Connect with us

Breaking News

BREAKING: Buhari Signs Electoral Amendment Bill Into Law

Published

on

President Muhammadu Buhari has signed the Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2022 into law. He signed the Bill at the Council Chamber of the Presidential Villa in Abuja, on Friday.

It was witnessed by Vice President Yemi Osibanjo; Senate President Ahmad Lawan and Speaker Femi Gbajabiamiala among other dignitaries.

The assent is coming a few days after a coalition of civil society organisations staged a protest to compel the president to assent to the amended document.

On January 31, 2022, the National Assembly transmitted the reworked amendment bill to the President for assent.

Buhari consequently forwarded it to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), for legal advice.

In his address, President Buhari said in line with established tradition, he received inputs from relevant ministries, departments and agencies of government after careful and thorough reviews of the Bill and its implications to democratic processes in Nigeria.

He said, “It is gratifying to note that the current Bill comes with a great deal of improvement from the previous Electoral Bill 2021. There are salient and praiseworthy provisions that could positively revolutionize elections in Nigeria through the introduction of new technological innovations. These innovations would guarantee the constitutional rights of citizens to vote and to do so effectively.

“The Bill would also improve and engender clarity, effectiveness and transparency of the election process, as well as reduce to the barest minimum incidences of acrimony arising from dissatisfied candidates and political parties.

“These commendable efforts are in line with our policy to bequeath posterity and landmark legal framework that paves the way for credible and sound electoral process that we would all be proud of.

“Distinguished Senators and Honourable Members of the National Assembly, from the review it is my perspective that the substance of the Bill is both reformative and progressive. I am making this bold declaration because I foresee the great potentials of the Bill. Worthy of note include the democratic efficacy of the Bill with particular reference to sections 3, 9(2), 34, 41, 47, 84(9), (10) and (11) among others.

“This, however, cannot be said about one provision as contained in the proposed Bill, which provision constitutes fundamental defect, as it is in conflict with extant constitutional provisions.

“Section 84 (12) constitutes a disenfranchisement of serving political office holders from voting or being voted for at Conventions or Congresses of any political party, for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election in cases where it holds earlier than 30 days to the National Election. The section provides as follows: “No political appointee at any level shall be voting delegate or be voted for at the Convention or Congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election”.

“This provision has introduced qualification and disqualification criteria that ultra vires the Constitution by way of importing blanket restriction and disqualification to serving political office holders of which they are constitutionally accorded protection.

“The practical application of section 84(12) of the Electoral Bill, 2022 will, if assented to, by operation of law, subject serving political office holders to inhibitions and restrictions referred to under section 40 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“It is imperative to note that the only constitutional expectation placed on serving political office holders that qualify, by extension as public officers within the context of the constitution is resignation, withdrawal or retirement at least 30 days before the date of the election.

“Hence, it will be stretching things beyond the constitutional limit to import extraneous restriction into the constitution on account of practical application of section 84(12) of the bill where political parties’ conventions and congresses were to hold earlier than 30 days to the election.

“Arising from the foregoing, with particular regards to the benefits of the Bill, industry, time, resources and energy committed in its passage, I hereby assent to the Bill and request the Nationally Assembly to consider immediate amendments that will bring the Bill in tune with constitutionality by way of deleting section 84(12) accordingly.”

 

Breaking News

Reps Plenary Turns Chaotic As Motion To Rescind Electoral Act Amendment Sparks Row

Published

on

By

The House of Representatives descended into a rowdy session on Tuesday during an emergency plenary called to reconsider the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

The chaos was triggered by a motion to rescind the bill’s earlier passage from December 23, 2025, which had mandated the real-time electronic transmission of election results to the IReV portal.

During plenary, Francis Waive, chairman of the house of representatives committee on rules and business, moved a motion for the house to reverse its decision on the bill which was passed on December 23, 2025.

When Tajudeen Abbas, speaker of the house, put the motion to a voice vote, the “nays” were louder than the “ayes”, but he ruled that the ayes had it.

The ruling triggered protests from lawmakers, who began hollering in objection. Abbas subsequently called for an executive session, but the proposal was also rejected.

