Featured
Legal And Moral Implications of Granting Pardon to Ex-Convicts and Serving Prisoners
Published
4 years agoon
By
Eric
By Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, OFR, FCIARB, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D.
INTRODUCTION
Crimes are vices that should not be tolerated in any society. They are offences against the state and are punishable under the law. The essence of punishing people convicted of crimes is to serve the criminal just desert, make restitution to the victims and deter other people from engaging in criminal activities, amongst others.
Sometimes, the President and Governor of a state may decide to show the milk of human kindness to people already found guilty of crimes. This practice is, respectively, sanctioned by sections 175 and 212 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered. This practice is even Biblical. For example, Pontius Pilate wanted to grant pardon to Jesus Christ. But, when the mob protested, he released Barnabas instead of Jesus, and washed his hands off the baying at the blood of an innocent man already exonerated by him and King Herod, in preference of Barnabas who had been accused of treason and other heinous crimes (Mark 15:6). Pardon is an unusual show of kindness to people whom the State has already condemned for certain ignoble acts they committed.
Pardon is a loud statement. The meaning of the statement is determined by the context and circumstances of the act. For example, in a state where there is a high record of kidnapping and cyber fraud, showing mercy to people convicted of kidnapping and cyber fraud could be construed as State connivance, or an impetus for offenders to commit more of such crimes. Nigeria, for example, is rated the 149th out of 180 most corrupt countries in the world, and the second most corrupt country in West Africa, by Transparency International (TI), under its anti-Corruption Perception Index. Granting pardon to people convicted of corrupt practices, whether still serving or having served, may be construed as a tacit approval of such corrupt practices. This becomes more worrisome under a government which made fighting corruption one of its tripodal mantras.
MEANING OF PRESIDENTIAL PARDON
A pardon is an executive order granting clemency for a conviction. It may be granted “at any time” after the commission of the crime.
This right of pardon is granted to the Governor and the President, respectively, under sections 212(1) and 175(1) and (2) of the Constitution, and is legally available to all classes of convicts in Nigeria. It can be obtained by a convict who applies to a Governor or the President, as the case may be, for grant of the prerogative of mercy or pardon in his favour, either personally or through a Solicitor, or even through the prison authorities where he or she is incarcerated and is serving term of imprisonment.
For the purpose of exercising this power, section 153(1)(b) of the Constitution establishes the “Council of State,” which advises the President in the exercise of his prerogative of mercy. The council, as a government agency, is composed of high- heeled and distinguished Nigerians who are believed to be the have full complement of the country’s ethos.
Thus, although the President’s powers in this area are not subject to the strict approval of the Council of State, he cannot act unilaterally, whimsically, capriciously and arbitrarily. The usage of the word ‘shall’ in the phrase, “The President’s powers under paragraph (1) of this section shall be utilized by him after consultation with the Council of State”, demonstrates this. The exact legal force that the advice of the Council of State bears, i.e., whether it should be taken as limiting the President’s powers of pardon, or whether it is merely a courteous procedure to abide by, is a thorny issue amongst analysts. The President’s obligatory gazetting in the Official Public Notice of the Government of the Federation concludes the pardoning process. The President, including the Governor, by extant constitutional provisions, have no constraints or hurdles whatsoever on whom they can grant pardon to.
State pardon is therefore a discretionary power that must be utilized with utmost caution and must accord with the law. It must never be used as a tool of political patronage, nepotic purposes, monetary benefits, or for self-aggrandizement. It must be used in a fair and impartial manner, free of prejudices, bias and public disapproval. It must be strictly in accordance with the best interest of the nation, and the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the code of conduct applicable to all public officers in Nigeria.
THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE GRANT OF A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON
The Legal effect of presidential pardon was expatiated upon in EX-PARTE GARLAND 71 U.S. 333 (1866) thus:
“The inquiry arises as to the effect of a pardon, and on this point the authorities concur. A pardon in the eye of the law, cleanses the offender and make him as innocent as if had never committed the offence”. Such a convict is like Naaman the leper who deeped himself in the River Jordan and became cleansed of his leprosy. In FALAE V OBASANJO (1999) 3 LLER 1(CA), the Court of Appeal held that a pardon relieves the person of all sins. Musdapher, JCA (as he then was) said:
“In my view, under Nigerian law there is no distinction between “pardon” and “a full pardon.” A pardon is an act of grace by the appropriate authority which mitigates or obliterates the punishment the law demands for the offence and restores the rights and the privileges on account of the offence. The effect of a pardon is to make the offender a new man, or novus homo, to acquit him of all corporal penalties and forfeitures annexed to the offence pardoned”.
In the same vein, the court in OKONGWU V STATE, (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 44) 721, held that a free pardon had the effect of erasing “all suffering, consequences, and punishments whatsoever that the said conviction may ensure, but not to wipe out the conviction itself” from the pardonee. Thus, even where the fines have been vacated, the conviction will forever remain on the record of the court. Thus, even if a person has been pardoned, he can still legally appeal his conviction.
This was why in OKONGWU V STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 44) 721, it was held that a free pardon has the effect of blotting out “all suffering, consequences, and punishments whatsoever that the said conviction may ensure, but not to wipe out the conviction itself”.
