Headline

More Knocks for AGF Malami for Comparing Open Grazing with Spare Parts Sales

Published

5 years ago

May 22, 2021

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

Nigerians from all walks of life have held the Minister of Justice and Attorney Generation of the Federation, Malam Abubakar Malami, accountable for his utterance against the proposed ban on open grazing by southern governors.

The Minister had said in response that banning open grazing in the south is equivalent to banning spare parts sales in the north.

The comment has since generated unsavory reactions from the members of the public as follows:

Ban on Open Grazing Has Come to Stay, Akeredolu Replies Malami

The Ondo State governor and Chairman, Southwest Governors Forum, Olakunri Rotimi Akeredolu, has lambasted the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar for comparing open grazing and sale of spare parts, saying that the ban of open grazing will not be revoked as it has come to stay.

The governor was speaking via a statement against the backdrop of comments credited to the AGF which ridiculed the meeting, last week of southern governor and comparing open grazing in the south to sale of spare parts in the north.

“Comparing this anachronism, which has led to loss of lives, farmlands and property, and engendered untold hardship on the host communities, with buying and selling of auto parts is not only strange. It, annoyingly, betrays a terrible mindset,” Akeredolu said.

Declaring Malami’s utterances as unfortunate, Akeredolu said the Chief law officer is “unable to distill issues as expected of a Senior Advocate.”

The governor further advised the AGF is seek redress in court if he is so offended with the southern governors decision to ban open grazing.

“Mr Malami is advised to approach the court to challenge the legality of the Laws of the respective States baning open grazing and decision of the Southern Governor Forum taken in the interest of their people. We shall be most willing to meet him in Court,” he said.

The full statement:

OUR DECISION IS IRREVERSIBLE AND WILL BE ENFORCED

I have just read the press statement credited to the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Shehu Malami SAN on the resolution of the Southern Governors Forum to ban open grazing in their respective States. The AGF is quoted to have said that this reasoned decision, among others, is akin to banning all spare parts dealers in the Northern parts of the country and is unconstitutional.

It is most unfortunate that the AGF is unable to distill issues as expected of a Senior Advocate. Nothing can be more disconcerting. This outburst should, ordinarily, not elicit response from reasonable people who know the distinction between a legitimate business that is not in anyway injurious and a certain predilection for anarchy. Clinging to an anachronistic model of animal husbandry, which is evidently injurious to harmonious relationship between the herders and the farmers as well as the local populace, is wicked and arrogant.

Comparing this anachronism, which has led to loss of lives, farmlands and property, and engendered untold hardship on the host communities, with buying and selling of auto parts is not only strange. It, annoyingly, betrays a terrible mindset.

Mr Malami is advised to approach the court to challenge the legality of the Laws of the respective States baning open grazing and decision of the Southern Governor Forum taken in the interest of their people. We shall be most willing to meet him in Court.

The decision to ban open grazing stays. It will be enforced with vigour.

SIGNED

ARAKUNRIN OLUWAROTIMI O AKEREDOLU, SAN
GOVERNOR, ONDO STATE

Resign Now, You’re Rubbishing Buhari’s Govt – Senator Tells Malami

Spokesman of the Senate, Ajibola Basiru, has said the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, is “rubbishing” the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari.

Basiru said this in reaction to comments credited to the AGF.

On Wednesday, Malami said the resolve to ban open grazing by southern governors is equivalent to prohibiting spare parts trading in the north.

The southern governors resolved to ban open grazing last week.

In a statement on Thursday, Basiru said Malami has no business occupying the office of the AGF, adding that the responsibility to promote unity should be that of everyone.

The senator said equating the activities of nomadic herdsmen destroying peoples’ means of livelihood with others legitimately “carrying on businesses by selling spare parts in their shops stands logic on its head”.

“Anyone who cannot rise above primordial sentiments and pursue a parochial ethnic agenda need not occupy a position of trust especially at this time of sectional agitations,” he said.

“It was not dignifying of the status of the nation’s attorney-general and minister of justice to make such remarks.

“Those who have no meaningful contributions to national discourse operating on the basis of equity and justice to keep quiet and stop rubbishing the Buhari-led APC government.

“These kind of statements have made Nigeria a laughing stock in the comity of Nations and they ridicule the administration of President Buhari. These statements are not giving hope to those at the receiving end of the activities of the herdsmen.”

Malami’s Comment Divisive, Exposes a Dangerous Mindset – Abaribe

Senate Minority Leader, Enyinnaya Abaribe, has said that the comment by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, on spare parts trade exposes a “dangerous mindset” that promotes division.

Abaribe was reacting to Malami’s comments on the resolve to ban open grazing in the south, which the AGF said is equivalent to prohibiting spare parts trading in the north.

The AGF made the comment when he appeared on a Channels Television programme on Wednesday.

In a statement on Thursday, the senate minority leader said there is no correlation between spare parts sellers in a rented shop, and those involved in open grazing.

“What’s the correlation between spare parts sellers in a rented shop or government properly designated area and marauding Fulani herders destroying farms, killing and raping thus trampling on people’s private properties and means of livelihood?” Uchenna Awom, his media aide, quoted Abaribe as saying.

