Connect with us

Featured

The Banana Peel Under APC’s Rickety Chair: The Booby Traps That Lie Ahead

Published

on

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

INTRODUCTION

The APC has ruled Nigeria for over 6 years. It has failed in all indices of governance. The three core areas on which President Muhammadu Buhari campaigned as its candidate, have been honoured more in breach than in observance. They are economy, security and corruption. Each pigeon hole oozes with the putrefaction of non-performance and abysmal failure.

Nigeria is worse off today under the APC than she was in 2015. Not a few Nigerians pray every day that the Party should be booted out of power with the urgency of yesterday. Some Nigerians have since mounted a calendar, counting how many days more Buhari has to remain in office before vacating same upon effluxion of his mandatory 2 terms tenure of 4 years each. Just 668 days. Only 668 days for Buhari to leave power; many celebrate. They count days. Some count weeks; some others, months. A beleaguered Nigerian wrote to me that he is only counting hours (16, 032 hours). Another added humorously that he prefers to count minutes (961,920 minutes)! Such is the disillusionments and regrets of the APC- Buhari administration.

The realization that Buhari under Nigeria’s constitutional organogram cannot have a third term gladdens many hearts, giving them a ray of hope; some light at the end of Nigeria’s dingy asphyxiating and strangulating tunnel. But, Nigerians do not know how to go about ensuring that another Emperor Buhari does not come back. They fear there would be no free and fair elections in 2023. What with Senate’s unpatriotic and undemocratic rejection of electronic transmission of votes, and the House of Representatives’ double-speak on it! Not few Nigerians believe that the outright rejection of electronic voting is preparatory to APC’s readiness to massively rig the 2023 elections, knowing it has performed below average in service and democratic dividends-delivery. So, Nigerians belly-ache. They gnash teeth.
However, Nigerians may now heave a sigh of relieve. Unwittingly. From the most unexpected source: the Supreme Court. There are many ways to kill a stubborn rat that enters a calabash without breaking the calabash itself. The cheapest opportunity is the current banana peel that sits like an emancipator under the APC’s rickety and crincky chair of nepotism, sectionalism, prebendalism, cronynism, apaque3ness in governance and poverty spread.

THE SUPREME’S JUDGMENT

It is the Wednesday, July 28, 2021, Supreme Court judgment in the Eyitayo Jegede V. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (Appeal Nos: SC/448/21; SC/501/21; SC/508/21; and SC/509/21. The judgment was a very narrow 4 – 3 split decision in favour of Akeredolu. What a narrow escape! Aketi needs to go to Church for special thanksgiving.

The candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the Ondo election, Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, and his party, the PDP, had challenged the competence of Akeredolu, SAN’s nomination/sponsorship for the election by the APC, contending that the letter conveying his nomination/sponsorship to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was incompetent, having been signed by Buni and others. They specifically urged the Court to determine whether Buni as a sitting Governor of Yobe State, could simultaneously double as the National Caretaker Committee Chairman of the APC (NCCC) to sign the nomination of Akeredolu, SAN, for the said governorship election.

They contended that by the provisions of Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 17 (4) of the APC constitution, Buni had acted unlawfully by being the Yobe Governor and serving as APC’s NCCC Chairman, all at the same time. They contended that because of this vice, the nomination/sponsorship letter Buni signed for the APC, notifying INEC of the candidacy of Akeredolu and Lucky Aiydatiwa (as APC’s Governorship and Deputy Governorship candidates) was void. They then urged the apex court to void the July, 16, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Akure Division, which had validated Akeredolu’s election.

THE MAJORITY DECISION

In his lead majority split judgment, Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim held that, since Jegede and the PDP made Buni the centre of their allegations of constitutional breaches, he ought to have been made a party in the case to enable him defend himself in line with the doctrine of fair hearing.

The Supreme Court proceeded to uphold the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal, to the effect that the petition filed by Jegede and his party to the election tribunal was incompetent because they failed to join Buni as a party.

