Opinion
The Oracle: The NASS: Manual or Electronic Rigging? (PT. 1)
Published
5 years agoon
By
Eric
By Chief Mike Ozekhome
INTRODUCTION
The National Assembly was thrust into chaos during the consideration of the Electoral Amendment Bill on the 15th day of July, 2021. Both Houses of the National Assembly were presented with the duty of reviewing the Electoral Act of 2010 by the advent of the Electoral Amendment Bill. While the House of Representatives were unable to pass the Electoral Act Amendment Bill because of major contentious issues that emanated during the debate, the Senate, however, successfully passed the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2021 (“the Bill”). While this amendment should have been an upgrade to the Electoral Act, 2010, the reverse seems to be the case. The Bill dragged Nigeria back into the past, when its Clause 52(3) stripped the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of the exclusive powers to conduct voting electronically.
The Senate’s ruling was divided between members of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and those of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on the practicability or otherwise of transmitting election results electronically. The debate on this sole issue rendered other provisions in the Bill less prominent, as it became the centre of attention. While all the supporters for Clause 52(3) of the Bill were members of the APC, members of the PDP expressed their reservations and voted otherwise. It is brow-raising that significant Bills and Laws passed in Nigeria seem to be debated more on a party-basis, rather than on the basis of merits. The decision of the Senate has received nationwide scrutiny for its unconstitutionality and as a Constitutional Lawyer who always seeks to contribute to Nigeria’s development, I cannot sit and watch from the side-lines as a spectator. It is on this basis that I offer my humble analysis of the Senate’s decision.
THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
The 1999 Constitution establishes INEC as a federal executive body tasked with regulating elections into different political offices in Nigeria. The Constitution broadly defines the scope of the Commission’s powers, functions and responsibilities, and provides for the appointment of the Chairman and other members of the Commission by the President, subject to the Senate’s confirmation. The functions of INEC include organising and supervising all elections to political offices; registering and monitoring the operation of political parties in accordance with the provision of the 1999 Constitution and Acts of National Assembly; conducting voter and civic education; promoting knowledge of sound democratic election processes; etc.
Notwithstanding the appointment of the Chairman and other members of the Commission by the President (Executive) subject to confirmation by the Senate (Legislature), INEC is an independent body. The word “independent” is forged into INEC’s name to emphasise the importance of its independence when carrying out its functions. Moreover, its mission statement reads, “to serve as an INDEPENDENT and effective EMB committed to the conduct of free, fair and credible elections for sustainable democracy in Nigeria” (underline supplied for emphasis). INEC is therefore empowered to carry out all its functions independently, free from external control and influence. Both the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2010, provide that INEC is the regulatory body in charge of operating the electoral system of voting in Nigeria.
ELECTORAL SYSTEM OF VOTING
The electoral system or voting system in Nigeria is a set of rules that determine how elections are conducted and how their results are determined; when elections occur; who is allowed to vote; who can stand as a candidate; how ballots are marked and cast; how they are counted; how they translate the election outcome; and other factors that can affect the result. The duty to operate Nigeria’s electoral system has been bestowed on INEC by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Section 78 of the 1999 Constitution provides, in clear and unambiguous words, thus:
“The registration of voters and the conduct of elections shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the Independent National Electoral Commission”.
ELETRONIC VOTING
Electronic voting (also known as e-voting) is voting that utilises electronic means in aiding the casting and counting of votes. It encompasses a range of internet services, from basic transmission of tabulated results to full-function online voting through common connectable household devices. E-voting may be limited to simple tasks such as marking a paper ballot, or comprehensive enough to include vote input, vote recording, data encryption and transmission to servers, and consolidation and tabulation of election results.
E-voting can be done either physically (through electronic voting machines located at polling stations which can be supervised by representatives of governmental or independent electoral authorities) or through remote means (such as the internet, where the voter submits his or her vote electronically to the election authorities, from any location. A functional e-voting system must perform most of these tasks while complying with a set of standards established by regulatory bodies, and must also be capable to deal successfully with strong requirements associated with accuracy, privacy, security, integrity, swiftness, auditability, accessibility and effectiveness. This regulatory body is provided by section 78 of the 1999 Constitution to be INEC.