“Such a divisive statement from a top federal government official, in fact, the chief legal adviser to the federal government at that, exposes a very dangerous mindset.

“This disposition has, no doubt, raised the tension in Nigeria to a frightening level. Why should an attorney-general of the federation be so fixated on evoking ethnic/regional fault lines when duty calls for him to be a statesman.

“It is disheartening that Mr Abubakar Malami has chosen to debase our country. He has indeed questioned Nigeria’s unity. Very unfortunate.”

Is it a Crime to be Igbo in Nigeria? Fani-Kayode Fires at Malami

Following the controversial comments credited to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Malam Abubakar Malami, a former Minister of Aviation and PDP chieftain, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, has lent his voice to the avalanche of criticisms trailing the Minister.

The AGF while fielding on a live television programme, had compared open grazing in the south to sale of spare parts in the north.

Taking to his twitter handle Fani-Kayode asked if it was a crime to be Igbo, saying it was inherently racist to compare spare part dealers to killer herdsmen.

He wrote:

“It is totally unacceptable and deeply and inherently racist to compare spare part dealers to killer herdsmen.

“Permit me to ask: is it a CRIME to be Igbo in Nigeria? We killed millions of them (including their children) over the last 61 years. We terrorised them.

“We traumatised them. We insulted them. We denied them. We deprived them. We dehumanised them.

“We mocked them. We criminalised them. We marginalised them. We humiliated them. We forced them to stay when they wanted to leave.

“We caged them. We broke them. We cheated them. It is ungodly. It is evil! It is totally and completely unacceptable.

“It erroneously depicts us as a nation of unrepentant barbarians, savages and sadists that have no sense of justice or decency and that is NOT who or what we are as a people! We are far better than that!

“As long as we have this utterly racist, bigoted, shameless and self-deprecating mindset about our Igbo compatriots and fellow human beings things cannot go well for us as a people and as a nation. This is the bitter truth”.

Freedom of Movement is for Human Beings, Not Cattle and Sheep – Mike Ozekhome

Chief Mike Ozekhome

The Northern elites, including the Hon Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, miss the point sorely when they compare Igbo peaceful spare-parts dealers who go about their normal spare parts business legitimately, (building or renting their shops), with savage, maniacal AK-47-wielding herdsmen. Igbo traders do not kill or attack Northerners with their stock of motor-tyres, rims, spanners or chasis. They do not pour petrol from fuel tanks that they sell, on Fulani herdsmen. They do not use car bumpers or wind shields to smash the heads of herdsmen.

How does open and street grazing of cows by fully armed foot-patrolling youth which is now clearly anachronistic, diluvian, primitive and antiquated, be likened to legitimate spare parts business being carried out in shops or designated areas, with the Igbo traders paying tenement rate, taxes, water electricity and light bills? Have you ever heard of any herder paying tax? How do you equate spare parts dealers with mindless violence unleashed on poor helpless and hapless farmers in their own farms, and destruction of their crops with reckless abandon by these rampaging nomadic pastoralists who are on a mission of conquest and expansionism?

How do you compare apples with oranges, by equating Igbo spare parts dealers (who maintain log books, cash books, and accounting systems in their secluded and approved environments of peace and tranquility), with rampaging fully armed murderous bandits (passing for headers), who unleash terror and mayhem on innocent citizens? These open grazers kidnap travelers on the way, invade homes, rape mothers and their daughters and slash people’s throats, unprovoked, unmolested and undisturbed? Do Igbo traders overrun Northerners or Fulanis in their homes? Is it not the spaces legally allotted to them by the Federal Government, Local Governments, cities or MDAs, that they legitimately and quietly operate from?

How do armed herders who freely trespass on people lands, destroy their crops and other means of livelihood, and slaughter them, compare with peaceful traders plying their legitimate business? Do spare parts dealers pose security threat to their host, or anyone else? The Igbos do not foist any pre-determined supremacist hegemony and irredentism agenda or other races as the herders (many of them from neighbouring countries) are currently doing.

Freedom of movement is only for human beings. It is not for cattle, sheep and goats. Will the Northerners tolerate the open sale of alcoholic beverages in their States, even though it is the constitutional right of other ethnic groups to move about and sell beverages of their choice.

Are these Northern elites seriously arguing that Southern State Governors cannot ban open grazing in their states, to protect their innocent citizens from deadly killer herdsmen?

The freedom of movement guaranteed in section 41 of the Constitution (though for human beings, not animals), is not even absolute at all. Section 45 is pretty straightforward as regards derogation from section 41. It provides:

“(1) Nothing in sections 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of this Constitution shall invaluidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society:

(a) in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or
(b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.”

Thus, the right to movement in section 42 of the Constitution can be overridden by section 45 of the Constitution which allows any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health. Considering the incessant cases of Boko Haram killings, maiming, stealing, kidnappings, rape, armed banditry and robbery foisted on the Southern part of the country, Southern leaders have rightly taken it upon themselves to put in place laws and measures that will protect their citizens. To this end, it is safe to assert that individual rights to movement have not in anyway been violated by the various states’ anti-grazing laws because the laws were enacted in the interest of public safety, public order, public defence and public morality. The laws of and declaration by the Southern Governors are also to protect the peace, privacy and homes of Southerners as highlighted in section 37 of the 1999 Constitution. They are also for the “purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons”.

