Headline

COUP! Who Wants Tinubu Out by Force?

Published

4 months ago

November 2, 2025

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

The experiences of African countries such as Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and most recently Madagascar, would have been the lot of the giant of Africa, Nigeria, if the intentions of alleged coup plotters, currently in the custody of the Nigerian security agencies, had seen the light of the day.

What started like a mere rumour, propagated by popular online medium, SaharaReporters, blossomed into full grown story of attempt to dislodge the democratically elected government of President Bola Tinubu. This situation also midwifed the sack and retirement of the Chief of Defence Staff, General Christopher Musa and other military chiefs, including the Chiefs of Naval and Air Staff in one fell swoop. The Chief of Army Staff, General Olufemi Oluyede had luck on his side, as he was rather elevated to the Chief of Defence Staff position while his superior and contemporaries were sacked. General Waidi Shaibu took over as the COAS. Also, Major General Emmanuel Undiendeye was retained as the Chief of Defence Intelligence. These developments had fueled the unpopular belief that the two officers stood stoutly against the alleged coup, and their loyalty to the government of the day is not in doubt.

It is however, worthy of note that the Presidency and the Military have continued to deny any link between the sacking of the military chiefs and the alleged coup.

But the question that has continually been posed is who wants the president removed by force of arms?

The Tinubu-administration has come under the radar of removal-speculations ever since it assumed office in May 2023 as a result of policies which many Nigerians have dismissed as oppressive and inhumane.

Recall that in August 2024, the then Chief of Army Staff, late Lieutenant-General Taoreed Lagbaja, noted that the Armed Forces would “not allow itself to be used to undemocratically sail some interests to power”, adding: “thanks, but no thanks” to calls for intervention.

Lagbaja’s comments hinted at a possible dissatisfaction and dissension among the ranks and files of the military, who with collaboration of the civil populace were calling for a forceful change, no thanks the supposed harsh economic realities of the time, and which has continued to prevail.

In the same August 2024, General Christopher Musa, supported Lagbaja’s narrative, stressing that “Democracy is what we stand for, and democracy is what we will continue to defend.” He had earlier pledged the forces’ “unwavering commitment” to the constitution and the president.

Again, in October 2024, during the #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protests across some parts of the country, protesters were seen and heard urging military action to topple Tinubu’s government. Lagbaja, again rejected the notion.

In the wake of the coup reports by the online newspaper, the Defence Headquarters categorically denied that officers arrested on October 4, and numbering 16, were not coup plotters, but aggrieved officers, who chose the wrong way to express their grievances.

The DHQ said it detained the 16 senior officers for “indiscipline and breach of service regulations” while rejecting claims of a failed coup, adding that “perceived career stagnation caused by repeated failure in promotion examinations, among other issues” were some of the reasons the officers officers violated service regulations, leading to their arrest.

Their names were listed as Brigadier General Musa Abubakar Sadiq (Nasarawa, 44th Regular Course); Colonel M.A. Ma’aji (Niger, 47th Course); Lt Col S. Bappah (Bauchi, 56th Course); Lt Col A.A. Hayatu (Kaduna, 56th Course); Lt Col Dangnan (Plateau, 56th Course); Lt Col M. Almakura (Nasarawa, 56th Course); Major A.J. Ibrahim (Gombe, 56th Course); Major M.M. Jiddah (Katsina, 56th Course); Major M.A. Usman (FCT, 60th Course); Major D. Yusuf (Gombe, 59th Course); Major I. Dauda (Jigawa, DSSC 38); Captain I. Bello (DSSC 43); Captain A.A. Yusuf; Lieutenant S.S. Felix (DSSC); Lieutenant Commander D.B. Abdullahi (Navy); and Squadron Leader S.B. Adamu (Air Force).

In its statement, the DHQ, which supported the “democracy is forever” slogan, warned that it would not tolerate behaviour that “undermines the integrity of the institution or threatens its constitutional role under democratic authority”. Still, they maintained the no coup attempt posture.

With the events steadily unfolding, observers have concluded that there was a intended coup to oust Tinubu is no longer in doubt, but the unanswered question, which has lingered is who actually wants Tinubu out of office before the next general election in 2027? Aggrieved military, who continually and publicly pledges their loyalty, or politicians, who felt robbed in broad day light in the last general election or perceived enemies, who lost out in the game of power among the president’s All Progressives Congress.

“But there’s one fact, there was a coup that was truncated; whether foiled or failed on its own is a question for another day,” a political source told The Boss.

More emerging facts revealed that the plotters intended to assassinate President Bola Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas, among others.