The 1999 Constitution in sections 175 and 212, have made provisions for the grant of pardon, respite, or clemency to any person, either free, or subject to lawful conditions as may be determined by the President or the Governor, respectively. Such pardon could be for an indefinite or specified period. They could substitute a lesser form of punishment or remit the whole or any part of such punishment, or substitute a less severe form of punishment. While under section 175 (2), the President shall carry out such an exercise after consultation with the Council of State, the state Governor shall carry his out “after consultation with such advisory council of the State on prerogative of mercy as may be established by the law of the State”.
There is the more worrisome legal conundrum in the entire presidential pardon as it pertains to the two Governors. This is whether the president could have legally granted pardon to former Governors Joshua Dariye and Jolly Nyame of Plateau and Taraba States respectively, having regards to the fact that both men were convicted for offences allegedly committed between November 2000 and May 2007. The offences under which they were tried and convicted fall under State laws which took place after the promulgation of the1999 Constitution during which time they were Governors. Specifically, they were tried and convicted under sections 115,119 and 309 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532, LFN, 1990, obviously an existing State law within the meaning, import and true purport of sections 315(1)(b) and 318 of the 1999 Constitution. This Act which became effective as a state law is applicable to the FCT and the Northern States. This Penal Code Act ,not being a federal legislation of the NASS, became an existing state law deemed duly enacted by the 19 Northern States by virtue of section 315(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution. It becomes clear therefore that only the Governors of Plateau and Taraba States could have legally and rightly granted pardon to Dariye and Nyame,invoking section 212 of the Constitution; and not Mr President under section 175 of the Constitution.
The doctrine of separation of powers ably propounded in 1748 by Baron de Montesque and which is accorded constitutional imprimatur in sections 4,5 and 6 of the 1999 Constitution operate here. Should anyone challenge their pardon, an interesting constitutional issue would have been thrown up for constitutional pundits and legal analysts like yours sincerely. Let us now look at the moral implications.
THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL PARDON
The moral implications of granting pardon to people may send different messages and signals to different people. The messages could either be seen as genuine forgiveness, connivance, condonation, conspiracy, or impetus, etc.
There is this aphorism often credited to Benjamin Franklin, to the effect that “to err is human, to forgive is divine and to persist is devilish.” This saying is true. It is Biblical that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Jesus also admonished that if ‘we’ say that ‘we’ have no sin, ‘we’ make Him (Christ) a liar and the truth is not in us. In the case of a woman caught in the act of adultery brought to Jesus Christ for just determination, Christ demonstrated forgiveness by challenging the mob to first cast a stone at the woman if they had no sin. Shortly after the mob departed, Jesus forgave the woman and commanded her not to go back to her sinful lifestyle. Christ gave this woman who was about to be stoned to death a second chance to mend her ways.
Pardon is however an exercise that should be exercised sparingly after due consideration of the fuller implications and after full contrition and penance on the part of the offender. For example, during the military junta, some human rights activists were prosecuted unfairly and executed, some under retroactive laws. Such was the unforgettable grieving fate of the trio of Bartholomew Owoh (26), Lawal Akanni Ojulope (30) and Benard Ogedegbe (29), who were accused of drug peddling, but whose execution was sanctioned by Major General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) as military ruler. This, notwithstanding the intervention the heart-rending pleas by Playwrites Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe and J.P Clarke. Granting pardon to people should be viewed by the society as a recognition of a cause worth celebrating, not offensive and fouling the air.
This brings us to the case of Senators Joshua Dariye and Jolly Nyame, both former Governors, who had been convicted and imprisoned for stealing billions of naira from the coffers of their state treasuries and thus impoverished the very people they were elected to govern. These individuals were the Chief Executives of their states. They had sworn oaths of office and allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria and vowed that they would govern their states with utmost good faith. However, they betrayed their people by stealing from them. They breached the trust reposed in them. None of them admitted their guilt or wrongdoings until the courts found them guilty, up to the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, Joshua Dariye was a sitting Senator when the Supreme Court affirmed the 10 year jail term earlier passed on him. What then is the basis for granting pardon to these individuals in a country where corruption is the bane and struts around imperiously like a peacock?
I had noted severally since 2013 (after my release from a 3 week horrific ordeal in the hands of kidnappers), that we must kill corruption which had become the 37th richest and most potent state in Nigeria, before it kills us. By granting pardon to these treasury looters, Buhari is reviving, nurturing and watering corruption with State powers.
When former Bayelsa State Governor, Diepreiye Alamieyeigha (DSP) whom I had defended throughout his State-sanctioned ordeal was granted pardon by former president Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, I wrote and justified it. I did so for the following reasons: DSP had fully served his term of imprisonment after his conviction. He had earlier been pardoned by late president Yar’Adua who later died before consummating the pardon, until Jonathan succeeded him under the “doctrine of necessity”. As noted by former Attorney General, Mohammed Bello Adoke, at page 62 in his 270 page book, titled ” The Burden of Service”, DSP had also shown contrition, remorse and repentance. He had also earlier been pardoned by Yar’Adua, though not gazetted before his death. DSP had also helped greatly in brokering the peace process that led to amnesty in the restive Niger Delta region that halted oil production. This in turn led to stability in the area and reduce pipeline vandalism, kidnapping of expatriates, and thus improved oil production which had plummeted to a state of nadir, leading to national ruckus and impoverishment. He had evidently demonstrated that he believed in one stable Nigeria.
