Headline

The Constitutionality or Otherwise of Governor Akeredolu’s 7-Day Quit Order on Herdsmen in Ondo

Published

5 years ago

January 25, 2021

Eric

By Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, FCIArb, OFR, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

As a well cultured Nigerian and Catholic Christian, I abhor criminality in all its ramifications. I have been a serial victim. But God has always delivered me from the snares of all evils (Psalm 23). As a constitutional lawyer and Human Rights Activist, I speak not just for today, but for tomorrow and posterity. I do not simply jump into the fray of issues and take the popular and most convenient route. Many do. Without weighing the possible negative effect of such populist positions. Such may be good music to the ears in the short measure. I prefer to look at, not just the short, but the medium and long term effects and consequences of such delicate matters. That is why over 98% of my postulations have always come to pass. Not a few Nigerians have wondered aloud whether I am a prophet, seer or Nostradamus. I am neither. Some Nigerians have, on the trending issue, been vociferously in support of the Ondo State’s blanket order given to herders, by my good friend, Governor Rotimi “Aketi” Akeredolu, to quit Ondo forest reserves within 7 days. Many have applauded it. Many endorsed; clapped. There is some sense in this, éclat though. But, have we stopped for a moment, to look at the possible manifold and ponderous effects of such a blanket order on other tribes and indigenes living in other parts of Nigeria other than their own? Have we analysed and interrogated the issues?

When my good friend, Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State ordered the demolition of a hotel for the owner’s violation of covid-19 rules, I intervened, arguing that he should have done it through a court order. I suggest that the owner of the hotel should go to court for redress. In the same measure, I argued that Governor Nasir-El-Rufai should not have rolled out bulldozers and caterpillars to demolish a hotel in Kaduna simply because it was alleged that the owner had desired to use it for a nude party, a matter never proved. It was simply political. But, I believed it should have been done through a court order; not through brute force.

We cannot use illegality to fight illegality; just as it is wrong to use corruption to fight corruption. Can we really stop Nigerians from plying their trade in any part of Nigeria, if done legitimately and in accordance with extant laws? I think not. I hope not. I pray not. We must learn, in a constitutional democracy, to be a country governed by laws, not men. We must build a country of strong institutions, not strong men.

This was why America only just recently defeated a strongman, performer president Donald Trump, with strong institution. It is in this context I will now proceed to critically analyse and interrogate, whether Governor Akeredolu’s 7 days Quit Notice for herders to quit Ondo State forest reserves is legal, constitutional and proper.

THE LEGAL REGIME

The Land Use Act of 1978 (LUA) has since laid the issue to rest as to who controls land in Nigeria. The provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Land Use Act, provides that “all land comprised in the territory of each state in the Federation are hereby vested in the Governor of that State such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of this Act”. The Act says “all Nigerians”, not only indigenes of a state. The case of NZENWATA & ORS V. NZENWATA (2016) LPELR-410 89(CA) gives a detailed explanation of the control and management of land under the Land Use Act, 1978, in the following words:

“By the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Land Use Act, 1978, all land comprised in the territory of each State in the Federation were/are vested in the Governor of that state and such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of the Act (Section 1 of the Act).

Also as from the commencement of the Act, all land in the urban areas shall be under control and management of the Governor of each State and all other land shall, subject to the Act, be under the control and management of the Local Government within the area of jurisdiction of which the land is situated. (Section 2(a) and (b) of the Act). By the provisions of Sections 5 (1) and 6(1) of the Act which deal with the Principles of Tenure, Powers of the Governor and Local Governments and Rights of Occupiers: It shall be lawful for the Governor in respect of land, whether or not in an urban Area- (a) to grant statutory rights of occupancy to any person for all purposes.” Section 5(1) (a) Section 6 (1) of the Act on the other hand provides that: It shall be lawful for a Local Government in respect of land not in an urban area- (a) to grant customary rights of occupancy to any person or organization for the use of land in the Local Government Area for agricultural, residential and other purposes.” The combined effect of the provisions of all the Sections of the Act above quoted is that all lands in urban areas as well as the Rural Areas are either vested in the Governors or Local Government Chairmen and all citizens of this Country who hitherto owned land or not are mere beneficial occupiers or owners as the State Governor in cases of land in Urban areas hold such land in trust for them. See Savannah Bank of (Nig) Ltd. & Anor v. Ajilo & Anor (1989) LPELR-3019 (SC) Per Belgore, JSC (as he then was) at pages 84-85, Paragraphs A-C).” Per AGUBE, J.C.A. (Pp. 32-34, Paras. D-D).”

