The Department of State Services (DSS) has grilled Aishah Ahmad, a Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

This is as a result of the probe of the apex bank under Godwin Emefiele, the immediate past governor.

President Bola Tinubu had suspended Emefiele on June 9, 2023, and ordered a probe of the bank.
The president subsequently appointed a special investigator to look into the books of the bank.

Advertorial

The DSS, which has held Emefiele in its custody since June, had invited Kingsley Obiora, also a Deputy Governor under Emefiele.

Obiora was later released. The agency had also invited Ahmad, but social media has been awash with reports that she was arrested.

But bank sources have debunked media reports on the arrest of the CBN Deputy Governor.

Speaking to Daily Trust, the source said: “In light of the ongoing investigation into the activities of the CBN, all senior officials of the Central Bank are being interviewed by the DSS and the appointed special investigator.

“The deputy governors are not exempt from this exercise and have all been called upon to provide essential information at different times. It is important to emphasize that this is a standard procedure aimed at assisting the ongoing probe.”

In a phone conversation with a close family member of the deputy governor who is not authorised to speak on this matter, confirmed and clarified that the Deputy Governor is safe and sound.

“I wish to reassure everyone that Aishah Ahmad is home with her family and not detained by the DSS. She is safe and sound.

“In these times, it is essential to maintain clarity and rely on verified information only. Mrs. Ahmad’s cooperation with the authorities is a demonstration of her commitment to transparency and due process. It is crucial that the public exercise discretion when evaluating news reports and avoid engaging with unfounded rumours or misinformation.

“The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) plays a vital role in the nation’s economic stability, and it is imperative that the investigative process is allowed to run its course.”

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has urged the 36 state governors in the country to “disclose details on the spending of the N2 billion palliative recently disbursed to each state by the Federal Government, including the names of beneficiaries and details of the reliefs so far provided with the money.”

Federal Government recently disbursed N2 billion out of the N5 billion palliative package for each state of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, to address the impact of the removal of fuel subsidy.

Advertorial

In the open letter dated September 9, 2023, and signed by SERAP deputy director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation said, “It is in the public interest to publish the details on the spending of the N2 billion palliative and any subsequent disbursement of funds to your government.”

SERAP said, “Nigerians have the right to know how their states are spending the fuel subsidy relief funds. It is part of their legally enforceable human rights.”

According to SERAP, “Transparency and accountability in the spending of the N2 billion and any subsequent disbursement to your state would help to reduce the risk of corruption, mismanagement, diversion, or opportunism.”

The letter, read in part, “We would be grateful if the recommended measures are taken within seven days of the receipt and/or publication of this letter. If we have not heard from you by then, SERAP shall take all appropriate legal actions to compel you and your state to comply with our request in the public interest.”

“The oversight afforded by public access to the details of the spending of the N2 billion palliative and any subsequent disbursement would serve as an important check on the activities of your state and help to prevent abuses of the public trust.”

“The constitutional principle of democracy also provides a foundation for Nigerians’ right to know details on the spending of the N2 billion fuel subsidy palliative. Citizens’ right to know promotes openness, transparency, and accountability that is in turn crucial for the country’s democratic order.”

“The effective operation of representative democracy depends on the people being able to scrutinise, discuss and contribute to government decision making, including on the fuel subsidy relief funds.”

“SERAP notes that the removal of subsidy on petrol continues to negatively and disproportionately affect the poor and socially and economically vulnerable Nigerians in several states, undermining their right to an adequate standard of living.”

“The Freedom of Information Act, Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee to everyone the right to information, including about how the N2bn fuel subsidy relief funds are spent.”

“By the combined reading of the provisions of the Constitution of Nigeria, the Freedom of Information Act 2011, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, applicable throughout Nigeria, there are transparency obligations imposed on your state to publish details of spending of the N2bn fuel subsidy palliative.”

“The Nigerian Constitution, Freedom of Information Act, and the country’s anti-corruption and human rights obligations rest on the principle that citizens should have access to information regarding their government’s activities.”

