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

Fubara’s Impeachment Suffers Setback As Judge Rejects Invitation to Set Up Probe Panel

Published

23 hours ago

January 22, 2026

Eric

The Chief Judge of Rivers State, Justice Simeon Amadi, has declined to set up a judicial panel to investigate Governor Siminalayi Fubara, citing a court order.

The Rivers State House of Assembly had requested that Amadi set up a seven-member panel to probe Fubara and his deputy, Ngozi Odu, over allegations of gross misconduct.

However, in a letter dated January 20 and addressed to the Speaker of the House, Martins Amaewhule, the chief judge cited two court orders barring him from receiving, forwarding, or considering any requests to form such a panel.

The judge stated that the orders were served on his office on January 16, 2026 and remain in force.

The chief judge emphasised that constitutionalism and the rule of law require all authorities to obey subsisting court orders, irrespective of their perception of the orders’ validity.

He referenced legal precedents, noting that in a similar case in 2007, the Chief Judge of Kwara State was condemned for ignoring a restraining court order when setting up an investigative panel, a decision later voided by the Court of Appeal.

Justice Amadi further observed that the Speaker has already filed an appeal against the court orders at the Court of Appeal, adding another layer to the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the allegations.

“By the doctrine of ‘lis pendens’, parties and the court have to await the outcome of the appeal,” he said.

Justice Amadi further stated that the existence of the injunctions and the pending appeal had effectively tied his hands.

“In view of the foregoing, my hand is fettered, as there are subsisting interim orders of injunction and appeal against the said orders. I am therefore legally disabled at this point from exercising my duties under Section 188(5) of the Constitution in the instant,” he said.

The chief judge appealed to the lawmakers to recognise the legal constraints surrounding the matter.

Justice Amadi, therefore, urged the state assembly to be “magnanimous enough to appreciate the legal position of the matter.”

Headline

2027: ADC Draws Battleline Against Tinubu’s APC

Published

4 days ago

January 19, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

“We will work in concert with other leaders of the opposition and Nigerians to chase the APC out of government” – Atiku Abubakar

The permutations that had made the rounds regarding the invincibility of President Bola Tinubu and his All Progressives Congress (APC) as the 2027 Presidential Election approaches, have taken a major shift with the recent alliances and reinvestments in the new coalition party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Only last week, a chieftain of the ADC, Chief Dele Momodu, aroused attention of the public towards the party, with his much celebrated officially and formal declaration of membership of the party in Benin City, Edo State. The event was attended by party stakeholders in the state, and was adjudged as a huge as it created the desired awareness of the party presence in the APC controlled state.

Earlier, the former Governor of Anambra State, who was the presidential candidate of the Labour Party in the 2023 elections, Mr. Peter Obi, had moved to the coalition ADC, in another elaborate ceremony held in Enugu, in what analysts and observers describe as strategic, and one of the most important alliances the party has enjoyed since its expanded emergennce many months ago.

While many believe that the moves may have sent jitters to the camp of the APC, and continue to pave for the democratic removal of Tinubu and the APC from office, the ruling part remains offbeat, raveling in the euphoria of so far amassing and harvesting 28 out of the 36 state governors in the Federation, and still counting.

But the ADC is unwavering in its efforts to see Tinubu out, much as the ruling party is stone-solid certain of retaining power in 2027, the much awaited battleline has then been drawn between the now two major political parties in the country.

If there’s one good thing so far the ADC has done to and for Nigerians in this dispensation, it’s their ability to truncate the government’s alleged ambition of reducing the country to a one-party state. This notion was fueled by the malformed shape the two former frontline parties; the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party have taken in recent times. None of the two parties can boost of an appropriate Executive Council or Working Committee, making it practically impossible for any aspirant to seek political position through those parties. This has led to the massive defections of politicians to the APC of governors, senators, representatives and other wannabe office holders.

This credit has gone to the likes of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Anambra State Governor, Peter Obi, former Senate President David Mark, former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola and a host of others, who in their words felt the need to ‘rescue’ Nigeria and Nigerians from the shackles of misrule and one-party inclination of the APC.

The ADC’s heighened readiness to contend the seat of Aso Rock against the APC and Tinubu, is made more more manifest in the recent interview granted by the party’s spokesperson, Mallam Baji Abdullahi, on Channels Television, where he noted that the only way Nigeria can overcome its current challenges is to remove President Bola Tinubu in 2027, describing in vivid colours with copious evidences the objective to remove the president from power as a necessary step towards rescuing Nigeria from an unprecedented governance crisis.

