Connect with us

National

It’s Not Military’s Place to Grant Amnesty to Terrorists, DHQ Clarifies

Published

on

The Defence Headquarters (DHQ) has said it lacks the power to offer amnesty to surrendered terrorists.

The Director Defence Media Operations, Major General Markus Kangye, made the clarification during a briefing in Abuja on Thursday.

There were reports recently suggesting that bandit commanders in Katsina State were surrendering and releasing hostages in exchange for amnesty.

The military high command clarified that while the development reflects the success of both kinetic and non-kinetic operations, offering amnesty to terrorists is not within the military’s mandate.

He said: “Anmesty is not what we do. We are to do our job according to our rules of engagement, according to our operational directives. And if, from the operation conducted, people are arrested and handed over, and an amnesty is to be given to them, it’s not the military that determines that.

“Their cases will be studied, and based on that merit, the agencies of government responsible for giving amnesty will do that. It is not for the military to determine whether to give amnesty or not. That is not part of our operation.”

Responding to a question on why the military had refused to release detained leaders of Okuama community in Delta State, despite a court order, the Director of Defence Information, Brig.-Gen. Tukur Gusau, who was also present at the briefing, explained that the military had not received the court order in question, despite reports of its issuance.

On March 14, four officers and 13 soldiers were killed in an ambush in Okuama, a community in Ughelli South Local Government Area, Delta State, during a peace mission by the military men. The killings attracted wide condemnation from Nigerians. The military, thereafter, stormed the community and arrested alleged perpetrators of the heinous act.

“The DHQ has not received any court injunction in respect of that,” Gusau said.

“If we get it, we have our legal team, which will advise us on the next step to take. But for now, we don’t have such a court injunction being served to us.”

When asked why the military wouldn’t allow community members to visit the detained leaders, the defence spokesman replied that no such request had been made to the military.

“There was no request forwarded to the Defence Headquarters on that,” Gusau said.

“Maybe, perhaps the request is only on the pages of newspapers.

“There is a procedure for everything. If they follow the procedure, we will respond appropriately,” he added.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

National

Shettima’s Veiled Indictment: Road to APC’s Implosion?

Published

on

By

By Eric Elezuo

It appears the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is fast becoming a victim of it own machinations  and traps against dissenting voices and opposition. Just like in the game of football when strikers of a team launch out deep into the opponents goal area, leaving their own back unattended to. There’s always a tendency that there a fast break, and the attacking opponent will be attacked.

This is the scenario that has been painted in the affairs of the APC since the July 2 emergence and adoption of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) as the preferred platform of the coalition of parties and likeminds to actualize their 2027 political ambition.

Beyond the rhetorics and propaganda that have trailed the public pronouncement from members of the two parties, the speech of the Vice President, Senator Kashim Shettima, at the launch of a book, by former Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, titled “OPL 245: The Inside Story of the $1.3 Billion Oil Block,” appears to a lot observers and stakeholders as an own goal. A product of a house ostensibly divided against itself.

Observers say the speech, and it’s intended and unintended innuendo appear to have created a crevice in the fragile unity of the ruling party.

In apparent stand to discredit former President Goodluck Jonathan, and appreciate his long-term friend, Adoke, Shettima had recalled how the former AGF saved his office, maintained his stand and told the then President that he has no power to remove an elected governor from office. This was in the hay days of the Boko Haram menace in the North, especially the North East. The comments gained instant traction on the social media space as interpretations of all kinds flew across boards, the major among them being that the Vice President has indicted his principal, President Bola Tinubu for removing the governor of Rivers State, Siminalayi Fubara and other elected officials.

According to Shettima in the remark, which was obviously unscripted, and which he spoke extempore, “in the final four years of President Jonathan’s government, I was the most demonised person in the country. I was public enemy number one,” he said.

The VP claimed that a plan to unseat him was discussed at high-level meetings involving key government figures, including the President, Vice President, Senate President, and Speaker of the House of Representatives.

“At one of those meetings, former President Jonathan suggested removing me as Borno governor. Aminu Tambuwal, then Speaker of the House, boldly told him, ‘Mr. President, you do not have the powers to remove an elected councillor, let alone a governor,’” Shettima recounted.