Lending credence to the coup story, the Department of State Service (DSS) has arrested a man, who was said to have used his social media handle to canvass for military takeover of Nigeria government.

However, in a report by The Guardian, the said was meant to take place on October 1, 2025, giving insight as to the reason the Tinubu government decided at the last minute to cancel celebrations and parade for the day.

Quoting a ‘decent source’, the Guardian noted fresh facts, which emerged regarding the identities of at least 16 military officers of Nigerian origin, where were allegedly involved in the coup plot.

“14 of the detainees are from the Nigerian Army, including one brigadier general, one colonel, four lieutenant colonels, five majors, two captains, and one lieutenant.

“The other two officers include a Lieutenant Commander from the Navy and a Squadron Leader from the Air Force, both equivalent to majors.”

Quoting another medium, the paper revealed “that most Army officers belong to the Infantry Corps, with one from the Signals Corps and another from the Ordnance Corps. Many of the detainees are graduates of the 56th Regular Course of the Nigerian Defence Academy (NDA) who trained between September 2004 and October 2008, with six from this group among the first arrested.

“The remaining Army officers come from various other NDA courses. Sources indicate that 15 of the detained officers are from Nigeria’s North Central, North East, and North West geopolitical zones, while one lieutenant is from the South West.

Analysts have declared unequivocally that the coup scare, beyond the exercise of constitutional right of systemic reshufflement of military top brass, was the major reason behind Tinubu’s sack of Gen Musa and others, promotion of Gen Oluyede, and appointments of Waidi Shaibu, Kelvin Aneke and Idi Abbas for the Army, Airforce and Navy respectively.

As the days go by, the number of arrest continues to increase. From the original 16 officers reported shortly after the Independence Day anniversary, the number has soared to as much as 40, and still counting, with many of the dissidents supposedly giving out information that has necessitated investigations outside the military enclave including raiding the Abuja home of a former governor of Bayelsa State, Timipre Sylva. In his absence, his brother, who doubles as his personal assistant, was arrested.

Speaking through his spokesperson, Julius Bokoru, Sylva informed that he was in the UK for a medical check-up and planned to travel to Malaysia for a conference. Bokoru also said that the “individuals believed to be operatives of the Defence Headquarters” conducted the raid on his principal’s home without providing a reason for their actions.

Nigeria has enjoyed 26 years of unbroken democracy since 1999. In all these years, at no time was it reported or rumored that a mutiny was in the offing. Consequently, Tinubu, who rode on the back of APC to achieve presidential victory in 2023, is the first leader since the new republic to experience a failed coup or rumored coup.

With many hailing Tinubu’s government as focused and courageous with regards to his tough decisions and policies, which have changed the existential living of Nigerians, many others, especially the opposition and the general public, have knocked the president as insensitive to the plight of the ordinary Nigerian.

Though the elites have not protested openly against the hardship in the land, the last throng of Nigerian citizens, most of the time, led by activist, who is a former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, have most of the times, taken to the streets, to protest. The protests have always been subdued forcefully by the Police just as the government never takes another look.

It is still not known who is leading the charge to forcefully remove Tinubu, and why. But there exists many reasons anyone who want Tinubu to stay in power perpetually, and there exists reasons many people would want Tinubu to exit office as quickly as possible. But it all depends on the side of the divide one is viewing from.

But a cross section of Nigerians have spoken up saying that much as the hardship continues to bite harder, a civilian government is still preferred.

And so the question continues to ring louder; who wants Tinubu out by force?

Headline

Opposition Parties Reject 2026 Electoral Act, Demand Fresh Amendment

Published

14 hours ago

February 26, 2026

Eric

Opposition political parties have rejected the 2026 Electoral Act recently passed by the National Assembly, which President Bola Tinubu swiftly signed into law.

The parties called on the National Assembly to immediately begin a fresh amendment process to remove what they described as “all obnoxious provisions” in the law.

Their position was made known at a press briefing themed “Urgent Call to Save Nigeria’s Democracy,” held at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel in Abuja on Thursday.

In a communiqué read by the Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) Ahmed Ajuji, the opposition leaders stated:

“We demand that the National Assembly immediately commence a fresh amendment to the Electoral Act 2026, to remove all obnoxious provisions and ensure that the Act reflects only the will and aspiration of Nigerians for free, fair, transparent and credible electoral process in our country. Nothing short of this will be acceptable to Nigerians.”

Some of the opposition leaders present in at the event include former Senate President David Mark; former Governor of Osun State, Rauf Aregbesola; former Vice President Atiku Abubakar; former Governor of Rivers State, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi; and former Governor of Anambra State, Peter Obi, all from the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The National Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Ahmed Ajuji, and other prominent members of the NNPP, notably Buba Galadima, were also in attendance.