“Your state cannot hide under the excuse that the Freedom of Information Act is not applicable to your state to refuse to provide the details being sought, as your state also has clear legal obligations to provide the information as prescribed by the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and. Enforcement) Act.”

“SERAP urges you to invite the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to jointly track and monitor the spending of the N2bn fuel subsidy palliative and any subsequent disbursement of public funds to your state.”

The Young Progressives Party (YPP) has suspended the chairman of the party in Imo state, Mr. Victor Diala over alleged gross misconduct and abuse of office.

The party’s National Working Committee (NWC) mandated Hon. Kingsley Nwahiri to take over and discharge the duties of the suspended chairman pending the outcome of the party’s special investigation.

Advertorial

The National Publicity Secretary, Mr. Egbeola Wale-Martins, in a statement on Sunday noted that the party has also reinstated its Orsu Local Government Area chairman, Chief Bernard Uzoeto.

Orsu Local Government Area of Imo is made up of autonomous communities including; Ihitenansa, Amaruru, Amazu, Amaebu, Amannachi, Awo-Idemili, Asaa Ubirielem, Eziawa, Umuhu Okabia, Orsu Ihiteukwa, Okwu Ufuruaku, Okwu Amaraihe, and Okwu Etiti.

“Sequel to the NWC’s actions of Saturday, Sept. 9 and consequent upon extended deliberations the NWC approved the immediate suspension of the Imo chairman of the YPP, Mr Victor Diala.

“This is based on the provisions of the YPP’s Constitution on gross misconduct and abuse of office.

“Pending the conclusion of the report of the committee set up to investigate the allegations, Hon. Kingsley Nwahiri has been mandated to take over from the suspended chairman in the interim.

“This is due to the noticeable and unfortunate ailment of the Deputy Chairman, Mr Louise Ugochukwu to fully discharge the responsibilities associated with this office at this time.

“The NWC also ordered the immediate reinstatement of Chief Bernard Uzoeto, Orsu Local Government YPP Chairman who was unlawfully suspended.

“His suspension ran contrary to extant provisions of the Constitution of the party,’’ Wale-Martins stated.

He added that the NWC applauded the judgment affirming the victory of Sen. Ifeanyi Ubah (YPP-Anambra South) and those of other party members at the elections petitions courts.

Wale-Martins added that the YPP desired that members elected on its platform delivered on all their electoral promises. (NAN)

The National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal in Katsina has nullified the victories of two members of the House of Reps and declared two others inconclusive.

In its judgement, the tribunal led by Hon. Justice O. Ogunfowora, held that “return of the 1st respondent, Aminu Ahmadu Chindo of the PDP, as member Katsina Central Federal Constituency, Katsina State of the House of Representative is hereby nullified and set aside.”

Advertorial

The judges also held that the first petitioner, Sani Aliyu, was thereby returned as member Katsina Central Federal Constituency of the House of Representatives and a cost of N200,000.00 was awarded to the first and second respondents in favour of the petitioner.

In a petition filed by Sani Danlami against the declaration and return of Aminu Ahmadu Chindo, with PDP and INEC as other respondents, the petitioner accused the first respondent of presenting a forged primary school testimonial, which the court said the defendant had failed to prove that he had actually attended the then Kofar Soro Primary School.

Explaining the judgement, the lead counsel to Hon. Sani Danlami, Earnest Obunadike, said the petition was predicated on the fact that by the provision of section 66(1)(i) of the 1999 constitution (As amended), presentation of false certificate to INEC is a disqualifying factor for any person vying for either a Reps member or as a Senator.

Similarly, the court had nullified the return of the member representing Kankia/Kusada/Ingawa federal constituency, Ismail Dalha of the PDPp on the grounds that he presented a forged Primary School Certificate.

The tribunal ordered the INEC to issue a certificate of return to Hon. Abubakar Yahya of the APC who came second in the election with 31,017 votes.