Justice Agim held: “The appeal was based on the ground that Mai Mala Buni, the Chairman of the NCCC of the second respondent (APC), was holding office as the Governor of Yobe State, contrary to the provisions of Section 183 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999).

“All the issues raised, revolved around Mala Buni. But, Mala Buni, who is at the centre of the dispute was not made party to the petition. It is obvious that the determination of the said issues will affect him.
“Therefore, the court below was right to have held that he was a necessary party to this suit. Failure to join him renders the determination of the matter impossible. To proceed to do so would have violated the fair trial of the case.

“Therefore, we affirm the lower court’s decision that the petitioner was incompetent.

“There is no dispute that the third and fourth respondents (Akeredolu and Aiyedatiwa) were nominated by the second respondent (APC) as its candidates for the election; that the second respondent submitted their names to the first respondent (INEC) as its candidates, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Electoral Act.

“They were therefore sponsored by the second in accordance with Section 177(c) of the Constitution (1999). It is not in dispute that Mai Mala Buni is acting as the National Chairman of the second respondent,” he said.

Justice Agim therefore held that the decision to allow Buni act as its National Committee Chairman (in the interim) was made by the APC, despite the provisions of Article 17 (4 of its Constitution, thereby making the decision internal to the party.

He added: “The second respondent (APC) allowed him (Buni) to be its Chairman in the interim inspite of Article 17 of its constitution.

The vires of this decision of the party is non-justiciable. This appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed,” he held.

THE MINORITY DECISION

The minority judgment differed in all material particular from this majority opinion.

In the lead minority judgment, Justice Mary Peter-Odili (who also presided on the panel) upheld Jegede’s appeal and dismissed the cross-appeals by INEC), APC, Akeredolu and Aiyedatiwa; just as the same majority Justices had also done.

Justice Odili was of the firm view that since the APC, for which Buni acted, was already a party in the case, there was no need to include him as a party.

She added that having allowed Buni to act on its behalf in signing the nomination/sponsorship letter of its candidates in Ondo despite the clear provisions of section 183 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 17(4) of the APC Constitution, the party should live by the consequences of its lawlessness.

“I do not agree with the majority judgment,” she dilated emphatically, noting that the APC, by Article 17(4) of its Constitution has provided for how its affairs should be managed and what offices its members should occupy at a time.

“This Article draws strength from Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution. Therefore when the second respondent (APC) put up a person not qualified to author its nomination by virtue of the provision of Article 17(4) of its Constitution and Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution to do so, that document has no validity, and thereby void,” she said.

She noted that the implication was that the nomination and candidacy of Akeredolu and his Deputy was a complete nullity and that the person, who ought to be declared winner of the election” is the first appellant (Jegede), who has the majority of valid votes.”
Justice Peter-Odili further held that it was unlawful and amounted to a violation of Article 17(4) of the APC Constitution and section 183 of the 1999 Constitution for Buni to be serving as the National Chairman of the APC and the Governor of Yobe State at the same time.

Justices Ejembi Eko and Mohammed Saulawa concurred with Justice Peter-Odili in upholding the appeal and dismissing the cross-appeals filed by INEC, APC, Akeredolu and Aiyedatiwa.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

THE LAW

Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution provides as follows:
‘‘The Governor shall not, during the period when he holds office, hold any other executive office or paid employment in any capacity whatsoever’’.

If there was any doubt as to the dangerous implications of this section in Buni acting as the APC National Caretaker Committee Chairman, section 17 (iv) of the APC Constitution is quite clear and unambiguous on this. It provides that “No official of the party shall at the same time hold any Government position in any Government institution”.

Thus, while the 1999 Constitution views Buni’s appointment from the position of Governor (Executive) to the party, the APC Constitution takes the reverse view of Buni’s appointment from the APC to the Governor (Executive). So, head or tail, position APC is in trouble.

