Headline

Ozekhome Faults Court Judgment Removing Ebonyi Gov, Deputy, Says Judgment Can’t Survive Appellate Scrutiny

Published

4 years ago

March 8, 2022

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

Constitutional lawyer and human rights activist, Chief Mike Ozekhome has faulted a court judgement removing from office the Ebonyi State governor, Dave Umahi, and his deputy, Eric Kelechi Igwe, saying the judgment will not survive when presented before higher courts.

Ozekhome faulted the judge’s assertion that votes belong to political parties not individuals, saying that on the contrary, votes belong to individuals not political parties.

Recall that an Abuja High Court on Tuesday sacked the Ebonyi governor, his deputy, and 17 lawmakers for defecting to the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

Below is Ozekhome’s detailed opinion:

NEITHER A GOVERNOR NOR DEPUTY GOVERNOR CAN BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BY A COURT OF LAW FOR DEFECTING FROM HIS POLITICAL PARTY TO ANOTHER

CHIEF MIKE A. A. OZEKHOME, SAN, OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, PH.D, LL.D

I have just read social media publications regarding the judgment delivered today by the respected Honourable Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

I am of the firm belief that the judgment, shredded of all legal and factual details, cannot stand the acid test of constitutionalism, nor pass the furnace of appellate courts scrutiny. This is because the tenure of office of a Governor and his Deputy are constitutional matters.

The judgment is said to have sacked Governor David Umahi and his Deputy, Eric Kelechi Igwe from their offices. He cited section 221 of the Constitution, which merely prohibits political activities by certain associations which are not political parties from canvassing for votes or contributing to elections expenses of any candidate at any election. The Judge ordered the PDP to immediately send names of replacements to INEC so that fresh elections can be conducted. He also ordered INEC to cease recognising Umahi and Igwe as Governor and Deputy Governor, respectively, of Ebonyi State.

The learned trial Judge further held that the 393, 042 votes polled by Umahi in the March 9, 2019 governorship election belonged to the PDP and cannot be legally transferred to the APC upon defection, and that there is no constitutional provision that made the ballot transferable from one party to another. He therefore order INEC to conduct fresh election in accordance with section 177(c) of the Constitution. Not so fast, the enforcement of this judgment. The Governor and his Deputy have 90 days to appeal this decision under section 25(2), (a) of the Court of Appeal Act, it is their right under sections 240 and 241, of the Constitution, the judgment being a final one.

THIS JUDGMENT CANNOT SURVIVE APPELLATE SCRUTINY

Perhaps, the Jurist’s learned attention was not drawn to appellate decisions on this type of matter, which under the doctrine of stare decisis and judicial precedent, he ought to have followed meticulously. He may also not have been availed of the clear provisions of sections 180 and 188 of the 1999 Constitution.

WHO VOTES AT AN ELECTION?

It is not only the registered voters of a political party that cast their votes for a President, Vice President, Governor or Deputy Governor. Many non-politically partisan persons also vote; just like opposition party members who may prefer a particular candidate even though not in their party. It is therefore not correct to hold that votes scored by a candidates belong to a political party and therefore not transferable. The courts have since gone over the era of Amaechi V. INEC, where the Supreme Court had held that votes cast in an election belong to a political party. Section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as altered that section, by providing that for a candidate to become Governor, he must have participated at all stages of the election. This includes primaries and the general governorship election.

VOTES BELONG TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT POLITICAL PARTY

The appellate courts have since held again and again that votes cast in an election belong to a live candidate, and not the political party which merely serves as a vehicle that enthrones candidates.
The Judge in his Judgment had agreed with the PDP which relied on sections 221, 177(c), 106(d) and 65(2)(b) of the Constitution to substantiate its argument that votes belong to the political parties; and it is impossible for candidates to exist without a political party. The case of NGIGE V. AKUNYILI (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1323) 343 @ 357-376, which came much later over rule this position. The court held in that case that:
“…it is my considered view that the Appellant in relying on the provision quoted above (section 211 of the Constitution), has conveniently lost sight of the underlined words which show that a political party canvasses for votes on behalf of the candidate. In other words that a political party is nothing more than an agent of the candidate in gathering votes for an election. It is my further view that is against the backdrop of this, that the Electoral Act (Supra) requires the candidate (and not the party of the candidate) that has the highest number of votes at an election to be declared as the winner of the said election and further provides for the means of challenging the return of the candidate (and not his political party…”(Emphasis supplied).

In a more recent decision, the Court of Appeal in the case of NWANKWO & ANOR v. INEC & ORS (2019) LPELR-48862(CA) held thus:
“… It is trite that it is only a natural person that can be lawfully declared and returned as a winner of an election. The Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) only contemplates the declaration and return of a candidate in an election and not a political party”.

The authorities cited above have, for all intents and purposes, rested the issue as to whether it is the candidate or the party that owns the votes. The party only serves as a vehicle and nothing more. The judgment is therefore liable to be upturned on appeal.