Insisting that Nigeria has been hijacked, Abdullahi accused the Tinubu-led government of carelessness in the affairs and living conditions of Nigerians, and the state governors for failing to improve Nigerians’ livelihoods despite receiving larger allocations from the federal government.

He further accused the government of prioritizing stranglehold on power rather than governance with a human face, saying those and more are the reasons Nigerians will shun the party, and embrace ADC in 2027.

“It’s solely to get Tinubu out of power. There is no scenario where he remains in power, and we can save this country. When people say you can smash it, grab it, and run with it, that is the language of banditry”.

Abdullahi, who himself, had been in the corridors of power as a minister, stressed that the atrocities of the present administration is enough for Nigerians to show them the way out in 2027, with ADC providing the platform, just as he raised concerns about allegations of legislative manipulation, particularly regarding tax laws, and the hiring of lobbyists at a whooping sum of $9 million, describing those and other recent events as unprecedented in Nigeria’s democratic history.

“A government that can forge a duly passed law; what do you call that?” he asked.

Speaking on the federal government’s reported payment of $9 million to foreign lobbyists in the United States, allegedly to improve Nigeria’s image before American political leaders, including President Donald Trump, Abdullahi said he had reviewed documents and found no transparency model or legal basis for the process.

“Is it a bad thing to lobby? No, it’s not a bad thing. But what they are doing, number one, I don’t even want to go into all the processes.

“How was this contract awarded? How was the money paid? Who paid the money? What budget line was it taken from? How was the money transferred out of Nigeria? he asked.

He argued that the expenditure revealed misplaced priorities.

“If you invest nine million dollars in internal security, you will see results. You won’t have to convince the president of another country that your country is safe,” he added.

“Instead, he accused the government of caring more about appearances before foreign audiences than about the daily insecurity faced by Nigerians.”

“They don’t care whether Nigerians are still dying. They don’t care that people are still being killed. They want to look good before Americans,” Abdullahi said.

The ADC spokesperson also expressed alarm over a recently signed medical memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Nigeria and the United States.
According to him, the agreement, reportedly signed around December 19, grants the US significant control over how funds are spent, including determining the regions that would benefit, despite Nigeria contributing more financially.

“No Nigerians have seen the details of this MOU,” he said, describing the terms as “shocking” while raising questions about sovereignty and accountability.

Abdullahi accused state governors of failing to improve Nigerians’ livelihoods despite receiving larger allocations from the federal government.

He noted that with the removal of fuel subsidy, Nigerian governors have more money in their coffers but have not done much with it.

“The governors, by their own, by the president’s own declaration, he has given more money to the governors than maybe any president has ever given to governors in our history. And how has that reflected in the improved livelihood of the people in the states?” the ADC spokesman asked.

“I’m not saying all of them are bad, but what I’m saying is that they have received more money than any other generation of governors have received in the history of this country,” the former minister said.

“You can say devaluation. The reason we have more money going to the states is that they removed subsidies, and that money is now going to them. In what way has that reflected a better life for the people in the states?” he queried.

But with only eight governors in ‘fragile’ opposition against Tinubu, the APC has dismissed ADC’s efforts as a waste of time. They have noted that the eight opposition governors, are only so in name, at least majority of them.

In Anambra State, where Prof Charles Soludo is the governor, the government has consistently lauded Tinubu, canvassed for his reelection, and even derided the ambition of one of their own, Mr. Peter Obi.

In Kano State, it is just a matter of time before the NNPP governor defects to the APC as he has practically severed relationship with his mentor, Rabiu Kwankwaso, and entered into a new romance with Tinubu’s APC.

And with the barage of attacks being faced by the Abia State governor Alex Otti, from opposition elements including the three governors before him; Orji Uzo Kalu, Theodore Orji and Okezie Ikpeazu, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu and other fractions of opposition voices, observers say Otti buckle, and join the fray. However, the support of Abia citizens has been overwhelming, and appears enough to see the governor through another in 2027.

It is also believed that except Seyi Makinde of Oyo State is on the ballot paper, his loyalty is likely to go to Tinubu, a ‘Yoruba man’ if the revelations of former Ekiti State governor, Ayo Fayose, is anything to hold on to.