CANONS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Canons of statutory interpretation are clear to the effect that when a statute is enacted in clear words, such words should be given their natural, usual and ordinary meaning in their interpretation. This shows the intent of the Legislature. See Ikpaezu V. Ogah & Ors (2016) LPELR-40845 (CA); Ofodile & Anor V. Aliozo & Ors (2021) LPELR-54159 (CA); Gana V. SDP & Ors (2019) LPELR-47153 (SC); Skye Bank V. Iwu (2017) LPELR-42595 (SC).

The Supreme Court majority judgment did not disagree with the fact that Mai Mala Buni as Governor of Yobe State was not competent to function as National Chairman of a political party (APC) and nominate a candidate for election through the INEC. Its view (and this must be respected) is based mostly on the rather technical stance (also earlier adopted by the Court of Appeal), that the non-joinder of Buni as a party in the suit was fatal to the PDP and Jegede’s appeal. Was it really? How, when the APC, which sponsored Buni, and for whom Buni at all material times acted as an agent was already a party to the suit? I do not and cannot understand this. Or, do you? The law is trite that you do not need to go after an agent (Buni) where there is a disclosed principal (APC). Such a disclosed principal is solely liable for its agent’s authorized actions, as the agent is not personally liable. See Okafor V. Ezenwa (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt. 784) 319; Osigwe V. PSPLS Management Consortium Ltd (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt 1128) 378.

EXTRAPOLATIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT

The simple conclusion is that if Buni had been joined as a party in the suit, the story would have been different, as the APC would have lost Ondo State to the PDP. Pronto! It is that simple. Indeed, it is rare to see such a close shave of 4-3 split judgment by the Supreme Court. Minority decisions are usually more rigorous and better researched as they seek to swim against the tide of the majority opinion that may be tyrannical.
The Supreme Court’s judgment has simply furiously (perhaps, inadvertently), weaponised all those that would be aggrieved by the APC’s forthcoming Congresses and other elections. They only need to go to court to challenge the competence of the Buni-led NCCC to organise the forthcoming Congresses and National Convention. Thus from bottom to top, the APC’s amorphous structures made up of disparate tendencies have been irretrievably damaged, nay, destroyed. All Congresses, meetings, conventions and elections that henceforth have the imprimatur of Governor Mai Mala Buni are subject to being quashed by the court at the instance of any aggrieved party member. Indeed, all actions so far taken by the Buni-led NCCC in that capacity can be quashed by any aggrieved member of the APC. Such a member has locus standi if he can show his membership card. Here comes the banana peel! APC will slip. And the fall will be thunderous. And Nigerians will applaud. God, how mighty thou Art!

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured

Why Tinubu Was Absent at Commissioning of Sanwo-Olu’s Projects in Lagos – Presidency

Published

on

By

The Presidency has come up with reasons behind President Bola Tinubu’s absent at the commissioning of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu’s projects in Lagos, on Wednesday.

Tinubu was noticeably absent at the scheduled project commissioning in Lagos, sparking public curiosity.

However, Sunday Dare, his Special Adviser on Public Communications and Orientation, has clarified the reason behind the last-minute development.

Speaking during an interview on Channels Television, Dare revealed that the President had to prioritise urgent national security matters over the event.
According to him, although Tinubu is currently in Lagos, he has been deeply engaged in high-level State duties, particularly ongoing security briefings tied to recent developments across the country.

“The president has been busy taking constant briefs and has to prioritise when it comes to state matters, especially security,” Dare stated.

He referenced rising security concerns, including recent unrest linked to incidents in Jos, noting that the President has been closely monitoring the situation and working directly with intelligence agencies.

Dare emphasised that Tinubu remains fully engaged behind the scenes, actively coordinating with security operatives and receiving continuous updates to address emerging threats.

The absence, he stressed, should not be seen as neglect of official duties but rather a reflection of the President’s focus on safeguarding national stability at a critical time.

Tinubu skipped the Lagos commissioning not out of disregard, but to handle pressing security issues demanding immediate presidential attention.

Continue Reading

Featured

Benin Republic 2026: Romuald Wadagni, The President in Waiting

Published

on

By

By Eric Elezuo

As the presidential election draws very close, one man stands taller than most of the candidates that would be on the ballot paper, or may have been on the ballot paper as far as the presidential election in Benin Republic is concerned. He is the hard working and most Indefatigable achiever, Monsieur Romuald Wadagni.