The coalition said the amended law, signed by Bola Tinubu, contains “anti-democratic” clauses, which they argue may weaken electoral transparency and public confidence in the voting system.

At the centre of the opposition’s concerns is the amendment to Section 60(3), which allows presiding officers to rely on manual transmission of election results where there is communication failure.

According to the coalition, the provision weakens the mandatory electronic transmission of results and could create loopholes for manipulation.

They argued that Nigeria’s electoral technology infrastructure is sufficient to support nationwide electronic transmission, citing previous assurances by officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The parties also rejected the amendment to Section 84, which restricts political parties to direct primaries and consensus methods for candidate selection.

They described the change as an unconstitutional intrusion into the internal affairs of parties, insisting that indirect primaries remain a legitimate democratic option.

The opposition cited alleged irregularities in the recent Federal Capital Territory local government elections as evidence of what they described as a broader pattern of electoral compromise.

They characterised the polls as a “complete fraud” and said the outcome has deepened their lack of confidence in the ability of the electoral system to deliver credible elections in 2027.

The coalition also condemned reported attacks on leaders of the African Democratic Congress in Edo State, describing the incidents as a serious threat to democratic participation and political tolerance.

They warned that increasing violence against opposition figures could destabilise the political environment if not urgently addressed.

In their joint statement, the opposition parties pledged to pursue “every constitutional means” to challenge the Electoral Act 2026 and safeguard voters’ rights.

“We will not be intimidated,” the leaders said, urging civil society organisations and citizens to support efforts aimed at protecting Nigeria’s democratic system.

On February 18, 2026, President Bola Tinubu signed the Electoral Act (Amendment) 2026 into law following its passage by the National Assembly. The Act introduced several reforms, including statutory recognition of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and revised election timelines.

However, opposition figures such as Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi have also called for further amendments, particularly over the manual transmission fallback clause, which critics say leaves room for manipulation.

The president said the law will strengthen democracy and prevent voter disenfranchisement.

Tinubu defended manual collation of results, questioned Nigeria’s readiness for full real-time electronic transmission, and warned against technical glitches and hacking.

The Electoral Act sparked intense debate in the National Assembly over how election results should be transmitted ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Civil society groups under the “Occupy NASS” campaign demanded real-time transmission to curb manipulation.

In the Senate, lawmakers clashed during consideration of Clause 60, which allows manual transmission of results if electronic transmission fails.

Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe (ADC, Abia South) demanded a formal vote to remove the proviso permitting manual transmission, arguing against weakening real-time electronic reporting.

The move led to a heated exchange on the floor, with Senate President Godswill Akpabio initially suggesting the demand had been withdrawn.

After procedural disputes and a brief confrontation among senators, a division was conducted. Fifteen opposition senators voted against retaining the manual transmission proviso, while 55 supported it, allowing the clause to stand.

Earlier proceedings had briefly stalled during clause-by-clause review, prompting consultations and a closed-door session.

In the House of Representatives, a similar disagreement came up over a motion to rescind an earlier decision that mandated compulsory real-time electronic transmission of results to IReV.

Although the “nays” were louder during a voice vote, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas ruled in favour of rescinding the decision, triggering protests and an executive session.

Headline

AFP: How Tinubu’s Govt Paid Boko Haram ‘Huge’ Ransom, Released Two Terrorists for Kidnapped Saint Mary’s Pupils

Published

3 days ago

February 24, 2026

Eric

The Nigerian government paid Boko Haram militants a “huge” ransom of millions of dollars to free up to 230 children and staff the jihadists abducted from a Catholic school in November, an AFP investigation revealed Monday.

Two Boko Haram commanders were also freed as part of the deal, which goes against the country’s own law banning payments to kidnappers. The money was delivered by helicopter to Boko Haram’s Gwoza stronghold in northeastern Borno state on the border with Cameroon, intelligence sources told AFP.

The decision to pay the militants is likely to irritate US President Donald Trump, who ordered air strikes on jihadists in northern Nigeria on Christmas Day and has been sent military trainers to help support Nigerian forces.

Nigerian government officials deny any ransom was paid to the armed gang that snatched close to 300 schoolchildren and staff from St. Mary’s boarding school in Papiri in central Niger state on November 21. At least 50 later managed to escape their captors.

Boko Haram has not been previously linked to the kidnapping, but sources told AFP one of its most feared commanders was behind the mass abduction: the notorious jihadist known as Sadiku.