TYPES OF ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS AND COUNTRIES THAT HAVE UTILISED THEM
Paper-based voting systems
Electronic voting systems for electorates have been in use since the 1960s, when the United States of America (USA) made use of punched card systems in its 1964 presidential election. Since then, different types of electronic systems have been utilised during elections. Paper-based voting systems originated as a system where votes are cast and counted by hand. But, electronic tabulation gave rise to systems paper cards or sheets could be marked by hand, but counted electronically. These systems include ballot marking devices, digital pen voting systems and punched card voting. The Johnson County of Iowa, USA, made use of these systems in 2010.
Direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting system
A DRE voting machine records votes, processes data with computer software, and records voting data and ballot images. After the election, it produces a tabulation of the voting data stored in a removable memory component and as a printed copy. The system helps to transmit individual ballots and vote totals to a central location for consolidating and reporting results from polling units. This system was greatly used by the USA in 2004, where over 28.9% of its registered voters made use of the DRE voting system. In 2004, India adopted the DRE voting system in the form of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) to conduct elections to its parliament with 380 million voters casting their ballots using more than one million voting machines. DRE voting machines continue to be used in all elections in Brazil and India, and also on a large scale in Venezuela and the USA. It was however decommissioned in Netherlands after public concerns were raised.
Internet voting system
Internet voting can use remote locations (voting from any internet capable computer) or can use traditional polling locations with voting booths equipped with such internet capable computers. Internet voting systems have been used privately in many modern nations and publicly in the USA, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Brazil, France, Portugal, Spain and Estonia. In Switzerland, voters get their passwords to access the ballot through the postal service. Several voters in Estonia cast their vote via the Internet, as most of those on the electoral roll have access to an e-voting system.
Online voting system
Online voting is majorly used by the Japanese private sector, with smartphones being the mainstream used for online voting. This system of voting is also utilised in Australia, Estonia, Switzerland, Russia and the United States. The introduction of online voting in municipal elections in the Ontario, Canada, resulted in an average increase in turnout of around 3.5 percentage points, as it helped to induce some occasional voters to participate who would have abstained if online voting was not available. In the 2017 Estonian local elections, the internet voting system proved to be most cost-efficient system introduced compared to other voting systems.
Electronic Ballots
Electronic voting systems may use electronic ballot to store votes in computer memory. This voting system dissolves the risk of inadequate ballot papers and also removes the need for printing paper ballots, which are usually at a significant cost. The electronic ballots can be programmed to provide ballots in multiple languages for a single machine. This advantage with respect to different languages is unique to electronic voting. This was used in King County, Washington where the electronic ballot provided access to Chinese in the US Federal election. This is obviously useful in a diverse multi-ethnic country like Nigeria who boasts of over 374 ethnic groups eith different languages (according to Professor Onigu Otite). This would better inform voters (who are not well versed in English language) and encourage them to participate in the election process.
BENEFITS OF ELECTRONIC VOTING
Electronic voting technology helps to speed the counting of votes, reduce the labour costs of workers who manually count votes and provides improved accessibility for voters. Ultimately, it helps to decrease expenses used in conducting elections. Results are reported and published faster. Voters save time and cost by being able to vote independently from their location, with no form of duress, panic voting or forced voting, which will likely overall voter turnout.
It is also more secure than ballot/physical voting. Here, cases of election malpractice often experienced in elections conducted in Nigeria – such as ballot boxes snatching and burning, shortage of ballot papers, over-crowding in polling units (especially in a time where Covid-19 is ravaging), disruption and discontinuation of voting by street thugs and even security agencies, having one person thumbprint on multiple ballot papers – will be significantly limited and ultimately avoided.
CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTRONIC VOTING
Critics of electronic voting argue that humans are not equipped to verify operations occurring with an electronic machine and therefore, the operations cannot be trusted. Cases have been recorded of machines making unpredictable, inconsistent errors. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the collated and tabulated results are authentic and accurate. This is further worsened by the fact that commercial voting machines results may be changed by the company providing the machine or any skilled hacker.
There is also the issue of cost. While e-voting may decrease expenses in the long run, it is very expensive to introduce. The installation of electronic voting systems are very high; so high that many governments do not invest in it. Many also critic electronic voting to be unnecessary believing that it is not a long-term solution. Afterall, it retains many problems associated with physical ballot voting.
Moreover, electronic voting is usually practicable in countries with technological growth and development. Countries with low technological advancement and low network/internet coverage will face issues with e-voting. People without internet access and/or the skills to make use of such e-voting means will be totally excluded from the voting process, which is a breach of their right to vote. It is this concern that electronic voting and transmission of votes would disenfranchise some Nigerians in areas with poor or no network coverage, that led members of the APC to recommend that for electronic transmission of results to be allowed during election, the national network coverage across Nigeria must be adjudged to be adequate by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and approved by the National Assembly.
THE SENATE’S RULING ON ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF RESULTS
The Senate passed the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2021, after a clause-by-clause consideration of the report of the Committee on INEC. The Committee on INEC had reported that “INEC may transmit results of elections by electronic means where and when practicable”. Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi (APC, Niger) proposed an amendment to this recommendation on the basis that electronic transmission of results would disenfranchise some Nigerians in areas with poor or no network coverage. Senator Albert Bassey Akpan (PDP, Akwa Ibom) contended this proposal via a motion, which was unsuccessful after a voice vote. The approval of Senator Sabi’s amendment by Senate President, Ahmad Ibrahim Lawan, was met with chaos and uncomplimentary verbal exchanges amongst Senators.
Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe of PDP, Abia, then cited Order 73, calling for division and allowing Senators to contest the ruling of the Senate President. The Senators took turns to vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sabi and at the end, 52 Senators voted for Sabi’s amendment while 28 voted against it. All 52 Senators who voted for the amendment were from the APC ruling party, while the 28 who voted against were of PDP. There is no other parliamentary or legislative decision taken elsewhere in the world, where the divide is based solely on a political basis, rather than a merit basis.
Consequent upon the conclusion of the open voting, he Senate President thus approved the amendment which provided for electronic transmission of results during elections, but with a caveat that, “the national network coverage is adjudged to be adequate and secured by Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and approved by the National Assembly”.
To be continued…
Related
You may like
Opinion
A Vindicating Truth: A Factual Presentation on the Supreme Court’s Intervention in the ADC Leadership Matter
Published
5 days agoon
May 4, 2026By
Eric
By Comrade IG Wala
To All Nigerians, Party Stakeholders, and Lovers of Democracy,
In the life of every great political movement, there comes a moment where the noise of confusion meets the silence of the Law. For the African Democratic Congress (ADC), that moment arrived on April 30, 2026.
For months, the ADC was held in a state of judicial paralysis caused by a lower court order that froze the party’s activities. This order did not just affect a few leaders, it threatened to delete the ADC from the Nigerian political map and disenfranchise millions of supporters ahead of the 2027 General Elections.
Today, we present the facts of the Supreme Court’s intervention to ensure that every Nigerian, from the city centers to the grassroots, understands that Justice has spoken, and the ADC is alive.
The Three Pillars of the Supreme Court’s Ruling:
1. The End of Paralysis (The Status Quo Order)!
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Mohammed Garba, was clear and firm: the Court of Appeal’s order to maintain a “status quo” was improper and unwarranted. The apex court recognized that you cannot freeze a political party indefinitely without a trial. By setting this aside, the Supreme Court rescued the ADC from a leadership vacuum that was being used to justify de-recognition by INEC.