He us young, able and full of experience, having practiced positive and sincere politics for a very long in his young existence.

Wadagni comes across as the typical chip off the old block, when it comes to genuine leadership qualities and agenda. He has been tested, trusted and ready to take up the mantle of leadership towards providing genuineness and purposeful living condition for the people of Benin Republic.

In 10 consecutive years, since he was 39, Wadagni, has supervised the Finance and Economy ministry without blemish, and has received accolades from far and wide.

It is therefore not a fluke as the 49 years old, Romuald Wadagni was nominated as the ruling majority’s candidate for the upcoming presidential election in Benin.

Consequently, listed below are three things to know about him: 1:he has been the Minister of Finance for nearly 10 years. Romuald Wadagni was appointed Minister of Economy and Finance in April 2016. He was reappointed to the position in 2021 with the rank of Minister of State. He is considered one of the main architects of Benin’s economic recovery.

At the end of January 2025, he welcomed “average growth of more than 6.5% in recent years.” In 2018, Financial Afrik magazine ranked him among the 100 African personalities transforming the continent. In December 2024, the same media outlet named him “Best Finance Minister in Africa,” praising Benin’s macroeconomic stability in the face of international crises. 2: He is an expert in finance and accounting. Romuald Wadagni is a chartered accountant. After studying finance, private equity, and venture capital, he began his professional career in 1998 at Deloitte, one of the largest audit and consulting firms in the world.

At Deloitte, Romuald Wadagni rose through the ranks and successively held several positions of responsibility in France, the United States, and then in Francophone Africa. In 2012, at the age of 36, he became a partner at Deloitte. He later led the firm’s expansion across the African continent. After 17 years, he left the firm in April 2016 when he was appointed Minister of Economy and Finance of Benin.

He is the heir apparent of Patrice Talon. After two consecutive terms, President Patrice Talon, who can no longer run again, had promised to play an active role in choosing his successor. On August 31, 2025, he officially endorsed his Minister of Finance, Romuald Wadagni, as the candidate of the presidential majority.
This designation was confirmed in a joint statement by the Union Progressiste le Renouveau (UPR) and the Bloc Républicain (BR), the two main parties of the majority. On October 4, 2025, in Parakou, Romuald Wadagni and Mariam Chabi Talata, the current Vice President, were officially nominated during a major rally of the presidential majority. In his speech, the candidate minister promised to “consolidate the achievements” of his predecessor.

 

Prior to entering politics, Wadagni worked for the consulting firm Deloitte for 17 years. He was first appointed the minister of economy and finance on 7 April 2016, in the first Talon government, and subsequently reappointed in 2021 with the rank of senior minister.

Wadagni was born in Benin in 1976 in Lokossa, the eldest of five children. His father, Nestor Wadagni, a statistician and economist with a degree from ENSAE, had a career in the Beninese civil service before writing a thesis in fundamental mathematics after his retirement.From an early age, he took an interest in manual work and trained himself in bricklaying and mechanics.

After obtaining a scientific baccalaureate in Benin, he continued his studies in France. From 1995 to 1999, he studied at the École supérieure des affaires de Grenoble (ESA) where he obtained a master’s degree in finance, graduating top of his class. During his studies in Grenoble, he met a partner from Deloitte who identified his potential and recruited him into the consulting firm in 1998.Among honours attached to his ebullient services and achievements, are as follows:

In 2021, the financial newspaper Financial Afrik named Romuald Wadagni “Best African Minister of Economy and Finance”.

In 2024, the financial newspaper Financial Afrik named him “Finance Minister of the Year” for the 4th time in its ranking of “The 100 who are transforming Africa”.

ROMUALD WADAGNI AT A GLANCE 

Romuald Wadagni is Senior Minister in charge of Economy and Finance of Benin. He was appointed on April 7, 2016, in the first government of President Patrice Talon and reappointed to this position in May 2021.