In accordance with Section 1 of the Land Use Act 1978, State Governors can exercise the power to grant statutory rights of occupancy in any part of the State, at which point a proof of the right of occupancy, which is known as a Certificate of Occupancy, is issued by the State Governor. From the above provisions, it is crystal clear that my good friend, the Ondo State government and its Governor, Arakunrin “Aketi” Rotimi Akeredolu has control over all lands within his State territory. It is also clear that “all citizens of this country who hitherto owned land or not are mere beneficial occupies or owners as the state Governor in cases of land in urban areas hold such in trust for them”.

Additionally, section 28 of the LUA, 1978, provides for the powers of the Governor to revoke a right of occupancy already granted for overriding public interest. Similarly, the instances in which these rights can be revoked are provided for in the same section (28). From the aforementioned, it is within the powers of the Ondo State Governor to exorcise and expel occupants of lands within its territories, if it is shown to be in the overriding interest of the public, such as security matters. Governor Akeredolu can therefore, in exercising the rights granted to him by virtue of his position as Governor of Ondo State, issue the order asking herders to vacate the forests reserves within seven days, simply on the ground that the reserve belongs to the Ondo State government. Indeed, the Governor can compulsorily acquire such lands as occupied by the ungovernable herdsmen, in accordance with section 44 of the 1999 Constitution. In such a lawful event, the Governor is expected to make prompt payment of compensation to the herdsmen, who have lawfully been in occupation without criminal records in accordance with section 44(1)(a) of the Constitution. See AIGORO V. COMMISSIONER OF LANDS AND HOUSING, KWARA STATE (2011) LPELR-9112(CA).

The Governor has duly exercised his powers under the Land Use Act by giving the 7 days quit notice to the herdsmen. This is constitutional and legal. It is also correct to state that something drastic needed to be done to tackle the increasing menace of crimes and violent acts faced in Ondo State forest reserves, which the Governor adduced as his reason for the order. Said Hippocrates (the father of Medicine), “desperate diseases require desperate remedies”. Akeredolu’s primary function as Governor of Ondo State is the security and welfare of his people (section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution). However, it is trite law that the Governor’s powers are only effective up to the extent that they do not arbitrarily affect a citizen’s fundamental rights under the 1999 Constitution, without resort to due process of law. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended, supersedes the provisions of the Land Use Act. It is the highest law of the land, the grundnorm, the fontact origo, and supreme law. See ABACHA & ORS V. FAWEHINMI (2000) LPELR-14(SC). Thus, where any law or provisions of laws conflict with the Constitution, such a law is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.

Inherently, Governors are bound by their oath of office to obey and uphold the Constitution and all other laws that uphold it. No Governor can therefore unilaterally, arbitrarily, whimsically and capriciously order a group of people, tribe or religion to vacate, by fiat and ultimatum, any part of a state which they govern, without resort to due process and the law courts, as this will amount to encroaching on the fundamental rights of citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution. These rights include right to freedom of movement (section 41); right to freedom from discrimination (section 42); and right to own movable and immovable property (section 44). How fair and equitable is a 7 day quit notice from a habit where people have lived all their lives, some for decade? I think it is not!

RIGHT TO OWN LAND

It is arguable that the herdsmen, who have been issued quit notice by Governor Akeredolu are actually being arbitrarily sent away from lands over which they have since legally acquired title and possession over. Where it is proven that some herdsmen have peacefully lived on their occupied lands for a significant time without committing crimes, then they are deemed to have a bonafide title to such lands occupied by them under the law. The case of IDUNDUN AND ORS V. IKUMAGBA AND ORS (1976) 9-10 S.C. 227, reflects this legal position, as it posits five ways in which title to land can be proven:

i. By traditional evidence in the form of traditional history.

ii. By production of documents of title

iii. By proving acts of ownership and possession over a sufficient length of time which are numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner.

iv. By proving acts of long possession and enjoyment of land; and
By proof of possession of connected and adjacent land, in circumstances which make it probable that the owner of such adjacent or connected land is probably the owner of the land in dispute.