In a related development, the tribunal had earlier declared as inconclusive the Kankara/Faskari/Sabuwa federal constituency election result, where the APC candidate, Hon. Dalhatu Shehu Tafoki, challenged the victory of Hon. Mohammed Jamilu of the PDP, who was returned by INEC.

The court ordered for fresh elections in some polling units and supplementary election in other polling units of the constituency.

One of the counsels to the petitioners, Barrister, Sagir Tahir, explained that while over voting was recorded in some polling units, voting did not take place in others, hence the court applied lead of margin principle and ordered for supplementary elections so as to ensure that no eligible voter was disenfranchised.

The tribunal had declared as inconclusive the Batsari/Safana/Danmusa federal constituency election result, where the APC candidate, Ahmed Zakka Abdulkadir challenged the victory of Hon. Iliyasu Abubakar of the PDP, who was returned by INEC.

Here also, the court ordered for fresh elections in some polling units and rerun in other polling units of the constituency.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate in the 2023 general elections, Atiku Abubakar, has lambasted the five-man panel of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), for granting access to the Tinubu Presidential Legal Team to have the Certified True Copy (CTC) copies of its judgment when the petitioners had not been served.

Advertorial

Atiku, who stated this through his Special Assistant Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, in a statement on Saturday, insisted that after causing needless delay in availing his (Atiku’s) legal team Certified True Copies of its judgment, the PEPC must explain to Nigerians and the world ambiguities around why copies of the judgment bore the header of the Tinubu Presidential Legal Team.

“Was that because the Tinubu Legal Team is deemed to be accorded special privileges?” he queried adding, “The court must explain.”

The statement partly read: “It is very clear that there are many questions begging for answers, including why the PEPC came to the decision to avail the Respondents, especially the Tinubu Legal Team to have a first receipt of the CTC of the judgment before the Plaintiffs.

“The curiosity is more confounding based on the fact that the lead counsel to Atiku and the PDP had pleaded in the open court to have express receipt of the judgment, to which Justice Haruna Tsammani agreed to and promised to make the document available the following day, which was Thursday.

“Nigerians want to know why the PEPC confers special privileges to the Tinubu Legal Team by making them have a first custody of copies of the PEPC judgment, even though it was more urgent for the Petitioners who needed the document in order to cause an appeal to the Supreme Court within 14 days including weekends.”

In the course of delivering its judgement, Atiku stated that the PEPC had spoken of the petition it was ruling upon in a vexatious and denigrating language as if it was a crime to bring a case of electoral banditry before the court.

He regretted that unfolding developments after the court’s ruling has “elicit suspicions about whether or not the Tinubu Legal Team provided clerical services to the PEPC. Otherwise, how and when did the ‘Tinubu Presidential Legal Team’ creep into a document that was supposed to be the official document of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria.”

“We need to restate that the ‘Tinubu Presidential Legal Team’ on the top left-hand corner of all the 798 pages is neither a monochrome nor a metadata. It is actually a HEADER, meaning that except for a valid explanation, the Tinubu Presidential Legal Team is the originator of the document. For the purposes of clarity, “a header is text that is placed at the top of a page, while a footer is placed at the bottom of a page.

“Typically, these areas are used for inserting information such as the name of the document, the chapter heading, page numbers, creation date, and the like.” On the other hand, watermark is “a faint design made in some paper during manufacture that is visible when held against the light and typically identifies the maker of the document.”

The PEPC must, on its honour if indeed it still has any, clarify why the court chose to put the header of the Tinubu Legal Team on a CTC copy of its judgment document, while the only emblem that should have been on the document is the stamp of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria.

Again, the PEPC must explain why it came to the discretionary decision of having the Respondents have a custody of the judgement earlier in the day on Friday while only making same available to the Petitioners later in the day, and only after the lead counsel to Atiku and PDP had written a second letter (the first was on Thursday) to the court demanding for copies of the judgment.