Romuald Wadagni is a public accountant certified in France and the USA. He also holds a master’s degree in finance and has completed specialized training in private equity and venture capital.

Before being appointed Minister of Economy and Finance in 2016, Romuald Wadagni had a leading international experience within Deloitte. In France from 1998, then in the United States from 2003, he developed cutting-edge expertise in several fields, serving customers in various sectors of activity (Mining, TMT, Financial Sector, Public Sector, Retail) and various governments and donors.

Wadagni is a handful in service delivery, transformation and economic re-engineering. He is the best suited for the presidency of Benin Republic as election holds on Sunday, April 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Featured

ADC Raises Alarm over INEC’s Plot to Prevent Party from Fielding Candidates

Published

on

By

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has revealed the deliberate administrative landmines being deployed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to prevent the Party from fielding candidates in the upcoming elections.

In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party stated that at the heart of this emerging crisis is INEC’s stated position that it will no longer receive any correspondence from the ADC pending the determination of a matter before the Federal High Court. On its face, this may appear procedural. In reality, it creates a direct and dangerous conflict with the clear timelines imposed by the Electoral Act (2026), which provides defined windows, including the mandatory 21-day notice period and subsequent submission requirements, within which political parties must complete critical electoral processes.

The full statement reads:

We are compelled to raise serious concerns about a developing situation that appears designed to prevent the African Democratic Congress (ADC) from fielding candidates in the upcoming elections. It is based on documentary evidence which we are now placing before the Nigerian public, including certified INEC records, attendance logs, monitoring reports, and excerpts from the Commission’s own sworn affidavit. Taken together, these documents establish a clear and consistent record of events.

INEC received formal notice of the July 29, 2025 National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the ADC. It deployed officials to monitor that meeting. It documented the proceedings and received formal reports from its field officers. Following this, INEC updated its internal records and uploaded the names of the new leadership, including Senator David Mark as National Chairman and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary.
These are not claims. They are facts contained in INEC’s own records.

In addition, the Commission’s sworn affidavit before the Federal High Court, in its response to Nafiu Bala Gombe on 12 September 2025, particularly in Clauses 14 to 19, affirms key legal principles: that the leadership transition had already been completed and recognized, that such internal party matters fall outside the scope of judicial interference, that completed acts cannot be reversed by injunction, and also recognizes the David Mark-led NWC.

Yet, despite this clear documentary trail, INEC has now taken the position that it will no longer receive any correspondence from the ADC pending the determination of a matter before the Federal High Court. This is where the contradiction becomes dangerous.

The Electoral Act imposes strict timelines on political parties, including the 21-day notice requirement and submission deadlines. INEC itself has fixed May 10 as the deadline for the submission of relevant documents. However, by refusing to receive communication from the ADC within this same period, the Commission is effectively preventing the Party from complying with the law.

In simple terms, INEC is effectively threatening that unless the courts deliver judgment on the ADC leadership issue by May 10, it will prevent the ADC from producing candidates.

This places the ADC in an impossible position and creates a clear pathway to artificial non-compliance, which can then be used to justify excluding the Party from fielding candidates. That is the landmine.

INEC has claimed that its April 1 decision was taken to avoid rendering the proceedings before the Federal High Court nugatory. The reality is the opposite. By intervening in a matter already before the court and issuing a pronouncement with clear legal and operational consequences, the Commission has itself undermined the very process it claims to protect.

What is even more concerning is that this position contradicts INEC’s own prior conduct and legal stance. The same Commission that monitored, documented, recognized, and swore to an affidavit confirming the ADC leadership is now acting in a way that contradicts its earlier position.
We therefore call on the Commission to immediately reverse this position, resume the acceptance of all lawful correspondence from the ADC, and uphold its constitutional responsibility to ensure a level playing field for all political parties.

We also call on Nigerians to be wary and remain vigilant about these dangerous machinations to subvert Nigeria’s democracy and impose a civilian dictatorship on the country.

Continue Reading

Trending