As for the Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke; if not that his defection to the APC was thwarted by elements that do not like his face in the party, he would have been in APC today, and singing the reelection song of Tinubu. He is in Accord Party, and is still keeping his presidential allegiance close to his chest.

Bauchi State governor Bala Mohammed is presently been haunted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and a dramatic move to Tinubu’s side may erased whatever corrupt case allegations against. Adams Oshiomhole was once quoted as saying that ‘once you join the APC, your sins are forgiven’.

In a Premium Times report, and quoting the National President, Campaign for Democracy (CD), Ifeanyi Odili, the issue of Nigeria sliding into one-party state appears real

“With several governors joining the APC, the party now controls about 28 out of 36 states, leaving four for PDP, one for APGA, one for NNPP, and one for Accord. Abuja’s status is uncertain with (FCT Minister Nyesom) Wike’s influence.”

“This trend has sparked fears that Nigeria’s democracy is being undermined, as a weak opposition can lead to a lack of accountability and checks on the ruling party,” Odili said.

But the ADC has said that its emergence has changed all the talks about one-party agenda as more Nigerians are proudly queuing behind the party.

But beyond rhetoric, the battleline appears to be a very long one because in the words of Dele Momodu, ‘Tinubu has already locked down the south, and therefore, ADC needs someone with the capacity to lock down the north if tangible can be made.

Nigerians variously have asked that if the ADC is really serious about dislodged Tinubu and the APC in 2027, their two biggest talisman, Atiku and Obi, must develop a healthy collaboration, where whomever emerges as the candidate of the party later in the year, must enjoy the unalloyed support of the others.

The coming together of the two political heavyweights has obviously boosted the party’s and coalition’s political strength, the players and their supporters must not allow it become a weakness or spell its doom

So, with the two frontline leaders yet to agree on who steps down for the other so that a formidable force could be forged against Tinubu and his APC family, all eyes are therefore, on the fast approaching primary election expected to some time this year.

It is no longer a case of who crosses the battleline first, it is a case of who has a more superior firing power in terms of reach, history, achievement, and not forgetting financial muscle, that will carry the day.

ADC says it is ready! APC says it is ready!! Time, and the people will tell!!!

Headline

Undeclared $40k: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Ex-Gov Lamido’s Son

Published

7 days ago

January 16, 2026

Eric

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the son of a former Jigawa State governor, challenging the decision of the trial court, which convicted him for failing to declare $40,000 at Kano airport.

In a unanimous decision, the apex court panel dismissed the appeal of Aminu Sule Lamido, the son of former governor Sule Lamido, for lack of merit.

Operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arrested Aminu on December 11, 2012, at the Mallam Aminu Kano International Airport while preparing to travel to Cairo, Egypt.

The prosecution said Aminu declared $10,000 to the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), but was found with an additional $40,000, which was not disclosed on his currency declaration form.

The EFCC charged him before the Federal High Court in Kano on a one-count offence of false declaration of foreign currency, contrary to provisions of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.

On July 12, 2015, the court convicted Aminu and ordered him to forfeit 25 per cent of the undeclared sum to the Federal government.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Aminu approached the Court of Appeal in Kaduna to overturn the conviction and set aside the forfeiture order.

In a judgment delivered on December 7, 2015, however, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has ordered that the trial of former governor Lamido, his two sons, and others, over alleged N1.35billion fraud, should continue before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

A five-member panel of the apex court issued the directive in two unanimous judgments, in the two appeals filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial court, which dismissed the no-case submission filed by the Lamidos and held that the defendants had a case to answer.

Both appeals were against the July 25, 2023, judgments of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which upheld the no-case submission made by Lamido and others and struck out the 37-count charge on which they were being prosecuted, on the grounds that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.

In the lead judgments of the Supreme Court, Justice Abubakar Umar set aside the July 25, 2023 judgments of the Court of Appeal and affirmed the earlier decision by Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which overruled the no-case submissions by Lamido and others and ordered them to enter their defence.

The EFCC, in the 37-count charge, among others, accused Lamido of abusing his position as a governor between 2007 and 2015, allegedly laundering sums of money received as kickbacks from companies that were awarded contracts by the Jigawa State Government under his leadership.

The other defendants charged alongside Lamido are his two sons – Aminu and Mustapha; Aminu Wada Abubakar and their companies – Bamaina Holdings Ltd and Speeds International Ltd.