2. The Restoration of Administrative Legitimacy.
By nullifying the appellate court’s freeze, the Supreme Court effectively restored the David Mark-led National Working Committee to its rightful place. This means that for all official, administrative, and electoral purposes, the ADC now has a recognized head. The party is no longer a ship without a captain; the doors of the headquarters are open, and the party’s name remains firmly on the ballot.
3. The Order for a Fresh Trial on Merits.
True to the principles of fair hearing, the Supreme Court did not simply gift the party to one side. Instead, it ordered the case back to the Federal High Court for an accelerated hearing. This is a victory for the Truth. It means the court is not interested in technicalities or stopping the clock, it wants to see the evidence, read the Party Constitution, and deliver a final judgment based on the Right vs. Wrong.
Note: I will drop the 7 prayers made to Supreme Court by ADC in the comment section.
A Message to Our Members and Supporters.
To our members who have felt a sense of fear, apprehension, or a lack of confidence in the Nigerian courts, let your hearts be at peace.
It is a delusion to believe that gross injustice can simply walk through the doors of our highest courts unnoticed. This matter is currently one of the most publicized and people-centric cases in Nigeria. In such a bright spotlight, the Judiciary acts not just as a judge, but as a shield for the common man.
The Law is not a tool for the crafty, it is a searchlight for the Truth.
Inasmuch as they say the Law is blind, it sees with perfect clarity the difference between a lie and the truth, between right and wrong. The Supreme Court’s refusal to let the ADC be strangled by procedural delays is proof that the system works for those who stand on the side of justice.
Our confidence is not in personalities, but in the Process. We are returning to the Federal High Court not with fear, but with the armor of Truth.
The Handshake remains strong, the vision is clear, and our participation in the 2027 elections is now legally anchored.
Stand tall. The ADC has been tested by the fire of the courts, and we have emerged not just intact, but vindicated.
Signed,
Comrade, IG Wala.
02/04/26. — with Shareef Kamba and 14 others.
Related
Opinion
The Police is Your Friend and Other Lies We No Longer Believe
Published
5 days agoon
May 4, 2026By
Eric
By Boma Lilian Braide (Esq.)
There was a time in Nigeria when the phrase The Police is Your Friend was not a national joke. It was a civic assurance, a symbolic handshake between the state and its citizens. It represented the ideal of a civil security architecture built on trust, service, and protection. Today, that once reassuring slogan has decayed into a bitter irony. It no longer evokes safety; it provokes fear. It no longer signals partnership; it signals danger. What should have been the soul of Nigerian civil state relations has become a cruel parody of our lived experience at checkpoints, stations, and on the streets.
The Nigerian security apparatus has undergone a transformation so profound that it now resembles a predatory machine rather than a protective institution. The sight of a police patrol vehicle, which should ordinarily bring comfort, now triggers anxiety. Citizens instinctively brace themselves, not for assistance, but for extortion, harassment, or violence. We are not merely witnessing isolated incidents of misconduct. We are watching a pattern of state enabled brutality unfold in real time, a pattern so consistent that it feels like a televised execution of the social contract. In this grim theatre, the Nigerian state often appears not as the protector but as the principal aggressor.
On Sunday, April 26th 2026, the quiet air of Effurun in Delta State was shattered by the crack of a service pistol. What should have been an ordinary Sunday afternoon became the final chapter in the life of twenty-eight year old Mene Ogidi. A viral video, barely two minutes long, captured the horrifying scene. Ogidi sat on the dusty ground, his hands tied behind him with a rope. He was unarmed, exhausted, and pleading in his mother tongue for a chance to explain himself. Standing over him was a man in plain clothes, a man sworn to protect the very life he was about to extinguish. Assistant Superintendent of Police Nuhu Usman raised his pistol and fired two shots at close range into the body of a restrained, helpless citizen.
This was not a confrontation. It was not a crossfire. It was not a struggle for a weapon. It was an execution. A daylight assassination carried out by a state paid officer who felt so insulated by impunity that he performed his violence in front of a digital audience. The collective outrage that followed was not simply about one death. It was the eruption of a nation that has watched this script repeat itself far too many times.