The idea was later raised again at a Federal Executive Council meeting but was dismissed as unconstitutional by then AGF Adoke.

“Adoke stood firm and told the President that he lacked the constitutional power to remove a sitting governor,” Shettima said.

They even sought the opinion of another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kabiru Turaki, who agreed with Adoke. That was how the matter ended.”

He noted that the incident forged a lasting bond between him, Adoke, and Tambuwal. Shettima praised Adoke for standing by legal principles and commended his ability to move past old political tensions.

The remarks of the VP touched many spots, and caused a chain reaction with many linking it to President Bola Tinubu’s suspension of Governor Fubara.

But in a swift reaction, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Communications (Office of the Vice President), Stanley Nkwocha, said Shettima’s comment was misinterpreted.

In a lengthy statement, Nkwocha clarified as follows:

No Link Between VP Shettima’s Remarks At Book Launch And Certain Online Reports

The Office of the Vice President has noted with serious concern the gross misrepresentation of remarks made by His Excellency, Senator Kashim Shettima
@officialSKSM, Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, during the public presentation of the book “OPL 245: The Inside Story of the $1.3 Billion Oil Block” by Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), held at the Yar’Adua Centre, Abuja, on Thursday, July 10, 2025.

Certain online news outlets and individuals have distorted the Vice President’s comments in pursuit of a mischievous agenda, twisting his account of how the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan considered removing him from office—then as Governor of Borno State—at the height of the insurgency in the North East region.

This sensational reporting, which strips the Vice President’s remarks of their proper context, ventures into fiction by drawing false equivalence between his personal experience and the state of emergency declared in Rivers State, as well as the subsequent suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara by His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu
@officialABAT
, GCFR, President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

We wish to state categorically that Vice President Shettima’s comments were made within the context of acknowledging the author’s professional conduct during his tenure as Attorney General of the Federation—a tribute to his public service record. His remarks were historical references to events during the Jonathan administration and were intended as a discourse on Nigeria’s constitutional evolution. They served to highlight how complex federal-state tensions have been managed through legal mechanisms and the country’s progress in that regard.

For the avoidance of doubt, President Tinubu did not remove Governor Fubara from office. The constitutional measure implemented was a suspension, not an outright removal. This action, along with the declaration of a state of emergency, was taken in response to the grave political crisis in Rivers State at the time. The situation was unprecedented, with the State House of Assembly complex under demolition and the Governor facing a looming threat of impeachment by aggrieved members of the legislature. No objective observer can deny that this decisive intervention by the President brought stability and calm to Rivers State.

This situation is not comparable to that of the North East under the Jonathan administration, where violent non-state actors were directly challenging the sovereignty of the Nigerian state, demanding unified action by both federal and state authorities to confront terrorism. In contrast, President Tinubu acted strictly within constitutional limits and in consultation with relevant stakeholders to preserve democratic institutions and restore order in Rivers State.

Nigeria’s laws provide a clear framework for addressing such matters. Section 305(3)(c) of the Constitution authorises extraordinary measures when there is “a breakdown of public order and public safety in the federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security.”

The situation in Rivers State clearly met this constitutional threshold, with persistent politically motivated violence, systematic attacks on federal institutions, and near-complete paralysis of governance—conditions intolerable in any democratic society. According to credible security reports, these acts even escalated into attacks on national assets.

President Tinubu acted with constitutional fidelity. His proclamation invoking Section 305(2) was ratified by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the National Assembly, as required by Section 305(3).

This cross-party consensus in suspending the government of Rivers State, led by Sim Fubara, reflects a shared understanding among our elected representatives that the situation had reached a point of constitutional necessity, requiring immediate federal intervention.

Clearly, without mincing words, the action of President Tinubu in suspending Mr Fubara and others from exercising the functions of office averted the Governor’s outright removal. To conflate suspension with removal is misleading. Therefore, interpreting Senator Shettima’s remarks as commentary on current events is either a wilful misrepresentation or a deliberate neglect of constitutional context.

The Vice President, speaking extemporaneously, focused on the importance of public officials documenting their stewardship and on the enduring principle of accountability in public service. His historical references were made to illustrate the principled stands taken by past public servants, as well as his personal ties to Mohammed Bello Adoke and former Speaker Aminu Waziri Tambuwal. His remarks were not in any way a criticism of President Tinubu’s actions, which the Vice President and the entire administration fully support and stand by without reservation.