He infamously held up a train from the capital in 2022 and netted hefty ransoms for the release of government officials and other well-off passengers.

Boko Haram, which has waged a bloody insurgency since 2009, is strongest in northeast Nigeria.

But a cell in central Niger state operates under Sadiku’s leadership. The St. Mary’s pupils and staff were freed after two weeks of negotiations led by Nuhu Ribadu, Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, with the government insisting no ransom was paid. Nigeria’s State Security Service flatly denied paying any money, saying “government agents don’t pay ransoms”.

However, four intelligence sources familiar with the talks told AFP the government paid a “huge” ransom to get the pupils back. One source put it at 40 million naira per head – around $7 million in total.

Another put the figure lower at two billion naira overall. The money was delivered by chopper to Ali Ngulde, a Boko Haram commander in the northeast, three sources told AFP.

Due to the lack of communications cover in the remote area, Ngulde had to cross into Cameroon to confirm delivery of the ransom before the first group of 100 children were released.

Nigeria has long been plagued by mass abductions, with criminals and jihadist groups sometimes working together to extort millions from hostages’ families, and authorities seemingly powerless to stop them.

Source: Africanews

Headline

Unlawful Invasion: El-Rufai Drags ICPC, IGP, Others to Court, Demands N1bn Damages

Published

4 days ago

February 23, 2026

Eric

Former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has slammed a ₦1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for what he claimed was an unlawful invasion of his Abuja residence.

El-Rufai, in a suit filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, also listed the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.

According to the suit filed through his lawyers, led by Oluwole Iyamu, El-Rufai prayed the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT (2nd respondent), authorising the search and seizure at his residence as invalid, null and void.

Security operatives had stormed and searched the former Governor’s residence in the ongoing investigations against him.

However, he argued in the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, that the search was in violation of Section 37 of the Constitution, and urged the court to declare that the search warrant was “null and void for lack of particularity, material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, overbreadth, and absence of probable cause thereby constituting an unlawful and unreasonable search.”

In the suit dated and filed February 20 by Iyamu, ex-governor, who is currently under detention, sought seven reliefs.

He prayed the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on Feb. 19 at about 2pm and executed by agents of ICPC and I-G, “under the aforesaid invalid warrant, amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.”

He urged the court to declare that “any evidence obtained pursuant to the aforesaid invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.”

El-Rufai, therefore, sought an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using, or tendering any evidence or items seized during the unlawful search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him.

“An order directing the Ist and 3rd respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.

“An order awarding the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, and the resultant psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.”

The breakdown of the ₦1 billion in damages includes “a N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security;

“A ₦400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate the applicant’s rights.

“A ₦300 million as aggravated damages for the malicious, high-handed and oppressive nature of the respondents’ actions, including the use of a patently defective warrant procured through misleading representations.”

He equally sought ₦100 million as the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses.

Iyamu argued that the search warrant was fundamentally defective, lacking specificity in the description of items to be seized, containing material typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives, and no verifiable probable cause.

He added that the warrant violated Sections 143-148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences (ICPC) Act, 2000, and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusions and several other constitutional provisions.

“Section 146 stipulates that the warrant must be in the prescribed form, free from defects that could mislead, but the document is riddled with errors in the address, date, and district designation;

“Section 147 allows direction to specified persons, but the warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to “all officers is overbroad and unaccountable.

“Section 148 permits execution at reasonable times, but the contradictory language creates ambiguity, undermining procedural clarity,” he submitted.

Iyamu stated that the execution of the invalid warrant on Feb. 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s premises, constituting violations of the rights to dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36), and privacy (Section 37) of the Constitution.

He further argued that the search was conducted without legal justification and in a manner that inflicted humiliation and distress.

“Evidence obtained without a valid warrant is unlawful and inadmissible, as established in judicial precedents such as C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137, where the court ruled that evidence procured through improper means contravenes fundamental rights and must be excluded,” he said.

In the affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred that on Feb. 19 at about 2p.m., officers from the ICPC and Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about Feb. 4.

According to him, the said warrant is invalid due to its lack of specificity, errors, and other defects as outlined in the grounds of this application.

He said the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”

Shaba stated that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as provided by the law before proceeding with the search.

“That the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district wherein he sits.

“That during the invasion, the officers searched the applicant’s premises without lawful authority, seized personal items including documents and electronic devices, and caused the applicant undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.

“Now shown to me and marked as ‘EXHIBIT B’ Is the list of the items carted away.

“That no items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence.

“That the applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce same,” Shaba said.

Source: Naijanews.com