Perhaps more significant is the fact that Alamieyeigha was gravely ill with life-threatening ailment, from which he later died barely 2 years after the pardon was granted him.DSP had thus earned the state pardon after the Council of State recommended approved it. The same cannot be said of these two Governors who were still serving their jail terms.
Thus, the act of granting amnesty or pardon though discretionary, this discretion must be exercised judiciously and in the best interest of the country, so as not to create doubts in and dampen the confidence of, the citizenry in the national moral fabric, and in the fight against corruption.
So, when the Council of State recently authorized the pardon of 159 convicts, including Senator Joshua Dariye of Plateau State and ex-Governor Jolly Nyame of Taraba State, who were both imprisoned for stealing N1.16 billion and N1.6 billion respectively, many Nigerians justifiably showed anger, because these two political leaders had been duly tried and convicted for stealing money belonging to their respective states. The courts in Nigeria were unanimous in their verdicts that they were corrupt and had corruptly enriched themselves while serving as governors of their respective states. They were still serving their sentences.
These men had betrayed the trust their people reposed in them by stealing money meant for the development of their respective states while serving as their chief executives.
Many Nigerians thus viewed the action of Mr president in granting them pardon as recommended by the Council of States, which is a body peopled mostly by friends and political benefactors or allies of the convicts, as an action taken in bad faith. This is more so that President Buhari had assumed office on the goodwill of the Nigerian people, largely fuelled by his avowed commitment to fight corruption in all its ramifications, to a standstill.
The purpose of criminal prosecution is to secure justice, not only for the accused, but also for the victims of crimes and the State; and to some extent get reparation and restitution for the victims, while deterring others from going the same route.
Where lies the justice for the impoverished people of Plateau and Taraba States who will now watch their tormentors stroll out with red carpet treatment?
The government budgets huge sums of money for the prosecution of such accused persons from the tax players’ sweat; and if after the rigorous period of trial and subsequent conviction, the guilty are simply let off the hook in such a brazen manner, the little remaining lean hope the citizens have in the system is further diminished.
I dare say that in these two instances, both the President and the Council of State goofed and abused their undoubted constitutional powers and privileges.
A constitutional issue as volatile as this could have been better managed if the minders of the president had told him the embarrassment this could cause the government in the estimation the comity of nations. And it is doing just that.
This brazen abuse of power will definitely ricochet and erode the confidence of our international partners in the fight against corruption. It will also dampen the morale of the agencies fighting corruption, such as EFCC, the Nigeria Police Force, and the ICPC, amongst others.
This singular ill-advised act of abuse of power will also definitely embolden political thieves and unrepentant pilferers of our national commonwealth. It shows that once you are a friend of the President or a member of his political party, or his acolyte and supporter, you can get away with any crime. In other words, in Nigeria, corruption surely pays!
With this action, the fight against corruption appears forlorn and a mirage. What is the essence of spending scarce resources in the name of fighting corruption if at the end of the day the convicts will be pardoned and stroll into their palatial homes in splendour in this ugly manner?
Granted that the constitution gives the President and the Governors the power of prerogative to pardon criminals in deserving circumstances, must it be done in the vulgar way and manner the instant case was handled?
In fairness to the president, not all the 159 convicts and ex-convicts granted presidential pardon are politicians. But, the most prominent of them are the two former Governors. That is what has led to the national rockus,bedlam and hoopla. This is because it could be argued ( and rightly too), that the main essence of the last meeting of the Council of State was to give imprimatur to, and grant pardon to the two political heavy weights, while making up the number with some insignificant lightweight ones, using garnished veneer and sleight of hand .
The president by so doing has certainly violated the provisions of the Constitution and his oaths of office and allegiance to defend the Constitution. This recent pardon, in my humble view, is the worst way to fight corruption. It will further water, nurture and elevate corruption to a fundamental objective and directive principle of State policy. It is so sad and counterproductive.
Related
You may like
Featured
Resign by March 31, Tinubu Tells Political Appointees Seeking Elective Offices in 2027
Published
11 hours agoon
March 18, 2026By
Eric
President Bola Tinubu has directed all political appointees in his administration who intend to contest elective offices in the 2027 general elections to resign their positions on or before March 31, 2026.
The directive, according to the Presidency, is in line with Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act and the timetable released by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for party primaries ahead of the 2027 polls.
The directive was conveyed on Tuesday through a statement from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF).
The statement was signed by the Permanent Secretary, General Services Office, Dr. Ibrahim Abubakar Kana, on behalf of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume.
According to the statement, the directive applies to all categories of presidential political appointees who plan to participate in party primaries or seek nomination for any elective office in the forthcoming elections.
Those affected include Ministers, Ministers of State, Special Advisers to the President, Senior Special Assistants, Special Assistants and Personal Assistants to the President.
It also covers Directors-General and Chief Executive Officers of Federal parastatals, agencies, commissions and government-owned companies, as well as other political appointees appointed by the President.