Vice President Shettima stands in loyal concert with President Tinubu in implementing these difficult but necessary actions to safeguard our democracy. We urge media organisations and political actors to desist from the destructive practice of wrenching statements from context in order to fabricate nonexistent conflicts.

Long before now, unconfirmed stories have continued to find their ways into the media space, claiming that all is not well with the relationship of Tinubu and Shettima, a situation the preaidency has denied, and continued to deny.

Tinubu removed Fubara and the Rivers state legislators on March 18, 2025, following a long drawn political upheaval in the state, between the governor, and his predecessor; the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, which defied all logical reconciliation. The suspension, according to Tinubu, who claimed he invoked section 305 of constitution, is for an initial six months.

Continue Reading

National

ADC Assembles 97 Lawyers for Defence in APC’s ‘Fake Lawsuit’

Published

on

By

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has assembled a team of 97 lawyers to challenge what it describes as the All Progressives Congress (APC)’s ‘fake lawsuit’ against its interim leadership, including former Senate President David Mark and former Minister Rauf Aregbesola.

The legal team, led by Barrister Mohammed Sheriff, made this known in Abuja on Tuesday, accusing the ruling APC of filing a suit using the names of individuals who are not members of the ADC.

The latest development follows a stakeholders’ meeting in Abuja between Senator Mark, who is now the ADC’s Interim National Chairman, and the party’s Kogi State chapter.

At the meeting, Mark assured Nigerians that under his leadership, the ADC would operate with total transparency and would not favour any presidential aspirant.

“I don’t own this party more than any other member… All Nigerians must come together and take ownership of the ADC,” he said.

He, therefore, urged party members to set aside their differences and focus on building a united political force, warning that Nigeria’s democracy could fail if citizens remain passive.

The ADC chairman also criticised the APC, saying the ruling party should focus on fixing its own policy failures rather than targeting individuals.

“If they admitted that insecurity was bad and promised to improve it but instead made it worse, should Nigerians continue to support them? The answer is no,” he said.

The ADC alleged that the APC had fabricated names in its lawsuit against the party’s interim leadership.

According to the ADC, investigations showed that the supposed plaintiffs in the suit were not registered members of the party in either Kogi or Nasarawa State.

“It smacks of desperation that a party entrusted with leading 200 million Nigerians would engage in such dishonesty,” the party said.

Mark used the occasion to call for national unity and encouraged Nigerians to support the ADC’s vision of a reformed and people-centred democracy.

“Let us work together to rebuild this nation for future generations,” he urged.

Barrister Sheriff, head of the ADC’s national legal support team, confirmed that 97 lawyers have volunteered to take up the case.

“We are fully prepared to defend the ADC and its leaders against this politically motivated attack,” he said.

Continue Reading

National

Nigeria Loses $25bn Annually to Lack of Electricity – REA Boss

Published

on

By

The Managing Director of Rural Electrification Agency (REA), Abba Aliyu, has said that Nigeria loses at least $25 billion every year due to the lack of electricity.

He stated this during the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Rural Electrification Agency and Galaxy Backbone in Abuja.

The agreement was aimed at delivering electricity and digital connectivity to public institutions such as schools, hospitals, and security agencies across the country.

The REA boss said the initiative is part of President Bola Tinubu administration’s efforts to drive inclusive development and realise its vision of a $ 1 trillion economy.

Aliyu said: “For us, today (July 4, 2025), we are showing and demonstrating how two different government agencies can collaborate towards the development of this country.

“Today, we are showing we are planting the seed to unlock a $25billion economy. The cost of lack of electricity and associated development initiatives within the country is costing the country $25billion annually.

“The nexus between electricity, financial inclusion, and the digital economy cannot be over-emphasised.

“We have seen it over and over in the study that wherever there is no electricity, there is no financial inclusion, and there is no digital value that has been created within those communities.

“Nigeria has the highest number of people without electricity, which by extension means that the country has the highest number of people that are financially excluded, and they are not reaping the benefit of the digital economy.”

Continue Reading

Trending