“Moreover, we have it on good authority that when the PEPC was informed that the CTC copies of the judgment given to the Respondents was already circulating in the public domain with the header of TPLT on it, a further delay was necessitated by the need for it to undertake a laundry of the documents by removing the Tinubu Presidential Legal Team header before handing over same to the lawyers of Atiku.

“Whereas the legal team of the PDP and Atiku have statutory 14 days to prepare its appeal to the Supreme Court, the PEPC had erased 2 days out of that 14 days, no thanks to the PEPC whose Chairman, Justice Tsamani had promised to make available the CTC copy of the judgment to Atiku a day after its judgement was rendered, which ought to have been on Thursday.

“Nigerians and the world are earnestly waiting for answers to these posers as the legal challenge shifts to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, it will validate suspicions that there were external factors involved in the formulation of the judgment and bring the entire judiciary of Nigeria into disrepute.

“Make no mistake about it. This legal challenge to the electoral banditry of February 25, which has now shifted to the apex court, is not about Atiku. It is indeed our last ditch effort to salvage our country and deepen our democracy. Against the background of the decimation of nearly all of the institutions of state including the Independent National Electoral Commission which dragged us into this quagmire, our intent is to ensure that the judiciary, the last hope of the common man does not go to the dogs.”

A member of the House of Representatives, Paul Nnamchi (LP-Enugu State) has rejected the judgment of the three-man panel of the National Assembly Election Tribunal which nullified his election.

The panel had on Friday declared the candidate of the PDP, Cornelius Nnaji winner of the election.

Advertorial

In a statement issued by Nnamchi through his Media Adviser, Mr. Sam Nwanze, shortly after the judgment, Nnamchi said that the “verdict does not conform to the provisions of the law and expectation of his teeming supporters”.

According to him, “I am not satisfied with the judgment of the tribunal which to me, is not in accordance with the provisions of the law and expectation of my teeming supporters.

“Consequently, I have instructed my lawyers to proceed to appeal the matter at the Appeal Court which has the final say on the case and I am confident we will get justice at the Appeal Court.

“My confidence in the judiciary is not shaken by this judgment.

“I am hopeful justice will be served at the next level and the current verdict will be overturned at the appellate court.

“I want to use this opportunity to appeal to my teeming supporters to remain calm as we are hopeful to reclaim the mandate at the Appeal Court.”

Nnamchi also used the opportunity to express appreciation to his supporters who had called to show solidarity and those who might not reach him.

“I can assure you all of my resolve to defend the mandate freely given to me through your votes by fighting to the end. It is not yet over. God bless you all,” he added. (NAN)

By Onyiba Shepherdman Iyioku,

Enugu guber tribunal courtroom 

The people of Enugu State are anxiously waiting for judgement day. Any moment from now, the election tribunal will deliver its judgement on the petition by Labour Party candidate Hon. Barr. Chijioke Edeoga challenging the results of the governorship election declared by INEC as well as the qualification of Peter Mbah for the office of governor. Most ndi Enugu I’ve chatted with hoped the three-man panel of judges would ensure that justice is not just done but seen to have been done. All ears are open for the expected landmark judgement.

Table 1 showing how LP won Enugu guber election 

This piece is a reaction to the recent judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) that has prompted mixed reactions from lawyers, journalists, entrepreneurs, civil servants, artisans, etc. Many are of the opinion that when a matter before the court is determined on the basis of technicalities and not by incontrovertible facts and evidence, then, it is judgement that has been delivered and not justice that has been served.

In Enugu State, people know that Hon. Edeoga proved all the three grounds of his petition beyond all reasonable doubt while the court processes lasted.

They say that whereas the justices at the PEPT held that the petitioners couldn’t establish that Tinubu forged his certificate, because there was no witness from Chicago State University that disclaimed issuing the certificate in question, the Enugu petitioners (Edeoga and his party LP) proved that Mbah forged his NYSC discharge certificate. And that they did through the agency whose director, certification department, Mr. Ibrahim Muhammad, came to the court as a subpoena witness, tendered some disclaimer documents, and made a verbal disclaimer that Mbah’s NYSC discharge certificate was not issued by them.