The government stated that all affected officials are required to submit their formal resignation letters through the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation on or before the March 31, 2026 deadline.
“Accordingly, all affected officials are required to submit their formal resignation letters through the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation not later than March 31, 2026,” the statement said.
The Presidency explained that the directive is intended to ensure strict compliance with electoral laws and promote fairness in the political process ahead of the elections.
President Tinubu emphasised that the measure is aimed at upholding transparency and providing a level playing field for all aspirants preparing to participate in party primaries and the 2027 general elections.
The administration also reiterated its commitment to strengthening democratic institutions and ensuring credible electoral processes in the country.
Related
Featured
Electoral Umpires in Nigeria and Its Miasma of Failures
Published
19 hours agoon
March 17, 2026By
Eric
By Hon. Femi Kehinde
Elections in Nigeria since 1923 had been bedeviled with hiccups, brouhaha, frustration, suspicion, lack of trust, and untrustworthy umpires, who were usually placed into such positions by perhaps equally untrustworthy men of power. Nigeria does not stand in isolation in this instance. However, its peculiarities of electoral failures have definitely impacted its growth and development, and stunted the eminence of its position in the Committee of Nations.
Sir Hugh Clifford assumed the office of Governor of Nigeria on August 8, 1919 and served until 1925, succeeding Sir Frederick Lugard, the apparent founder of a country called “Nigeria”- after the Amalgamation of the Southern and Northern Protectorate he had established in 1900 and 1903 respectively. He had consequently amalgamated these two uncommon people on the 1st of January, 1914 into a union called “Nigeria”- a name suggested to him by his British Journalist-wife, Flora Shaw, whom he married on 10th of June, 1902.
Perhaps as a soothsayer, the British Secretary of the Colonies, Lord Harcourt, the man whom Port-Harcourt was named after, in a formal “Instruments of Instruction” Cablegram dispatch to Sir Frederick Lugard on the 26th of December, 1913, sanctioning the creation of a new Nigeria on the 1st of January, 1914, and the appointment of Sir Lugard as its first Governor-General, said: “…May the Union be fruitful…May the Parties remain constant”.
In 1919, Sir Lord Frederick Lugard left office as Governor-General of Nigeria and was succeeded by Sir Hugh Clifford – a hugely prominent and highly experienced British Colonial Officer, who had hitherto, been Governor of the Gold Coast (present day Ghana).
Subsequently in 1922, to administer Nigeria within his own conception and to govern its people in strict adherence to the Rule of Law and democratic tenets and principles, Sir Hugh Clifford created Nigeria’s first Constitution ably tagged the “Clifford Constitution of 1922”. Interestingly, Britain has never operated a written constitution.
To herald democracy in accordance to this Constitution, he conducted an election into a talk-shop like Legislative Council, where only four (4) members were elected; three (3) from Lagos and one (1) from Calabar.
Infact, Lagos and Calabar were then referred to as British Crown Colonies. The four elected members were Egerton Shyngale, Eric Olawolu Moore, Crispin Adeniyi-Jones, Kwamina Ata-amonu. The three (3) successful candidates from Lagos were elected on the platform of Herbert Macaulay’s Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP), while the Calabar candidate emerged as an independent candidate.
There was no Electoral Commission to organize the election. It was personally organized and supervised by the Office of the Governor of Nigeria – Sir Hugh Clifford, who was completely apolitical (non-partisan).
However, in 1959, the tide changed. The 1959 General Election was the most significant, as it determined who would lead the country into independence. In 1958, Ronald Edward Wraith, a highly consulate British Administrative Officer, was appointed as the first Electoral Umpire by the British Governor-General in Nigeria, Sir James Wilson Robertson. His task was to design the framework for the country’s first major elections. He was appointed to oversee the 1959 General Elections, which were the most critical elections prior to Nigeria’s independence in 1960. Wraith is often credited with introducing the concept of the Secret Ballot to Nigeria. He spent years traveling round the country to educate Nigerians on how to register and vote, ensuring the transition from colonial rule to the First Republic, had a structured, albeit imperfect, foundation.
The 1959 elections, despite being organized by a British expert and Colonial Officer, was still bedeviled with irregularities. The Parties; NCNC, NPC, and AG, held dominant controls of their Regions. Elections were even won before contest, due to non-availability of Nomination Forms for opposition party members.
Right from the 1959 elections, participatory democracy began to fumble and wobble. The massive riggings of the Federal Elections of 1964 and Regional Elections of 1965 respectively, ultimately led to the collapse of the First Republic on the 15th January, 1966.
In 1960, Chief Eyo Esua was the first indigenous Chairman of the Federal Electoral Commission (FEC) during Nigeria’s First Republic. He was a veteran trade unionist and teacher. Before entering the electoral space, he was a founding member and long-time General Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT). He was appointed by the Balewa government to oversee the 1964 and 1965 elections. His tenure was defined by the extreme political volatility of the 1960s. The 1964 federal election was marred by boycotts and allegations of massive fraud.