Barely days later, in Dei-Dei Abuja, another life was cut short. A National Youth Service Corps member was shot inside his father’s compound. Authorities described it as a mistake during a crossfire, but the silence that followed spoke louder than any official explanation. These tragedies are not anomalies. They are symptoms of a deep institutional rot, a rot that has turned the badge into a license for violence rather than a symbol of service.
Extrajudicial killings in Nigeria represent a direct assault on the fundamental right to life and the presumption of innocence. When a law enforcement officer assumes the roles of accuser, judge, and executioner, the very foundation of the state begins to crumble. In the case of Mene Ogidi, the Delta State Police Command admitted that the officer acted in gross violation of Force Order 237, the regulation governing the use of firearms. This admission is significant because it reveals that the problem is not the absence of rules. The problem is the collapse of discipline, the erosion of accountability, and the entrenchment of a culture of impunity.
Between 2020 and 2025, Nigerian security agencies were implicated in nearly six hundred violent incidents against civilians, resulting in more than eight hundred deaths. The Nigeria Police Force accounted for over half of these fatalities. These numbers paint a disturbing picture. The institutions funded by taxpayers to provide security have become one of the greatest threats to their safety.
The psychology behind this brutality is rooted in the absence of consequences. When officers believe that nothing will happen after they pull the trigger, the threshold for using lethal force drops to zero. In the Effurun case, reports suggest that the suspect was even transported to a station after the initial shooting, only to be shot again. This level of cruelty reflects a complete dehumanization of the citizenry. The victim is no longer seen as a person with rights. He becomes a disposable suspect. This mindset is a legacy of the defunct SARS unit, whose methods and mentality continue to shape policing culture. Rebranding SARS into SWAT or the Rapid Response Squad means nothing if the same men, trained in the same violent ethos, continue to operate with the same predatory instincts.
The Nigerian police system has evolved from a flawed institution into what many citizens now describe as a state sponsored cartel. The Zero Tolerance mantra often repeated by the Inspector General of Police, Olatunji Disu, has become a public relations slogan that evaporates at every checkpoint. The immediate dismissal and recommended prosecution of ASP Usman and his team may satisfy the public’s immediate hunger for justice, but it does not address the deeper institutional vacuum that allowed an officer to believe he could execute a restrained suspect without consequence. If accountability only occurs when a video goes viral, then we are not being policed. We are being hunted by a uniformed gang that is occasionally caught on camera.
This raises critical questions. Where were the superior officers? Where was the Area Commander while this culture of execution was taking root? Command responsibility in Nigeria remains a myth. Until a Commissioner of Police is removed for the actions of their subordinates, there will be no internal incentive to reform. The decay is structural. We are recruiting frustrated individuals, training them in aggression rather than professionalism, and unleashing them on a population they are conditioned to view with suspicion and contempt.
The mistake narrative used in the Abuja NYSC shooting reflects this tactical incompetence. A professional force does not mistake a youth corper in his bedroom for a combatant. Nigerians are effectively subsidising their own endangerment, paying for the bullets that cut down their brightest young citizens. A nation cannot survive this level of uniformed recklessness. The state has lost its monopoly on violence to its own agents. When police officers fear the citizen’s camera more than they respect the citizen’s life, the system has failed.
Five years after the historic 2020 End SARS protests, the systemic reforms promised by government remain largely unfulfilled. Only a handful of states have implemented the recommendations of the judicial panels or compensated victims. The National Human Rights Commission reported in July 2025 that it had received over three hundred thousand complaints of abuses. This staggering figure reflects the scale of the crisis. While the current Inspector General has introduced new regulations to align the Police Act of 2020 with operational realities, the gap between a gazetted document in Abuja and a patrol team in Delta remains vast.
The solution to this bloodletting must be radical and structural. First, police oversight must be decentralised. Relying on Force Headquarters in Abuja to discipline an officer in a remote community is inefficient and ineffective. Each state should have an independent, citizen led oversight board with the authority to recommend immediate suspension and prosecution without interference from the police hierarchy.
Second, Force Order 237 must be overhauled to strictly limit the use of firearms to situations where there is an immediate and verifiable threat to life. Under no circumstances should a restrained or surrendering suspect be shot.
Third, Nigeria must address the mental health and welfare of police officers. Men who live in dilapidated barracks, earn inadequate wages, and operate under constant stress are more likely to lash out at the public. However, poverty cannot be an excuse for murder. Welfare reform must go hand in hand with strict accountability.
Finally, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The trial of ASP Usman and others like him should be public, transparent, and swift. It must serve as a deterrent that resonates in every police station across the country. The era of secret disciplinary rooms must end. Nigeria must invest in technology driven policing, not only in weapons but in body cameras and digital accountability systems. When officers know they are being recorded, hesitation replaces recklessness.
A NATIONAL CALL TO ACTION
The era of Orderly Room secrecy must end. Nigeria must decentralise police disciplinary trials, moving them from closed sessions in Abuja to open, civilian led inquiries in the states where the abuses occur. A National Firearms Audit is urgently needed. Every officer must account for every round issued, and any missing ammunition should trigger automatic suspension for the entire chain of command.
The National Assembly must fast track the Victims of Police Brutality Trust Fund, ensuring that compensation becomes a legal right funded directly from the budgets of offending commands. Nigeria must stop being a nation of post script outrage. Command responsibility must become law. If an officer under a Commissioner’s watch executes a handcuffed suspect, that Commissioner must lose their job alongside the shooter.
The blood of Mene Ogidi and the NYSC member in Dei Dei is a stain on our national conscience. It is a reminder that as long as one Nigerian can be tied up and shot without trial, no Nigerian is truly safe. Silence is no longer an option. Waiting for the next viral video is no longer acceptable. The time to demand change is now.
Related
Opinion
Kwankwaso-Obi Anti-Coalition Alliance and the Perception of the North
Published
5 days agoon
May 3, 2026By
Eric
By Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba
Let’s not sugarcoat it, what is unfolding is not just political maneuvering for 2027, but a carefully calculated roadmap to 2031. Anyone who believes Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso is acting out of patriotism or prioritizing Nigeria above his personal ambition is simply ignoring the pattern before us. His willingness to deputise Peter Obi is not born out of ideological alignment or national interest, it appears to be a strategic move aimed at one target weakening Atiku Abubakar and ensuring he does not emerge as president in 2027.
Kwankwaso’s real calculation seems anchored in 2031. He understands that as long as Atiku remains active and contesting, his own presidential ambition struggles to gain traction, especially in the North where Atiku’s influence remains deeply rooted. By positioning himself in a way that could undermine Atiku now, he potentially clears the path for himself later, when he can conveniently lean on the “it is the turn of the North” narrative with stronger moral leverage. This is not about helping Obi win, it is about ensuring Atiku is completely removed from the equation.
It is also important to state plainly that Kwankwaso is fully aware of his electoral limitations in this arrangement. He knows he cannot significantly attract Northern votes for Obi beyond a few pockets, even within Kano State. And even there, the good people of Kano are far more politically aware and discerning than to be swayed purely by sentiment. This makes the entire proposition even more questionable, if the electoral value is limited, then the intention behind the alliance becomes even clearer. It suggests that even if he joins an Obi ticket, it is not driven by a genuine commitment to Obi, the Igbo, the South-East or Nigeria but by a broader personal calculation.
Northerners must understand that this is a long game, and every move appears deliberately designed. Kwankwaso seems cautious not to overtly confirm growing suspicions that he is working, directly or indirectly, to the advantage of Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Yet, many are beginning to connect the dots. The belief that there is an underlying alignment is gaining ground, especially when actions repeatedly result in one outcome, a divided North that weakens its collective electoral strength, a repeatation of 2023 in a different style. The alignment of Kwankwaso’s political godson and the governor of Kano Abba Kabir Yusuf with Tinubu only fuels this perception, suggesting a dual-front approach: one operating directly and visibly, the other indirectly and subtly.