The above five ways to prove title to land are not mutually connected. Ergo, proving one of these ways is sufficient enough to prove title. See the case of BARTHOLOMEW ONWUBUARIRI & ORS V. ISAAC IGBOASOIYI & ORS (2011) LPELR. Where any of these are proved, the government’s order could be successfully challenged as constituting a breach of those herders’ title or possessory rights. However, section 28 of the Land Use act bestows title over all lands of a state on the Governor, to hold in trust for the people. Consequentially, Governor Akeredolu can lawfully give out lands in a state, just as he can also lawfully take them back. This is the dilemma – striking a delicate balance between Nigerians’ right to live and carry out business wherever they desire, and the need that they live peacefully, without criminal tendencies, in such places. Can the individual ownership or possessory rights of these herders override the need for the Governor to maintain law and order as the Chief Security Officer of his state (section 215(4) 1999 Constitution); and to give maximum security to his people (section 14(2)(b) 1999 Constitution)? I think not.

But, can he do so by fiat, without resort to due process through a court of competent jurisdiction? I think not.

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) provides the citizen’s right to freedom of movement throughout Nigeria. He is also allowed to reside in any part thereof. Section 41 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in very clear and precise words, provides as follows:

“Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereto or exit therefrom”.

This fundamental right is widely applied, as citizens are thereby permitted to move about and across all corners, nooks and crannies within Nigeria, as was aptly held in the case of OKAFOR v. LAGOS STATE GOVT & ANOR (2016) LPELR-41066(CA). It is of no effect whether the citizens live where the land is located, or whether they are mere nomads. This position has been clearly reiterated by the apex court in IBRAHIM V. MOHAMMED (2003) FWLR (PT. 156) 902, where Lordship Kalgo, JSC, stated thus:

“The Land Use Act was promulgated as a whole with a view to making land available to all Nigerians irrespective of where they live”.

Do you hear that please?

See also the case of AROWOLO V. AKAPO & ORS (2002) LPELR-7063(CA).

The only exception/limitation to this is, where restrictions have been placed on the movement or residence of such a person, if he commits a crime, or is suspected to have committed a crime with a view to ‘preventing him from leaving Nigeria’. Thus, applying the literal rule, this limitation appears to apply in an instance such as the present case, where the crime is committed, or is expected, or foreseen, as was Governor’s Akeredolu’s reasons for tackle the increasing spate of violent crimes perpetrated by herders in the forest reserve of Ondo State.

The Governor is legally correct and competent to demand that herders should register for proper identification. Why will they not want to do this, when this will actually help the genuine herders to be separated from the violent and criminally-minded ones, such as kidnappers and armed bandits? This registration will determine how many herders are actually operating in the forest reserves and also separate the authentic herders from invading terrorists who spill in from neighbouring countries.

WHAT MUST AKEREDOLU DO TO QUIT THE HERDERS?

Legally speaking, the right channel available for Governor Akeredolu, in my humble legal opinion (if he must demand their exit within 7 days), is for the Governor to file an action at the Federal High Court, Akure, stating the reasons as to his request to oust and quit the herdsmen from the Ondo forest reserves. His reasons are strong and cogent enough, and courts would readily agree with him. This will enure his acts with legal and constitutional imprimatur; not resort to self-help. Freedom of movement, in any case, is not absolute; though courts of law in Nigeria rarely grant applications that breach the fundamental rights of citizens. In KALU V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS (2012) LPELR-9287(CA), the issue for determination was whether the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, are absolute. There, EKO, J.C.A. (as he then was), in pages 44-45, paragraphs F-E, concisely and unambiguously stated:

“The courts, including the Federal High Court, know the law and would not do things to whimsically undermine the rights of parties guaranteed by the Constitution. The rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement, guaranteed respectively by sections 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution, are not absolute. Section 41 (2) (a) of the Constitution says that the right to freedom of movement may be deprived under a law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society that imposes restrictions on the “movement of any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected to have committed a criminal offence in order to prevent him from leaving Nigeria”. An application for enforcement of a party’s fundamental right presupposes the right has been, is being or is likely to be violated otherwise than in accordance with the procedure permitted by law. That argument will be defeated when it is apparent that the right has been deprived of in accordance with the procedure permitted by law.”

Consequently, once the Governor can demonstrate to the court that the peace and order of Ondo State have been serially breached by the herders, the constitutionality of Governor Akeredolu’s order will not be faulted by a court of law; and same will be held to be constitutional; and not unconscionable, arbitrary, oppressive, discriminatory, illegal or ultra vires his gubernatorial powers. This is the best route to follow.