Esua was known for his personal integrity, famously admitting publicly that the 1965 Western Region elections were riddled with irregularities. This admission, while honest, highlighted the powerlessness of the Commission against the political giants of the time, shortly before the 1966 coup. He did not however admit that the 1964 Federal Election which he superintended, was equally marred with irregularities, and was infact a precursor of the 1965 Regional electoral riggings in all the regions of the federation.
In the 1965 Regional Elections in the Western Region, Chief Obadiah Ojerinola, a seasoned Senior Civil Servant in the Government of the Western Region, was appointed by the Ladoke Akintola government as the Electoral Umpire.
Obadiah Ojerinola was a high-ranking Civil Servant in the Western Region of Nigeria. Unlike the figures he worked alongside (like Chief S.L. Akintola, Chief Remi Fani-Kayode), he was not a “party man” by trade but an official within the regional bureaucracy. His appointment to lead the Electoral Body suggests he held a position of significant seniority and perceived stability within the Western Region’s Civil Service at the time.
Obadiah Ojerinola, served as the Chairman of the Western Region Electoral Commission during the highly controversial 1965 Western Region election, a period considered as one of the darkest chapters in Nigerian political history, often referred to as the era of “Wild Wild West” (Wetie).
As the “electoral umpire,” Ojerinola was at the center of the storm between the two major warring factions: NNDP (Nigerian National Democratic Party), led by Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola (the incumbent Premier), and UPGA (United Progressive Grand Alliance), an alliance including the Action Group (AG) led by Chief Mrs. H.I.D Awolowo and Hon. Dauda Soroye Adegbenro (standing in for the imprisoned Obafemi Awolowo).
Ojerinola’s Commission was accused of extreme bias in favor of Akintola’s government. The election is remembered for several systemic failures. Before the first vote was even cast, the Commission declared many NNDP candidates “unopposed” by refusing to accept the nomination papers of opposition candidates.
On election day, there were reports of widespread ballot box stuffing and the physical intimidation of voters by “party thugs”. In a bizarre turn of events, Ojerinola’s Commission announced Akintola as the winner, while the opposition (UPGA) simultaneously announced their own victory via a pirate radio broadcast.
The conduct of the Ojerinola-led Commission sparked a total breakdown of law and order. Protesters began dousing political opponents and their property with petrol and setting them on fire, hence the term ‘Wetie’, meaning “douse it”. The Western Region became ungovernable, with widespread rioting and killings.
This electoral crisis is widely cited as the primary “trigger” for Nigeria’s first military coup on January 15, 1966, which ended the First Republic and led to the deaths of Akintola and other top leaders like Tafawa Balewa (Prime Minister of Nigeria), Festus Okoti-Ebo (Minister of Finance), Ahmadu Bello (Premier of the Northern Region).
Ojerinola is often studied as a cautionary tale of what happens when an electoral body loses its perceived neutrality. His tenure proved that without a credible ‘umpire’, the Democratic process can collapse into violence.
Similarly, the Electoral Umpires in the Eastern Regional Elections and the Northern Regional Elections in 1965, were Barrister Anthony Aniagulu (later Justice Anthony Aniagulu of the Supreme Court of Nigeria Rtd.) and Alhaji Bello Makaman Kano respectively. They performed similar feats like Ojerinola, to ensure the success of their regional gladiators in the NCNC and NPC respectively.
On 15th November, 1976, Michael Ani was appointed to the role of the Chairman of the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO) by General Olusegun Obasanjo’s military administration. Prior to entering the electoral arena, Michael Ani was a seasoned Civil Servant, who was known for his administrative discipline.
His primary responsibility was to oversee the transition from military rule to civilian government, which eventually led to the 1979 general elections. He led a 24-man commission tasked with organizing the return to democracy. His mandate included the registration of political parties, the delimitation of electoral constituencies, and the general conduct of the voting process.
Though he was appointed in 1976, he is most famously remembered for his legal interpretation during the 1979 presidential election. He ruled that Alhaji Shehu Shagari had met the requirement of winning one-quarter of the votes in “at least two-thirds of all the states,” despite the mathematical ambiguity of what constituted two-thirds of Nigeria’s then 19 states. His tenure is often remembered for this “Twelve Two-Thirds” legal dispute regarding the spread of votes required for a presidential winner; a case that eventually went to the Supreme Court.
However, despite Michael Ani’s famed integrity, urbane and cosmopolitan disposition, FEDECO which he presided may still not pass the crucibles of a free and fair election. In late June or early July 1979, through a nationwide State Broadcast before the elections held on August 11, 1979, the Head of State, General Olusegun Obasanjo, addressed the nation on radio and television where he said amongst several others that: “The best candidate may not necessarily win an election”.
Whatever that may mean.
In 1980, Justice Victor Ovie-Whiskey was appointed as the Chairman of the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO) during the Second Republic, succeeding Michael Ani, by President Shehu Shagari. He was a distinguished Jurist who served as the Chief Judge of the High Court of the defunct Bendel State. He presided over the 1983 General Elections, which were incredibly contentious due to the “landslide” victories claimed by the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN).
He is famously remembered for his defense of his integrity. When accused of taking bribes to rig the 1983 election, he famously quipped that if he saw a bribe of a million naira, he would “faint” because he had never seen such an amount of money.