Thus, the Amaechi case position has since been over taken by the 2010 amendment to the Electoral Act and recent decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, which have now vested the votes on the candidate and no longer on the political party as wrongly held by Justice Ekwo. While interpreting section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010, in CPC & ANOR v. OMBUGADU & ANOR (2013) LPELR-21007(SC), the Supreme Court held thus:
“Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provides in unmistaken terms: “An election tribunal or court shall not under any circumstance declare any person Winner of an election in which such a person has not fully participated in all the stages of the said election.” By the above provision, the National Assembly has set aside the decision of this court in Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) page 227 at 296. Contrary to the decision of this court in Amaechi’s case, the implication of section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) is that while a candidate at an election must be sponsored by a political party, the candidate who stands to win or lose the election is the candidate and not the political party that sponsored him. In other words, parties do not contest, win or lose election directly; they do so by the candidates they sponsored and before a person can be returned as elected by a tribunal or court, that person must have fully participated in all the stages of the election, starting from nomination to the actual voting.” Per NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC (Pp 51 – 51 Paras B – F).(Emphasis Supplied).

Relying on the judgment cited above, the Supreme Court held thus in the case of OZOMGBACHI v. AMADI & ORS (2018) LPELR-45152(SC), held as follows:
“…I believe the Supreme Court has laid to rest the contention that it is the political party which contests and wins an election. In C.P.C. v OMBUGADU (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1385), the court was categorical that individuals as candidates win election and not the political parties.” Per MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC (Pp. 48 – 49 Paras E – A).
In HARUNA v. APC & ORS (2019) LPELR-47777(CA), the Court of Appeal held thus amongst several others:
“In other words, parties do not contest, win or lose election directly; they do so by the candidates they sponsored and before a person can be returned as elected by a tribunal or court, that person must have fully participated in all the stages of the election starting from nomination to the actual voting.” Per UGO, J.C.A. (Pp. 12-27, Paras. F-F).(Emphasis supplied).
The court further held thus:
“The implication of section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) is that while a candidate at an election must be sponsored by a political party, the candidate who stands to win or lose the election is the candidate and not the political party that sponsored him” Per UGO, J.C.A. (Pp. 12-27, Paras. F-F). (Emphasis Supplied).

I therefore most respectfully submit (as held by appellate courts) that a political party is merely a vehicle in which a candidate can ride to contest an election and nothing more. The votes belong to the candidate and not the political party. The political party ceases to have any considerable relevance or insolence over a person that has won an election and has been sworn in as a legislator, Governor or President of the entire people, who are far larger than a mere political party.

THE APEX COURT SPEAKS

More poignantly, the apex court has since laid to rest, the question of whether the President and Vice President (and by parity, Governor and Deputy Governor) can defect from the original party that sponsored them during election to another party. This was the case of AG, Federation v. Atiku Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1041) 1, 29.

Briefly, the facts of this case are that Abubakar Atiku (then Vice President) entered into a frosty relationship with his boss, President Olusegun Obasanjo, after both had been sworn in on 29th May, 2003. Atiku then resigned from the PDP and joined the Action Congress (AC) whilst still in office as Vice President. Obasanjo would brood none of this, as he promptly declared Atiku’s seat vacant as Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Atiku, being aggrieved, sued the Attorney General, the IGP and INEC, by way of Originating Summons at the Court of Appeal.

After briefs were exchanged and argument proffered, the intermediate court unanimously held in favour of Atiku. It held that Atiku could defect without losing his seat. Dissatisfied, the A.G and others appealed to the Supreme Court which unanimously dismissed the appeal.
The law is that the Vice President could only be removed from office by reason of death; or when he is succeeded after spending 4 years in office; or through removal from office by impeachment proceedings under section 188 of the 1999 Constitution. Indeed, the apex court held in that case that the power to remove the President and Vice President (and by parity Governor and Deputy Governor) is provided for in section 143 of the Constitution (read section 188 in the case of Governor and Deputy Governor). The Supreme Court held as follows:

“The 1999 Constitution does not provide that the President or Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be removed or is removable from that office if he defects from the political party on whose platform he was elected to that office and joins another political party……….
“It is manifest from the provisions of sections 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution that the makers of the Constitution intended to; and indeed made punishable the defection of a member of the Senate, House of Representatives or a House of Assembly from the political party that sponsored him into another party before the expiration of the period for which the legislative house was elected by declaring the seat of such member vacant. However, no similar provision is made for the Vice-President. In other words, if the makers of the Constitution had intended the Vice-President or the President to suffer the same fate as a member of the Senate, House of Assembly, they would have inserted such provision in the Constitution in clear terms………
“It seems clear to me that the Latin maxims: expression unius personae vel rei, est exclusion alterius or inclusion unius est exclusion alterius- when translated into English Language mean: the express mention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another or the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another; respectively- are very much apposite here; see the cases of military governor of Ondo State v. Adewunmi (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 82) 280 and Attorney-General Bendel State v. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 118) 646 where the maxims were considered.
“Had the law-makers been minded that punishment or consequence of political cross-carpeting should be applicable to the President or Vice-President as they have done in respect of a member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives or even a member of the House of Representatives or even a member of the House of Assembly in the aforesaid provisions of sections 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g) would have stipulated same in an unmistakable term in section 146 of the 1999 Constitution quoted above”.