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

In discussing this fundamental right, I would refer to the Punch Newspaper publication of 19th January, 2021, in which the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu, replied Governor Rotimi Akeredolu’s order thus:

“Governor Rotimi Akeredolu, a seasoned lawyer, Senior Advocate of Nigeria and indeed, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, has fought crime in his state with passion and commitment, greater sensitivity and compassion for the four years he has run its affairs and, in our view, will be the least expected to unilaterally oust thousands of herders who have lived all their lives in the state on account of the infiltration of the forests by criminals”.

I completely agree with this opinion. It is important to note that not every Fulani herder living in Ondo state is a criminal. Some, or many, who have lived there for decades, do not fall into the category of the rampant, blood-lusty “herdsmen” terrorizing citizens and states in Nigeria. Consequently, the categorization of every Fulani within the herdsmen bracket, or the categorization of every and all herdsmen in the blood-lusty herdsmen bracket will, in my humble view, appear to be blanketly discriminatory. This is contrary to freedom from discrimination as guaranteed by section 42 of the 1999 Constitution. It is a court of law that can sift the chaff from the seeds. I do not agree with the tarring of a whole race or occupation with the besmearing paintbrush of criminality. Let me give an example: if some Igbo or Edo or Yoruba indigenes (permit my example) living outside their states, are fond of committing crimes in the Sagon Gari area of Kano City, it will be wrong, unconstitutional and even immoral, will it not, to term Igbos, Edos and Yorubas living in Kano as criminals who must be evicted within seven (7) days. What about the majority of the innocent ones, many of whom are living in Kano in their third generation? My simple thesis is that criminals must be separated from the innocent ones. I therefore agree with the compulsory registration exercise introduced by Akeredolu, to sift the good from the bad; the beautiful from the ugly; the clean from the tainted, and the innocent from the guilty.

WAS THE PRESIDENCY RIGHT IN ITS REACTION TO AKEREDOLU QUIT NOTICE?

The Presidency in my view, is right to be gravely worried about the Governor’s 7 day quit notice, seeing that this would infringe on the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens, without a valid court order to that effect. A court order, I repeat, is necessary. We must carefully guide against ethno-religious reprisals in a volatile, mutually suspicious country of major religions and ethnic fault-lines as we have. By the way, why will Governors abdicate their solemn duties of protecting their people through short cuts? What stops Governor Akeredolu and other South West Governors from deploying their local vigilante groups such as AMOTEKUN, to flush out the identified criminals and prosecute them? What are they paid for? Why use the crimes of some (whether in the minority or majority) to deal with every herdsman, including the innocent ones? I don’t agree with this, even if my view is unpopular. Afterall, I am not in any popularity contest with anyone.

HOW BEST STATES CAN TACKLE THIS ISSUE OF INSECURITY

SOME IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS

– Bad governance and poor leadership
Bad governance and poor leadership still remain Nigeria’s bane and fundamental cause of insecurity from the past till date. It is the duty of every government anywhere to see its primary function as providing basic services such as security, welfare, water, electricity, good road network, quality education, and general infrastructure. Our governments do not.

– Overpopulation
Nigeria’s population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 208 million today [UNO, mid-June, 2020]. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. This pressure has led to the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion, while the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities, with the latter (e.g. Ondo State) being at the receiving end.

– Porous Borders
One major immediate factor which has enhanced insecurity in Nigeria is the porous borders of the country, where individual movements are largely untracked. Given the porous borders, as well as the weak security system, weapons easily find their way into Nigeria from other countries. Small arms and light weapons proliferation have enabled militant and criminal groups to have unhindered access to arms. Nigeria is estimated to host over 70 percent of about 8 million illegal weapons in West Africa. The porosity of Nigerian borders has also led to unceasing influx of migrants from neighbouring countries, such as Niger Republic, Chad and Republic of Benin. These migrants who are mostly young men constitute the perpetrators of major crimes in the country.

– Rural /Urban Drift
The migration of jobless youths from rural areas to urban centres is a major cause of insecurity in Nigeria. Nigeria is one of the countries in the world with very high rural/urban drift.

– Lack of social irresponsibility of companies
Companies engage in corporate social responsibility to enable them offset corporate social irresponsibility. The rise of terror groups in some parts of the country is directly related to the abysmal neglect of social responsibility by companies to the community where they operate. This has been the case of the Niger Delta, leading to crisis.

– Acts of Terrorism
Acts of terrorism have become the most fundamental source of insecurity in Nigeria. Its primary base and source have been squarely located in religious and ethnic fanaticism and intolerance. There is fear, destruction and death, especially against unarmed targets, property and infrastructure in states.

RECOMMENDED PANACEA

1. Establishment of Grazing Reserves – The establishment of permanent grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practising a more limited form of pastoralism and constitutes a pathway towards a better template of animal husbandry. Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. It is clear that pastoralism, at least in the short and medium term, may help to prevent seasonal migration of herders from dry to wet season grazing areas.

2. Law and Policy – There is an emerging conflict between the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of movement of persons and goods, and laws emerging in some States which restrict movement. Some States have, rightfully, enacted laws or are still processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are some initiatives so far in Benue, Ekiti, Taraba and Edo States. Could such laws be effective in prohibiting nomadic pastoralism, which is practised by millions of Nigerians, especially of the Fulani stock? We shall find out sooner than later.

3. Community policing should be immediately established within states of Nigeria for effective management of insecurity. Nigeria’s behemoth Police Force (sections 214 and 215 of the 1999 Constitution) should be dismantled in favour of states, LGAs and community policing.

4. There is an urgent need to create an enabling economic environment that allows for social, security, economic and physical infrastructure. This will allow for business and industrial growth.

5. Creation of job opportunities for the teeming youth is a sine qua non to prevent rising crime.

6. Adequate punishment e.g. barring for life, politicians who use thugs for politics, should be encouraged. This will help our electoral system.

7. There must be good governance, transparency and accountability.

8. Security systems must be strengthened – Our weak security system can be attributed to a number of factors which include corruption, inadequate funding of the Police (and other security agencies), lack of modern equipment, poor welfare of security personnel, and inadequate personnel. There is therefore the need to imrpove our security architecture through the training of security officers, sufficient training in modern security methodologies, provision of state-of-the-art equipment and appropriate remuneration, good service conditions, and a convenient pension scheme. Modern methods of intelligence gathering, and intelligence sharing, training, logistics, motivation, and deploying advanced technology in managing security challenge should be introduced immediately.

9. Poverty reduction is a must. A realistic social security programme must be vigorously pursued and implemented, to ensure that the teeming populace meet their basic needs.

10. There should be mutual trust, respect and accommodation by all ethnic and religious groups in Nigeria. No section should claim superiority over others whom they unfortunately regard as vassals.

Up Next

Opinion: The Constitutionality Or Otherwise of Gov. Akeredolu’s 7-Day Quit Order On Fulani Herdsmen- Mike Ozekhome, SAN

Don't Miss

Bella Disu Becomes Chairman, Abumet Nigeria Limited

Click to comment

Headline

Senate Passes Electoral Bill 2026, Rejects Real-time Electronic Transmission of Results

Published

2 days ago

February 5, 2026

Eric

The Senate, yesterday, passed the Electoral Bill 2026 following hours of robust debate. But it rejected a proposal to mandate real-time electronic transmission of election results while approving significant reforms to election timelines, penalties for electoral offences and voting technology.

At the centre of the controversy was Section 60, which governs the transmission of polling unit results. 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.

Instead, lawmakers retained the approach in the 2022 Electoral Act, which allows electronic transmission after votes are counted and publicly announced at the polling unit.

Relatedly, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which concluded work on the timetable and schedule of activities for the 2027 general election, is unable to release it due to ongoing amendments to the Electoral Act by the National Assembly.

It also identified the inclusion of deceased persons on the voters’ register, prompting plans for a nationwide verification exercise.

On its part, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) raised the alarm over the National Assembly’s delay in passing the Electoral Act amendments, warning that the situation could expose political parties to technical and legal pitfalls ahead of the 2027 general elections.

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.

Copies must also be provided to polling agents and security personnel where available. Violators face fines of up to N500,000 or a minimum of six months’ imprisonment.

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

Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Adeyemi Adaramodu, described the debate as largely semantic.

“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.”

Beyond the transmission debate, the Senate approved far-reaching amendments to Nigeria’s electoral calendar. 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).

INEC Chairman, Prof Joash Amupitan, noted the delay yesterday in Abuja at INEC’s first quarterly consultative meeting with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs).

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.”

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.

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.

The Guardian

Headline

Wike Remains Undisputed Rivers APC, PDP Leader, Tinubu Rules

Published

4 days ago

February 3, 2026

Eric

President Bola Tinubu has, again, intervened to halt the escalating feud between Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, and his predecessor and estranged godfather, Nyesom Wike.

The peace deal came after months of failed settlements that had pushed the state to the brink of governorship impeachment, legislative paralysis, and prolonged instability.

The president had previously intervened in the rift between Fubara and Wike in December 2023, when he brokered a fragile peace, which broke down soon after, leading the declaration of a six-month emergency rule in the state on March 18, 2025 by Tinubu and suspension of the governor.

However, in the fresh push to defuse one of the country’s most combustible political disagreements in recent times, Tinubu ordered an immediate suspension of any impeachment moves against Fubara, but with very strict conditions.

Multiple highly placed sources familiar with the issue told THISDAY that Tinubu, who acted just before departing for an official trip to Türkiye on January 26, laid down the political terms aimed at restoring peace between the two key political actors in Rivers State, a state seen as critical to the president’s re-election in 2027.

Tinubu’s intervention came with a blunt message to Fubara: Wike remains the undisputed political leader of the party, whether APC or Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Rivers State, and he must be respected in that regard.

THISDAY was told that the president, visibly displeased by the depth of the rift, despite his efforts in the past, warned that continued hostilities would undermine governance in the state and lead to instability, a situation Tinubu said he was not ready to condone.

Tinubu was said to have clearly told Wike to back off any impeachment plots against Fubara and allow governance in the state.

Fubara and his predecessor, Wike, have had a cat and mouse relationship just within months of the governor’s swearing into office in May 2023. What is now out in the open is that Wike, who personally engineered Fubara’semergence as his successor, has sought to control the levers of power from Abuja, while the governor has resisted what many see as the FCT minister’s chokehold on him.

The relationship began to fracture within months of Fubara’s inauguration, as the governor quietly sought to assert his independence, with political actors in the state immediately taking sides. Notably, in the ongoing fight, almost all the state lawmakers align with Wike.

Subsequently, attempts to impeach Fubara emerged from the pro-Wike group in the House of Assembly. Although the governor has tried to wriggle out of the situation several times, the shadows of impeachment continue to haunt him every time there is a disagreement with the minister.

Several efforts have been made to resolve the crisis, all of which failed to produce lasting peace. The failure of one of the peace meetings eventually led to the declaration of a state of emergency in the oil-rich state, which lasted six months.

While Wike’s camp continues to accuse Fubara of betrayal and political ingratitude, the governor’s allies argue that Rivers State cannot be run from outside the state by a former governor now serving as the FCT minister.

Still on the latest attempt to seek an end to the prolonged imbroglio, one insider recounted the president’s thinking, drawing a parallel with Lagos State, where Sanwo-Olu is the leader of the party.

Tinubu was said to have stated, “Is Babajide Sanwo-Olu my leader in Lagos, or was Babatunde Fashola my leader when he was governor?”, according to a source.

The president was equally said to have stated that Fubara should respect elders, saying Wike is an elder statesman in Rivers politics and should be regarded as such. Tinubu, one of the sources added, made it clear that political seniority could not be wished away because of personal disagreements.

As part of the peace deal, the president directed Wike and his camp to immediately halt all impeachment-related actions against Fubara, citing his overriding concern about stability in Rivers State.

In return, Fubara was instructed to make significant concessions. Chief among them was the formal recognition of Wike as the “political leader” in Rivers State, with final authority on party matters.

Sources said Tinubu stressed that all internal party disputes in the state must ultimately defer to Wike.

However, the complexity of Wike’s case is that he is not a card-carrying member of APC in Rivers State. Officially, he remains a member of the struggling opposition PDP, although he is a top minister under the ruling APC government – A position he has used to weaken his party, the PDP.

Besides, the understanding covered the upcoming state House of Assembly bye-elections in Rivers State. Tinubu directed that candidates loyal to Wike should be recognised by the APC leadership for the two vacant assembly seats. “It was explicitly stated that Wike has two candidates for the by-elections and that those candidates are to be recognised by the APC party structure,” one source said.

Already, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has fixed February 21, 2026 for the contentious by-elections into Ahoada East II and Khana II State Constituencies of the state.

THISDAY learnt that while the Ahoada-East II seat became vacant following the resignation of its former occupant, Edison Ehie, who was appointed Chief of Staff (CoS) to Governor Fubara, the Khana II seat was vacant since the death of its lawmaker, Dinebari Loolo, in September 2023.

Notably, the sensitive issue of Fubara’s second term ambition also came up for deliberation, the source said, but was deliberately side-lined, with the president alleged to have said such discussions were too early for now. One source said Tinubu described any talk about the 2027 governorship in the state as still premature.

ThisDay/Arise News

Headline

Otunba Adekunle Ojora: Farewell to a Good Man

Published

6 days ago

February 1, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

The curtain dropped on the elitist life of prominent Lagosian, traditional custodian, boardroom guru, refined journalist and elaborate philanthropist, Otunba Adekunle Ojora, on January 28, 2026, bringing to an over nine decades of spreading good tidings, prosperity, unity and humanity. He was 93 years.

His death was announced via a statement by his daughter, Mrs Toyin Ojora-Saraki, on behalf of the Ojora Family, saying he died early in the morning in full submission to the will of Almighty Allah (SWT)

“With total submission to the will of Almighty Allah (SWT), the Ojora family of Lagos hereby announces the passing of our beloved patriarch, Otunba Adekunle Ojora, the Otunba of Lagos and Lisa of Ife, who returned to his creator early this morning.

“We say Alhamdulilahi for a life well lived, and we comply with Allah’s words: ‘Surely, to Allah we belong, and to Him we will all return’ (Q2:156),” the statement reads.

A distinguished businessman, people-oriented-person, the Olori Omo Oba of Lagos and the Lisa of Ife, Adekunle Ojora’s passing came with a much ancipated heartbreak, wailings and regrets, among his hugely extended family members, circle of friends, mentees, colleagues in and across business and traditional terrain, associates and the well impacted general public.

With the announcement of his death came the heavy traffic of personalities, dignitaries and nobles to his Ikoyi palatial home, where his adorable wife, Ojuolape Ojora, and one of his distinguished daughters, Mrs Toyin Saraki, who is the wife of the former Senate President, Bukola Saraki, played significant hosts.

President Bola Tinubu was one of the first mourners with a statement signed by his spokesperson, Bayo Onanuga, acknowledging the dimunitive personality of the deceased, noting how he had affected humanity in a positive light.

Tinubu commiserated with the government and people of Lagos State, as well as the Ojora and Adele royal families.

“The passing of Otunba Ojora is a significant loss to the country, the private and public sectors, and traditional institutions,” the President said, describing the late industrialist as a man whose life was defined by humility, perseverance, hard work and generosity. He further noted that his values shaped his long and distinguished career.

“He remained a towering figure whose counsel and experience benefited institutions at both national and subnational levels,” Tinubu added.

In his condolence message, former President Olusegun Obasanjo described Ojora’s death as painful, saying his absence would be difficult to fill, according to a statement released by his Special Assistant on Media, Kehinde Akinyemi.

The ex-president described Ojora as “an amiable and distinguished Nigerian who, during his lifetime, built a remarkable legacy of integrity, wisdom, and unwavering dedication.”

“By his death, the country has lost a notable captain of industry and commerce, but there is no doubt that his memory lingers on through his many landmark contributions to the development of the South-West zone in particular, and the country in general,” Obasanjo added.

He also stated that “He was a remarkable entrepreneur whose vision, determination, and resilience added value to the community and to hundreds of families who depended on his commercial activities. He was a role model and exemplar whose personal life and achievements inspired a generation of entrepreneurs, industrialists, and merchants. Over the years, with his wise counsel, unquestioned strength, and gentle guidance, Otunba Ojora commanded respect and reverence, and took particular pleasure in mentoring younger men and women to succeed in life.”

Also reacting, a former Minister of Communications, Major General Tajudeen Olanrewaju (Rtd) described Ojora as a “veteran journalist and boardroom titan”.

The former General Officer Commanding (GOC) 3 Division Nigerian Army noted that he made positive contributions to the industrial and entrepreneurial sectors of the economy, lightened up the social fabric of his time in Lagos, in particular, and across our nation.

Among dignitaries that called to the home of the Ojora’s to express heartfelt condolences were the Governor of Osun State, Senator Ademola Adeleke and his elder brother, Dr. Deji Adeleke; Africa’s richest man, Alhaji Aliko Dangote, Mr. Femi Otedola and former governor of Akwa Ibom State, Udom Emmanuel.