Despite his background as a fair-minded Judge, the 1983 elections were so disputed that they served as a primary justification for the military coup led by Muhammadu Buhari on 31st December, 1983.
In-parenthesis, Oyo and Ondo States suffered massive electoral riggings, violence and manipulations in the Gubernatorial and Presidential Elections of 1983.
In Ondo State, Hon. Justice (Dr.) Lateef Oladepo Aremu, served as the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) for the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO). He was a distinguished Nigerian Jurist and later, a pioneer in the judiciary of Osun State.
As the Resident Electoral Commissioner for Ondo State, Justice Aremu was at the center of one of the most disputed Gubernatorial elections in the Second Republic.
FEDECO declared Chief Akin Omoboriowo of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) as the winner over the incumbent Governor, Chief Michael Adekunle Ajasin of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN). The announcement sparked widespread riots, arson, and violence across Ondo State, as many citizens believed the results had been manipulated. The election results were eventually contested in court. In a landmark decision, the judiciary (up to the Supreme Court) overturned the FEDECO declaration, ruling that Chief Michael Ajasin was the actual winner and had been “robbed” of his mandate.
Justice Aremu’s role during this time is often cited in political and legal studies regarding the independence of electoral bodies.
While the FEDECO of 1983 faced massive criticism for “collusion” with the ruling party, Aremu’s later career as a pioneer Judge in Osun State (starting in 1992) saw him rebuild a reputation for intellectual depth and judicial integrity. His transition from the high-pressure electoral environment of 1983 to the Osun State High Court bench in 1992 is viewed as a significant paradigm shift from the Administrative side of the law back to the Adjudicatory side, where he spent the remainder of his distinguished career.
In the 1983 Elections in Ondo State, successful businessman, Chief Agbayewa, and serving member of the Federal House of Representatives, Hon. Olaiya Fagbamigbe who had both decamped from the UPN to the NPN, were killed and burnt to ashes by irate mob in Akure.
In Oyo State, Stephen Sunmiboye Ajibade (commonly cited as S.S. Ajibade) was a prominent Civil Servant and Administrator who served as the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) for the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO) during the 1983 General Elections. His tenure is historically significant due to the intense political climate of the Nigerian Second Republic and the controversial nature of the elections in the “Wild West.”
As the head of FEDECO in Oyo State, Ajibade was the primary official responsible for the logistical execution and the final announcement of election results in what was then one of Nigeria’s most politically sensitive and volatile states. Under his supervision, FEDECO declared Dr. Victor Omololu Olunloyo of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) as the winner of the Governorship race. This was a seismic shift in Oyo politics, as it meant the defeat of the incumbent Governor, Chief Bola Ige of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN).
Ajibade’s stint as Resident Electoral Commissioner was marked by extreme pressure and allegations of electoral malpractices that characterized the 1983 polls nationwide. The UPN and Chief Bola Ige accused the Oyo State FEDECO office of inflating figures in favor of the NPN. This led to a period of significant tension and sporadic violence across Ibadan and other parts of the state.
The results announced by Ajibade’s office were challenged in the landmark case of Ige v. Olunloyo. While the lower Courts, and eventually the Supreme Court upheld the results (unlike in neighboring Ondo State), the conduct of the election remained a point of heavy criticism by political analysts and historians.
Beyond his role in FEDECO, S.S. Ajibade, a native of Modakeke in present day Osun State, was a Career Administrator. Interestingly, Sam Mbakwe’s name was found on the voters register in Modakeke despite being sitting Governor of Imo State.
In the years following the 1983 elections and the subsequent military coup, he continued to serve in various administrative capacities within the Nigerian Civil Service. He is often remembered in Nigerian political history as an official who stood at the center of one of the most litigated and debated electoral cycles in the country’s history.
The “Transition Years” (1987–1998) represent the most unstable yet fascinating and intriguing period in Nigeria’s electoral history. This era was characterized by a tug-of-war and maradonic styles between military rulers (specifically Generals Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha) and the Chairmen tasked with returning the country to civil rule.
Professor Eme Awa was appointed by General Babangida in 1987 to lead the newly formed National Electoral Commission (NEC). He was a highly respected Professor of Political Science at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. He was seen as an intellectual heavyweight with a deep understanding of federalism, and also known for his uncompromising integrity. He reportedly fell out with the military government because he refused to be dictated to, regarding the conduct of local government elections. He resigned in 1989. His departure was a signal to many that the military was not yet ready for a truly independent electoral body.
Prof. Humphrey Nwosu, a former student of Eme Awa, took over the NEC in 1989 with a mission to innovate. He is also a Professor of Political Science. He was energetic, vocal, and deeply committed to “homegrown” democracy. He introduced the Option A4 voting system (Open Ballot System), where voters queued behind the poster of their preferred candidate. This was meant to eliminate ballot-box snatching and ghost voting.
Nwosu conducted the June 12, 1993, Presidential Election, widely regarded as the freest and fairest in Nigeria’s history. As results showing M.K.O. Abiola in the lead were being announced, the military government annulled the election. Nwosu was famously silenced, and disappeared from the public eye for years.