Continued the Supreme Court:
“By virtue of section 40 of the 1999 Constitution, it is unconstitutional to deny a citizen of Nigeria the right to opt out of any political party, or the right to join or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interest provided that the political party is recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission. In the instant case, it was not shown by credible evidence that the political party to which the 1st respondent defected was not recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission. In the circumstance, the 1st respondent ought not to be penalized for joining the political party”.
“1st respondent is alleged to have defected or cross-carpeted to another political party. Although defection or cross-Carpeting to another party or dumping the original party that sponsored one for election to a particular office which is created by the Constitution, or in the same vein, condemning or criticizing that party or its members who by virtue of the same election hold some offices created by the Constitution, is painful, unconscionable, and immoral, it is however not illegal. I cannot find any fault with the lower court’s adumbration on section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, Chapter IV thereof, which guarantees a citizen of this country freedom of association”. (Underline mine for emphasis).

COULD THE GOVERNOR AND HIS DEPUTY HAVE BEEN SUED IN THE FIRST CASE?

Another stormy tumble and rumble the present judgment will run into is section 308 of the Constitution which grants absolute immunity to the President, Vice President, Governor and Deputy Governor from being proceeded against in any civil or criminal proceedings. The only the exception is section 308(2) which permits proceedings against this set of people when they are sued only in their official capacity, or a nominal party.

The case against Umahi and his Deputy were in their personal capacities as human beings who had defected from the PDP to the APC, See Tinubu v IMB Securities Plc (2001) LPELR -3248(SC), I.C.S. (Nig) Ltd v. Balton B. V. (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt.822) 223, Fabunmi v. IGP & Anor.

Consequently, no civil or criminal proceedings could ever sustain against this set of persons, whilst still holding office. Indeed, in the words of section 308(1), “no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this section applies during his period in office”. More significantly, “no process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section applies, shall be applied for or issued”.

This was why in Global Excellence Communications Ltd & Ors v. Donald Duke (2007) LPELR – 1323 (SC), The apex court lamented that “section 308 of the Constitution confers absolute immunity on those therein mentioned, without a corresponding disability on them to the exercise of their rights to institute actions in their personal capacities in any relevant court of law for redress during their tenure of office”.

Our discussion here is about the “lex Lata” (the law as it is); and not the “delege ferenda” (the law as we would want it to be. No sentiments or lachrymal effusion here. The Governor and his Deputy could not have been sued at all, to be removed from office for defecting, this not being a pre-election or post-election matter covered by the Fourth alteration to the Constitution, and which expired well over two years ago. The court made it clear in EJURA V. IDRIS & ORS (2006) LPELR -5827 (CA), where the court held:

“The 1st Respondent, the Governor of Kogi State can only be removed by a successful petition heard by an Election Petition Tribunal. Where, as in the instant case the Appellant sought to remove the Governor, by an Originating Summons filed before the Federal High Court, the provisions of section 308 of the Constitution protects the Governor from such a civil proceeding notwithstanding the provisions of section 21(5) of the Electoral Act. The trial Judge was right to decline jurisdiction in the light of the clear provisions of section 308 of the Constitution.” Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.C.A (as he then was)(Pp. 15-19 paras. F). (Emphasis mine).

This was what was done in the Umahi case.

Going by the above plethora of authorities, I humbly submit that a Governor already sworn in can not be removed by the Federal High Court through an Originating Summons. It will surely be set aside on appeal. Mark my words.

Headline

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

Published

3 days ago

February 5, 2026

Eric

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

At the centre of the controversy was Section 60, which governs the transmission of polling unit results. Senators voted down a recommendation by the Senate Committee on Electoral Matters that would have compelled presiding officers to upload results to the INEC Result Viewing (IReV) portal in real time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond the transmission debate, the Senate approved far-reaching amendments to Nigeria’s electoral calendar. The election notice period was reduced from 360 days to 180 days, the deadline for submission of party candidate lists was shortened from 120 to 90 days, and the nomination period was cut from 180 to 90 days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Guardian

Headline

Wike Remains Undisputed Rivers APC, PDP Leader, Tinubu Rules

Published

5 days ago

February 3, 2026

Eric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ThisDay/Arise News

Headline

Otunba Adekunle Ojora: Farewell to a Good Man

Published

7 days ago

February 1, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE MAN, OTUNBA ADEKUNLE OJORA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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