As a revered Muslim, versed in Islamic doctrines, the nonagenarian’s burial followed the very next day, drawing an avalanche of well wishers and mourners to the Central Mosque, on Lagos Island, where the funeral rites or the Janazah, led by the Chief Imam of Lagos, Sheikh Sulaiman Abou-Nolla, and assisted by other prominent Islamic clerics, were conducted, and finally to the Vaults and Garden, Ikoyi, where the remains were committed to mother-earth. The events were a meeting point of some sort, as they drew together prominent Islamic scholars, family members, political bigwigs and other distinguished guests.

A roll call of the elite callers at the events include the deceased’s wife, Erelu Ojuolape Ojora; his daughter, Toyin Ojora-Saraki, and her husband, former Senate President and Kwara State Governor, Bukola Saraki. Also in attendance were Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, former Ogun State Governor Ibikunle Amosun, former Speaker of the Kwara State House of Assembly Ali Ahmad, former PDP National Chairman Kawu Baraje, Mufti of Ilorin Sheikh Sulaiman Onikijipa, and National President of Ansar-Ud-Deen Society of Nigeria Prince Adeniji Kazeem.

The burial ceremonies began with a recovery of the remains, which were borne by pallbearers for a burial procession before it was a motorcade bore it to the venue of the Janazah.

The long convoy of dignitaries that accompanied the body to the mosque spoke volumes of the personality of Adekunle Ojora. As the solenm approached, Imam Sulaiman Abou-Nolla led the congregation in prayers, asking for the repose of the siul of the deceased.

At the conclusion of the prayers, the body was conveyed to the Ikoyi Vault, where pallbearers and Muslim Ummah as well selected members of the family and notable dignitaries accompanied the remains, amid chants, to its final resting place.

THE MAN, OTUNBA ADEKUNLE OJORA

The highly principled businessman was born Isiaq Adekunle Ojora on June 13, 1932, into the distinguished Ojora Royal Family of Lagos, where he grew with a deeply-rooted tolerance for the history, culture and traditional governance of the Yoruba race and Lagos in particular.

His lineage placed him among the foremost royal families in the state, a heritage he upheld with dignity throughout his long life. Over several decades, he emerged as one of the most influential figures within Lagos’ traditional institutions, commanding respect across royal, cultural and civic circles.

Ojora was a member of the Ojora and Adele royal families of Lagos and was himself the holder of the chieftaincy of the Otunba of Lagos. He studied journalism at Regent Street Polytechnic, with the intention of developing a career in journalism. He started work as a staffer at the BBC where he rose to become an assistant editor.

In 1955, he switched his services to the Nigerian government as a reporter with the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation. He was soon transferred to Ibadan as an information officer in the office of the regional premier. Ojora’s stint with NBC lasted until 1961 when he took up appointment as the public relations manager at United African Company.

Ojora soon developed interest in the commercial units of enterprises, he became an executive director of UAC in 1962. After a military coup truncated the first republic, Ojora was nominated as a member of Lagos City Council in 1966. A year later, he was given political appointments in two government agencies, in 1967, he was managing director of WEMABOD, a regional property and investment company and also in 1967, he succeeded Kola Balogun as chairman of Nigerian National Shipping Line.

After leaving WEMABOD, he became an investor in various firms including AGIP petroleum marketing and NCR Nigeria. He also founded the private firms Nigerlink Industries, Unital Builders and a holding company Lagos Investments. After the Nigerian Enterprise Promotion Act, he took equity interest in some foreign companies operating in Nigeria such as investments in the Nigerian operations of Bowring Group, Inchape, Schlumberger, Phoenix Assurance, UTC Nigeria, Evans Brothers and Seven-Up. He married Erelu Ojuolape, and among their children is Toyin Saraki.

Beyond royalty, Otunba Ojora was widely regarded as a bridge between tradition and modern governance.

The Otunba Adekunle Ojora would be remembered as a quintessential gentleman, astute businessman, excellent in speech, dignified in conduct, and deeply respected across generations.

For as many as those who know him, Ojora has for decades, remained a familiar and revered presence in elite social and cultural spaces, where his highly sought-after counsel and calm disposition have proved relevant and needful.

He is also known for his refined lifestyle and strong family values, an embodiment of a “brand of old-school nobility that earned him admiration well beyond wealth or status. He was often described as a man of honour whose life reflected discipline, tradition, and unwavering integrity.

Otunba Adekunle Ojora is survived by his wife, Erelu Ojuolape Ojora, his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.