Following the chaos of the June 12, 1993 annulment and the removal of Nwosu, Prof. Okon Uya was appointed by the short-lived Interim National Government (ING). He was a distinguished Professor of History and former Ambassador to Argentina. Prof. Uya was tasked with conducting a fresh presidential election to “correct” the June 12 impasse. His tenure was cut short when General Sani Abacha seized power in a coup in November 1993, dissolving all democratic structures, including the NEC.
Under the Abacha regime, the Commission was renamed the National Electoral Commission of Nigeria (NECON), and Chief Sumner Dagogo-Jack was appointed as its Chairman in 1994. Chief Dagogo-Jack was an Administrator from Rivers State. His tenure is often criticized because the five registered Political Parties at the time all nominated General Sani Abacha as their sole presidential candidate; a move popularly described by late Chief Bola Ige as “five fingers of a leprous hand”. The transition process he was overseeing ended abruptly when General Abacha died in June 1998.
This era proved that no matter how brilliant the Chairman was (like Nwosu or Awa), the “Independence” of the Commission was always at the mercy of the military’s willingness to vacate power.
In 1998, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was established by the military administration of General Abdulsalami Abubakar, replacing NECON. The formation of INEC was a foundational step in the transition program that eventually ended decades of military rule and ushered in the Nigerian Fourth Republic on the 29th May, 1999. Justice Ephraim Akpata was appointed as the first Chairman of the newly formed Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). He was a retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
Justice Akpata is credited with the successful conduct of the 1999 elections, which ended decades of military juntas and ushered in the Fourth Republic. He was widely respected for his integrity and for standing his ground against political pressure during a very fragile transition period.
In the year 2000, following the death of Justice Ephraim Akpata, President Olusegun Obasanjo appointed Dr. Abel Guobadia to succeed the deceased INEC Chairman. He became the second Chairman of the Fourth Republic’s INEC. He was a distinguished Physicist and diplomat. He served as the Executive Secretary of the National Universities Commission (NUC) and was Nigeria’s Ambassador to South Korea.
He oversaw the first civilian-to-civilian transition in Nigeria’s history. While successful in keeping the Republic moving, the 2003 election was heavily trailed by allegations of “ballot-box stuffing”, logistical chaos and failures.
As at then, Dr. Guobadia was the first Chairman in Nigerian history to successfully complete a full five-year term of office from 2000 to 2005, without being sacked or resigning. Though his tenure was controversial due to the “landslide” victories of the ruling party, he maintained a calm, “by-the-book” judicial approach to electoral disputes, always advising critics to seek redress in Court.
In 2005, Prof Maurice Iwu succeeded Dr. Abel Guobadia as INEC’s Chairman. He was in office between 2005 and 2010. Professor Iwu’s tenure is perhaps one of the most debated in Nigerian history. He was a Professor of Pharmacognosy (the study of medicines derived from natural sources).
He oversaw the 2007 General Elections, which were widely criticized by international observers and even the winner, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, for being deeply flawed. Despite the criticism, Prof Iwu introduced several technological concepts, like the initial electronic voting machine designs, though they were not fully implemented during his time.
Prof Attahiru Jega succeeded Maurice Iwu as INEC’s Chairman, and was in office between 2010 and 2015. Prof. Jega is often regarded as the man who restored the image of INEC. He was a former Vice-Chancellor of Bayero University, Kano and a prominent academic activist (former President of ASUU).
Prof. Jega is notably known for introducing the Permanent Voter Card (PVC) and the Smart Card Reader, which significantly reduced “over-voting” and ballot stuffing. He presided over the 2015 election, the first time in Nigerian history that an incumbent president (Goodluck Jonathan) lost to an opposition candidate (Muhammadu Buhari) and conceded.
Prof. Mahmood Yakubu succeeded Prof. Attahiru Jega in 2015. He was in office as the longest serving INEC Chairman in Nigerian history, serving from 2015 to October 7, 2025, when his tenure extinguished. He was a Professor of History and former Executive Secretary of the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund).
He pushed for the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV). These tools were designed to upload polling unit results directly to the internet in real-time.
While Prof Yakubu successfully managed the 2019 and 2023 elections, his tenure has faced intense scrutiny over technical glitches during the 2023 presidential result uploads.
Following his departure from INEC in October 2025, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu was appointed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the Nigeria Ambassador-designate to Qatar.
The incumbent Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan (SAN). He was sworn in by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on October 23, 2025, succeeding Professor Mahmood Yakubu. He is a distinguished Professor of Law and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Prior to his appointment, he served as the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration) at the University of Jos.
However, would the electoral land-mines and the labyrinths of systemic failures allow this Ayetoro Gbede-born, highly regarded Scholar and Administrator, be truly independent and perhaps etch his name in gold as an apostle of electoral credibility in Nigeria, which had for so long remained a forlorn hope and mirage?
Fair play is lost in a football match, between shooting stars of Ibadan and Rangers International of Enugu, when you asked the shooting stars of Ibadan to choose the referee.
Wishing this former Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of the Governing Council of a faith-based University – Joseph Ayo Babalola University (JABU), Ikeji-Arakeji, a successful voyage.