You Are Wrong, Malami – Femi Falana

A human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, has countered the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN over his comment that banning of open grazing is unconstitutional.

In a statement made available to TheNigeriaLawyer, Falana said right to movement under section 41 and 43 of the constitution does not cover free movement of animals to destroy farmlands.

He said, “The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN was reported yesterday to have condemned the ban on open grazing by the Southern Governors Forum. The AGF stated that the ban on open grazing is unconstitutional as it affects the right of herders to move freely in the country.

With respect, the ban on open grazing has not affected the rights of herders to move freely and acquire land in any state for the establishment of ranches in line with the provisions of sections 41 and 43 of the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not cover the right of animals to move freely and destroy farmlands it is grossly misleading to give the impression that the ban on open grazing has abrogated the right of herders to carry out their business.”

In addition, Falana explained that the Minister of Agriculture and relevant state commissioners are empowered by several laws to regulate the movement of animals

“With respect to the movement of animals in the country the Animal Diseases (Control) Act and similar laws applicable in the states have empowered the Minister of Agriculture and relevant State Commissioners to make appropriate regulations to regulate the movement of animals and prevent them from transmitting diseases.” Falana said

The Learned silk also faulted the analogy that banning of open grazing is likened to stopping of sale of spare parts. According to Falana, sellers of spare parts do not kill fellow citizens neither do they destroy properties

He said, “The AGF equally said that banning open grazing is like banning the sale of spare parts. The comparison is not applicable as the sellers of motor parts who operate in shops and markets in all states have not been accused of engaging in the killing of fellow citizens and destruction of their properties. Besides, those who sell spare parts outside their states of origin either acquire properties or pay rent for the their lawful business.”

Falana further clarified that the 36 Governors of the Federation have at various times banned open grazing. He said the first decision banning open grazing was made by the governors during National Economic Council meeting on April 27, 2018 while the second was in 2019 by the Northern Governors Forum

The statement reads in part, “However, in order to halt the incessant violent clashes between farmers and herders which had led to mindless killings and wanton destruction of properties in many parts of the country the federal government and the 36 state governments have, at various fora, banned open grazing in all states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory.

In view of the desperate moves of some members of the geo- political class to divide the Nigerian people along regional basis it is pertinent to draw the attention of the members of the public to the following reports:

“1. On April 27, 2018, the members of the National Economic Council resolved to ban open grazing and adopt the Livestock Transformation Plan of the Federal Government. The National Economic Council is constituted by the Vice President, the 36 State Governors, the Minister of Finance and the Central Bank Governor. (https://m.guardian.ng/news/ne c-bans-open-grazing-as-herdsme n-attacks-persist/)

2. On February 9, 2021, the Northern Governors Forum banned open grazing in all states in Northern Nigeria. https://www.vanguardngr.com/20 21/02/insecurity-northern-gove rnors-seek-end-to-open-grazing/

3. On February 11, 2021 the Nigeria Governors Forum banned open grazing in all the 36 states of the Federation. https://thenationonlineng.net/ 36-governors-agree-to-end-noma dic-cattle-rearing/

4. On May 14, 2021 the Southern Governors Forum banned open grazing in the 17 states in Southern Nigeria. https://m.guardian.ng/news/sou thern-governors-ban-open-grazi ng-call-for-restructuring/

5. On May 18, the PDP Governors Forum endorsed the decision to ban open grazing in the entire country. http://thesouthernexaminer.com /pdp-governors-endorse-ban-on- open-grazing-p5388-214.htm

“Based on the ban on open grazing, not fewer than 24 states governments have submitted applications to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture for grant to facilitate the establishment of ranches in line with the Livestock Transformation Plan of the Federal Government.

Meanwhile, Governor Umar Ganduje of Kano State has invited herders who are adversely affected by the ban on open grazing to settle down in the Ruga Settlement established by the State Government. While commission the first batch of 25 housing units out of the 200 earmarked for RUGA settlement the Governor said that his government engaged in the project for two fundamental reasons: “first and foremost is to avoid clashes between farmers and herders, secondly to avoid movement of herders which is the source of conflict and to avoid cattle rustling.” (https://www.thecable.ng/gandu je-invites-more-herders-to-kan o-as-he-inaugurates-ruga-settl ement/amp).”

Falana urged Malami to, being Attorney-General of the Federation, respect sensibilities of persons when issuing statements and should stand up for social justice

“Mr. Malami should be reminded that he is the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. So, in making statements he should always take due regards of the sensibilities of every part of the country and respect all legitimate interests of the entire people of the country.

Headline

Who’s Afraid of New Electoral Act?

Published

6 hours ago

February 8, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT THE SENATORS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE FOR THE ELECTORAL BILL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Headline

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

Published

4 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.

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.

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

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.

The Guardian

Headline

Wike Remains Undisputed Rivers APC, PDP Leader, Tinubu Rules

Published

6 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