing down its decision and issuing injunctive orders to protect BUA, BUA knew and was well aware, by virtue of the above-referenced letters, that its purported rights to the mining lease were non-existent!

“These facts were however mischievously and in a brazen display of mala fide concealed by the BUA Group from the Court! Even these facts constitute sufficient proof that the BUA Group’s claim to Mining Leases Nos. 18912 and 18913 rest entirely on quicksand and is therefore invalid baseless and totally non-existent. The general public is advised to be guided accordingly,” Edwin added

BUA REACTS

BUA Group has described the publication of Dangote Group wherein it stated that BUA misinterpreted the fact about a pending court case as untrue and laden with misrepresentations. A statement by BUA Group explained that Dangote, in its hurry to twist facts, failed to justify the alleged misinterpretation in its publication but stylishly stated that it has appealed the judgement whilst accepting the recent court order, which granted BUA the right to peaceful possession and operations of three of its mining sites in Obu, Okpella in Edo State.

“In the said publication by Dangote Group, it was alleged that the initial publication of the BUA Group was riddled with misrepresentations and deliberate distortions of facts. We however note that the Dangote Group failed to identify any specific fact, which was distorted. On the contrary, the Dangote Group reiterated the fact that the judgment of the Court indeed restrained DIL and the other Respondents, as contended by BUA, albeit stating that the judgment of the Court constitutes complete aberrations and contains manifests contradictions; and it has exercised its legal right to appeal the decision of the Court. Whilst we consider this attempt to disparage the Court on the pages of print media as an affront, we shall not be joining issues with the Dangote Group, as we are of the view that the Court can protect itself and DIL reserves the right to appeal the decision of the Court.

Headline

Opposition Parties Reject 2026 Electoral Act, Demand Fresh Amendment

Published

19 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