The PEPT judgement is in agreement with the position of the Supreme Court in Oyetola vs Adeleke: it held that, for a petitioner to prove that his opponent truly forged his or her certificate attached to his or her INEC normination form, the institution in whose name such certificate was issued must disclaim same. What will seem like justice well served in Enugu State, therefore, is that the three-man panel handling the Enugu governorship election petition work with the facts, the evidence and the law.

Section 182 (1)j of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, disqualifies the interim governor of Enugu State, Mr. Peter Mbah. The law finds him guilty of forgery and perjury, since he submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC.

In the above first ground of Edeoga’s petition, disqualifying Peter Mbah will not just be justice done, but justice seen to have been done. Anything to the contrary (God forbid!) would be seen as judgement of irrational technicality, which could add insult to injury on the sensibilities of Enugu people and Nigerians at large who have all followed the Enugu case with keen interest.

Peter Mbah and Barr. Chijioke Edeoga 

The judgement of the PEPT also held that the petitioners couldn’t establish, with clear evidence, the polling units where they claim irregularities that resulted in suppression of their votes by INEC, describing the claims of the petitioners as vague. But, in Enugu State, the story is different: in grounds 2 & 3 of Edeoga’s petition, his lawyers were able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that there was truly over-voting in the 10 polling units of Owo and Ugbawka areas in Nkanu East LGA, and the mathematical error of wrong tabulations of votes, all in favour of Mr. Peter Mbah of the PDP.

Hon. Edeoga, in his grounds 2 & 3, also proved his claims of over-voting by producing the voter registers of the 10 polling units of Owo and Ugbawka, the number of registered voters in each polling unit, the number of accredited voters on the day of the election in each polling unit, and the votes cast in each polling unit. He showed, through the INEC’s certified true copy (CTC) of BVAS report in the 10 polling units, how the over-voting was established.

Advertorial

The INEC officer, who through subpoena witness brought BVAS machines, told the court to rely on the CTC of the BVAS report in the custody of the petitioners as what is in the deactivated BVAS machines he brought to the court, thus affirming the claims of over-voting by the petitioners.

To worsen Mbah’s case, his witness-in-chief, Dr. Festus Uzor, during cross-examination by one of Edeoga’s lawyers, Chief. S.T. Hons, SAN, affirmed before the court that there was over-voting in the polling units showed him in the witness box, but he said that they were not enough to upturn the result of the election. His was an afterthought because the position of the law is that, where there is confirmed over-voting, the results recorded for the polling units affected should be cancelled outright.

Also on the ground 3, the polling units where there were mathematical errors and wrong tabulations of votes in favour of Peter Mbah are in Udenu and Igboeze North LGAs. The same witness-in-chief to the embattled governor, Dr. Uzor, also affirmed that wrong tabulations of votes in favour of the interim governor occurred, by the evidence showed him in the witness box.

The law is that, for a petitioner to prove that there was over-voting in favour of his opponent, he must show that through a BVAS report or, in the alternative, through BVAS machines in the affected polling unit(s); in Enugu’s case, Edeoga satisfied this requirement. In addition to his documentary evidence, he also produced polling unit agents in all the affected polling units who corroborated all their statements on oath via their documentary evidence.

So, going through all the proceedings in Edeoga’s case, one can see the legal maxim of “res ipsa loquitur”, which simply means “the fact speaks for itself”. One could be tempted to agree with ndi Enugu State and Nigerians at large that, in facts, evidence and the law, Edeoga and his party have proven their case reasonably enough, to the frustration of any shenanigans from any quarter. What is being awaited is for the honourable justices to serve Enugu people — and Nigerians who have shown interest in Enugu case — the justice well deserved. A miscarriage of justice would be tragic.