Hon. (Barr.) Femi Kehinde, MHR is a
Former Member of the House of Representatives, National Assembly, Abuja (1999-2003), representing Ayedire, Iwo, Olaoluwa Federal Constituency of Osun State, and Principal Partner, Femi Kehinde & Co. Solicitors, Ibadan, Oyo State
Related
Featured
2027: ADC Cries Out over Alleged Plot to Make Tinubu Sole Candidate
Published
1 day agoon
March 17, 2026By
Eric
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has raised the alarm over what it described as a plot to make Bola Tinubu the sole presidential candidate in the 2027 general elections.
The party also accused the All Progressives Congress (APC) of attempting to impose an expelled member as its national chairman in a move it said was aimed at weakening the opposition.
Specifically, the ADC alleged that the APC is plotting to pressure the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise Mr. Nafiu Bala Gombe, an expelled member of the party, as the ADC National Chairman.
According to the party, the alleged move forms part of a wider strategy to destabilise the ADC and ensure that President Tinubu emerges as the only serious contender in the 2027 presidential election.
In a statement issued in Abuja and signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC described the alleged plot as a calculated attempt by elements within the ruling establishment to create confusion within the party and weaken what it called a viable opposition platform.
The party insisted that there is no ambiguity about its leadership, maintaining that its affairs are firmly under the control of former Senate President, David Mark, following a combined meeting of its National Working Committee (NWC) and National Executive Committee (NEC) witnessed by INEC officials in July 2025.
The ADC said it would employ all legitimate means to resist what it described as attempts by anti-democratic forces within the ruling party to undermine competitive democracy in Nigeria.
The statement alleged that powerful figures within the APC were behind efforts to pressure INEC into recognising Nafiu Bala Gombe as the party’s national chairman.
It claimed that the move was being driven by an APC governor in collaboration with a senior security official based in Abuja as part of a broader scheme to weaken the opposition ahead of the 2027 elections.
According to the party, Gombe, who once claimed to be Deputy National Chairman under former ADC National Chairman, Ralph Nwosu, had been expelled from the party for actions inconsistent with its constitution and leadership decisions.
The ADC said it is, therefore, alarming that certain political interests were allegedly attempting to use him to destabilise the party and forcibly take over its leadership.
The party further argued that the objective of the alleged plot was to manufacture internal crisis within the ADC, sponsor illegitimate leadership claims and cripple what it described as the only credible opposition platform available to Nigerians.
Reiterating its position, the party said a properly constituted joint meeting of its NWC and NEC, witnessed by INEC officials, had transferred the party’s leadership to a coalition led by David Mark and former Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola, in July 2025.
It added that INEC formally recognised the leadership in September 2025.
The party also cited a Federal High Court ruling delivered on March 6, which dismissed a suit challenging Mark’s leadership of the party, affirming that leadership issues within political parties are internal matters.
The ADC warned that Nigeria’s democracy could be undermined if ruling parties attempt to infiltrate or manipulate opposition platforms for political advantage.
It said such actions would constitute a serious threat to democratic pluralism and the constitutional right of Nigerians to organise and support credible political alternatives.
Related


Eid-el- Fitr: Interior Minister Announces Thursday, Friday As Public Holidays
AFCON 2025: Senegal Rejects CAF Verdict, Heads to CAS
Resign by March 31, Tinubu Tells Political Appointees Seeking Elective Offices in 2027
CAF Strips Senegal of AFCON 2025 Victory, Declares Morocco Winner
Electoral Umpires in Nigeria and Its Miasma of Failures
Borno Acts of Terror: Tinubu Orders Security Chiefs to Relocate to Maiduguri
2027: ADC Cries Out over Alleged Plot to Make Tinubu Sole Candidate
The Boss Newspaper Welcomes Folu Adebayo into Its League of Columnists
Fuel Importation Ban: Dangote Tackles NMDPRA over Continuous Issuance of Import Licences
The Oracle: The New Digital Colonialism: Navigating AI Policy Under Foreign Tech Dominance (Pt. 2)
The Billionaire Gang: The Quartet That Keeps Nigeria in Limelight
Rescue Effort Underway As Fueling Aircraft Crashes in Iraq – US Military
The Six Focal Dimensions of Leadership: A Holistic Framework for Personal Mastery
Operation Epic Fury: I’m No Longer Interested in Nobel Peace Prize, Says Trump
Trending
-
Boss Picks5 days agoThe Boss Newspaper Welcomes Folu Adebayo into Its League of Columnists
-
Business4 days agoFuel Importation Ban: Dangote Tackles NMDPRA over Continuous Issuance of Import Licences
-
The Oracle5 days agoThe Oracle: The New Digital Colonialism: Navigating AI Policy Under Foreign Tech Dominance (Pt. 2)
-
Boss Picks2 days agoThe Billionaire Gang: The Quartet That Keeps Nigeria in Limelight
-
World5 days agoRescue Effort Underway As Fueling Aircraft Crashes in Iraq – US Military
-
Opinion4 days agoThe Six Focal Dimensions of Leadership: A Holistic Framework for Personal Mastery
-
USA5 days agoOperation Epic Fury: I’m No Longer Interested in Nobel Peace Prize, Says Trump
-
Boss Of The Week4 days agoFola Adeola to Head Tinubu’s Petroleum Task Force