This is not the first time such a pattern is being observed. Many Northerners still recall similar dynamics from 2023, and recent developments have only intensified the conversation. In fact, within just the last 24 hours, the level of criticism and open dissatisfaction directed at Kwankwaso across Northern Nigeria has been unprecedented. What was once dismissed as mere suspicion of a quiet alliance is now, in the eyes of many, being confirmed by actions seen as disruptive to any meaningful coalition.
For Kwankwaso, this moment carries significant weight. The long-circulating “sellout” label, which many had hesitated to firmly attach, now appears to be finding a resting place in public discourse. Should he once again position himself outside a collective Northern arrangement, that perception may become permanently entrenched.
The implications for the North are serious. Voting Obi because of Kwankwaso, which is unlikely, could fracture an already consolidated political base, reduce its bargaining power, and ultimately produce outcomes that do not reflect its true strength. The North has never historically rejected a dominant figure like Atiku in favor of a subordinate position, nor has it embraced a configuration where its most established candidate is sidelined. The idea that the region would choose Kwankwaso as a deputy while overlooking Atiku as a president is not just improbable, it runs contrary to established Northern political behavior.
What is at stake goes beyond individual ambition. The North is fully conscious of the stakes and increasingly resolute in its direction. There is a growing determination to stand firmly behind its own Atiku Abubakar, to protect its collective political strength, and to resist any arrangement that appears designed to divide it. The signals are clear, the North has decided, and it will not fall into what many perceive as calculated traps, whether from Kwankwaso or from forces seen as working against its cohesion and democratic leverage….
Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba writes from Kano, and can be reached via drssbaba@yahoo.com
Related


El-Rufai’s Son, Bello, Dumps APC, Joins ADC
Tinubu Forced Obi, Kwankwaso to Work Together – Dele Momodu
Nigerians Won’t Eat Your Bogus GDP Figures, ADC Tells FG
Senate Amends Own Rules, Blocks ‘Freshers’ from Leadership Positions
I’m Not Leaving ADC, Rhodes-Vivour Vows
Obi, Kwankwaso’s Exit Painful, But Not ‘Mortal’ Blow, Says ADC
Jim Ovia Retires As Zenith Bank Chairman, Mustafa Bello Takes Over
Strike: ASUU Declares Solidarity with SSANU, NASU
Kwankwaso-Obi Anti-Coalition Alliance and the Perception of the North
UNICEF Confirms Nigeria’s 18.3m Out-of-School Children As World’s Highest
A Vindicating Truth: A Factual Presentation on the Supreme Court’s Intervention in the ADC Leadership Matter
Ile-Ife Bubbles As Ooni Installs Olufunso Amosun As Yeye Moremi Oodua
The Police is Your Friend and Other Lies We No Longer Believe
Jim Ovia Retires As Zenith Bank Chairman, Mustafa Bello Takes Over
Trending
-
National5 days agoStrike: ASUU Declares Solidarity with SSANU, NASU
-
Opinion5 days agoKwankwaso-Obi Anti-Coalition Alliance and the Perception of the North
-
National5 days agoUNICEF Confirms Nigeria’s 18.3m Out-of-School Children As World’s Highest
-
Opinion5 days agoA Vindicating Truth: A Factual Presentation on the Supreme Court’s Intervention in the ADC Leadership Matter
-
Events5 days agoIle-Ife Bubbles As Ooni Installs Olufunso Amosun As Yeye Moremi Oodua
-
Opinion5 days agoThe Police is Your Friend and Other Lies We No Longer Believe
-
Business4 days agoJim Ovia Retires As Zenith Bank Chairman, Mustafa Bello Takes Over
-
Headline5 days agoWill ‘Big Ego’ Bury Opposition Again?