Despite the resistance, the speaker moved the house into an executive session.

When the green chamber passed the electoral act in December, it adopted a proposal mandating the real-time transmission of election results to the Independent National Electoral Commission’s result viewing portal (IReV).

Continue Reading

Breaking News

El-Rufai Alleges Ribadu Behind Airport Arrest Attempt, Reveals Next Move

Published

on

By

Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has accused National Security Adviser, NSA, Nuhu Ribadu of being behind the attempt to arrest him at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja on Thursday, shortly after he returned from a trip to Cairo, Egypt.

El-Rufai made the allegation while speaking with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who paid him a solidarity visit at his residence on Thursday night.

According to him, operatives of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, ICPC, working with the Department of State Services, DSS, and not the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, confronted him at the airport and attempted to take him into custody.

“It turned out that it’s the ICPC that procured DSS to abduct me and hands me over to them. The ICPC has never invited me.

“We just understand that it’s the ICPC not EFCC that’s responsible for what happened today and the ICPC chairman is acting of the direct order of Nuhu Ribadu,” El-Rufai said.

Responding, Atiku expressed sympathy with the former governor and stressed the need for political unity ahead of the next general election.

The ex-Vice President noted that opposition forces must organize themselves to challenge President Bola Tinubu in 2027.

“We must come together and form very viable opposition because Tinubu is determined to turn Nigeria into a one party state,” Atiku said.

Continue Reading

Breaking News

Nnamdi Kanu Challenges Life Sentence, Files Appeal Against Terrorism Conviction

Published

on

By

Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has officially filed a notice of appeal challenging his conviction and multiple sentences.

 

Kanu insisted that the trial was riddled with fundamental legal errors and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

In the notice of appeal dated February 4, 2026, Kanu said he was appealing against his conviction and sentences on seven counts, including terrorism-related offences, for which he received five life sentences and additional prison terms after being found guilty on November 20, 2025.

“I, Nnamdi Kanu, the Appellant, having been convicted and sentenced… do hereby give notice of appeal against my conviction,” the document stated.

Kanu was convicted for offences including “committing an act preparatory to or in furtherance of an act of terrorism,” “making a broadcast… with intent to intimidate the population,” and “being the leader and member of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a proscribed organisation in Nigeria,” among others.

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered the judgment on November 20, 2025, sentencing Kanu to five life terms for terrorism-related offences, 20 years’ imprisonment for being the leader of the proscribed IPOB, and five years’ imprisonment with no option of fine for importing a radio transmitter without a licence.

In his grounds of appeal, the IPOB leader accused the trial court of failing to resolve what he described as a “foundational disruption of the original trial process” following the 2017 military operation at his Afara-Ukwu residence.

“The learned trial judge erred in law by failing to resolve the procedural and competence consequences of the foundational disruption of the original trial process in September 2017,” Kanu argued.

He also contended that the court proceeded to trial and judgment while his preliminary objection challenging the competence of the proceedings remained unresolved.

“The learned trial judge did not hear or determine the objection,” the appeal document stated, adding that judgment was delivered “while the objection remained pending and undetermined.”

Kanu further faulted the court for delivering judgment while his bail application was still pending, arguing that this affected the fairness of the trial process.

He also claimed that the trial court convicted him under a law that had already been repealed, stating that “the learned trial judge erred in law by convicting and sentencing the Appellant under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013, notwithstanding its repeal by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, prior to judgment.”

Kanu further argued that he was subjected to double jeopardy, contrary to Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution, after being retried on facts he said had earlier been nullified by the Court of Appeal.

He also complained that he was denied fair hearing, claiming that he was not allowed to file or present a final written address before judgment was delivered.

Among the reliefs sought, Kanu asked the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal, quash his conviction and sentences, and “discharge and acquit the Appellant in respect of all the counts.”

He also informed the appellate court of his desire to be present at the hearing of the appeal, stating, “I want to be present at the hearing of the appeal because I may be conducting the appeal in person.”

Kanu is currently being held at a correctional facility in Sokoto State, after his application to be transferred to a different facility in either Niger or Nasarawa State was denied.

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending