Connect with us

News

Tinubu’s Outburst On 25 Per Cent FCT Votes Sparks Fresh Controversy

Published

on

The candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, in the 2023 presidential election and now President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Bola Ahmedu Tinubu, stirred the hornet’s nest recently when he cautioned the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, PEPT, against attempting to remove him from office on the grounds that he did not get 25 percent of the total votes cast during the presidential election in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja.

He warned that such action could lead to chaos and anarchy in the country.

President Tinubu asked the election tribunal to dismiss the petition seeking the nullification of his election for not securing 25 percent of the lawful votes cast in the FCT, arguing that having scored 25 percent in about 30 states of the federation, his failure to obtain 25 percent in the FCT would not be strong enough to deny him of his hard-earned victory.

Tinubu contested the February 25 presidential elections on the platform of the APC and was declared the winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, after polling 8,794,726 votes to beat his closest rivals, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, who polled 6, 984, 520 votes to place second, and Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party, LP, who came third with 6,101,533 votes.

However, Atiku and Obi had approached the election tribunal seeking to upturn Tinubu’s victory on the grounds that the elections were characterised by massive rigging as evidenced in the alleged widespread voters’ intimidation and suppression, ballot box snatching and destruction, over-voting, results manipulations, thuggery, vote buying, INEC’s failure to abide by its own rules and procedures, physical assault on voters, among others.

Apart from these, Atiku and Obi also want Tinubu’s victory to be nullified because he did not score 25 percent of the total valid votes cast in the FCT, which according to them, is a constitutional requirement before anybody can be declared president of Nigeria.

Since Tinubu’s declaration as the winner of that election, political discussion has been swinging like a pendulum. Nigerians, who prior to the elections were passive politically, had suddenly become active, discussing and analysing political developments from the election tribunal.

Analysts are united in agreement that never in the history of Nigerian politics has there been the kind of political awareness and participation that were witnessed during the 2023 general elections.

They also agreed that the country’s political firmament has never been as charged and ominous as it was between the period when Tinubu was declared the winner of the presidential election and May 29, when he was actually sworn in as the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

However, Atiku and Obi have pursued their case at the election petition tribunal with each presenting before the tribunal pictures, videos and documentary evidence to prove that Tinubu should not have been declared as president in the first place, not to talk of swearing him into the office.

The issue around Tinubu’s failure to get 25 percent of the votes cast in the FCT appears to be the strongest point against the president since it is a constitutional issue and does not require presenting any witness by the petitioners.

But Tinubu, through his legal counsel, Wole Olanipekun, in a final written address to the tribunal against the petition, argued that the FCT is the 37th state for electoral purposes. He stressed that any other interpretation would “lead to absurdity, chaos, anarchy and alteration of the very intention of the legislature.”

Stressing that the petition is novel but not familiar with the electoral law, Olanipekun said: “The issue in this address is very novel in the sense that it is not a petition stricto senso, familiar to our electoral jurisprudence, as the petitioners are not, this time around, complaining about election rigging, ballot box snatching, ballot box stuffing, violence, thuggery, vote buying, voters’ intimidation, disenfranchisement, interference by the military or the police, and such other electoral vices.”

The lawyer was specifically addressing a section of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides that a presidential candidate must score 25 per cent of the votes in two-thirds of Nigeria’s 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

Since Tinubu was declared as the winner of the presidential election without scoring 25 percent in the FCT, several opinions have been expressed on the matter by Nigerians of all classes, including those that are not lawyers.

There are those who have kept on insisting that the constitution considers Abuja as one of the states in the country. Those on this divide are saying that the word, ‘and’ as used in the constitution, ‘36 states of the federation and the FCT,’ does not really mean that the FCT is different from the 36 states of the federation. To them, the FCT is just the same as any other state of the federation.

They, therefore, posited that Tinubu, having scored 25 percent of the votes cast in about 30 states, is eminently qualified to be declared president since the constitution said a candidate must secure 25 percent in two-third of the 36 states and the FCT, which is 24 states.

However, there are those who insist that the word, ‘and’ as used in the constitution simply means that if any candidate who scores 25 percent of the votes cast in two-third of the 36 states, fails to score 25 percent of the votes cast in the FCT, such a candidate has not met the constitutional requirement and should not be declared president.

They further argued that if the framers of the constitution had a different thing in mind, they would not have inserted the word, ‘and’ there. They also disagreed with those who said that the FCT is just like any other state in the federation because while a state has a governor, who is elected by the electorate, the FCT does not have a governor, but a minister who is an appointee of the president.

However, there are others who believe that even though the constitution provides that securing 25 percent votes cast in the FCT is a compulsory requirement before any candidate could win the presidential election, it would be left for the judges to look at what will best serve national interest and unity before they pass their judgement.

However, Tinubu’s legal team seems to have agreed with those on this side of the divide as they are also saying that the courts have always been careful about giving extreme interpretations of the Constitution that could spark chaos.

“Our courts have always adopted the purposeful approach to the interpretation of our Constitution, as exemplified in a host of decisions,” the team said.

Tinubu’s legal team is also insisting that residents of the FCT, Abuja, are not more special than Nigerians from the other 36 states and cannot be treated specially.

The team said: “In concluding our arguments on this issue, we urge the court to hold that any election where the electorates exercise their plebiscite, there is neither a ‘royal’ ballot nor ‘royal’ voter; and that residents of the FCT do not have any special voting right over residents of any other state of the federation, in a manner similar to the concepts of preferential shareholding in Company Law. We urge this court to resolve this issue against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent.”

Pushing the argument further, the President’s legal team is also arguing that 25 percent votes cast in the FCT is not required by law for a president to emerge.

“May we draw the attention of the court to the fact that there is no punctuation (comma) in the entire section 134(2)(b) of the constitution, particularly, immediately after the ‘States’ and the succeeding ‘and’ connecting the Federal Capital Territory with the States. In essence, the reading of the subsection has to be conjunctive and not disjunctive, as the Constitution clearly makes it so. Pressed further by this constitutional imperative, the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, is taken ‘as if’ it is the 37th State, under and by virtue of section 299 of the Constitution.”

However, the comment credited to President Tinubu’s legal team that removing him as president over his failure to score 25 percent of the votes cast in the FCT might lead to the breakdown of law and order in Nigeria has sparked another round of argument.

President of the Middle Belt Forum (MBF), Dr. Pogu Bitrus, described the president as a joker for making such a statement.

According to the Middle Belt leader, nobody is above the constitution and if the constitution has been interpreted that the ‘and’ is conjunctive, and that the FCT is additional to the two-third of the states, then it is not for President Tinubu to determine.

“He cannot tell us that he is above the constitution and the laws of the nation. If the Supreme Court interprets that according to the law and the constitution, then it is above not only him, but also above every other Nigerian like him. This is because the constitution is the grundnorm; it is superior to every other law that we have in Nigeria. It is the only thing that is binding us together.

“So, if the constitution interprets it that way, it is not how I feel or how he or any other person feels because the law is not a respecter of persons. He cannot tell us that there will be anarchy in the land if the tribunal interprets the constitution. The country and the constitution are above him,” he said.

Also, a legal practitioner, Marcellus Onah did not agree that there will be anarchy in the land if the tribunal removes the president on the grounds that he did not get 25 percent of the votes cast in the FCT.

“What does he mean by anarchy in the land? Yes, a few of his supporters might want to cause trouble but that will be in Lagos only, not even in any other South West states. And I am sure the security agents will know what to do in such circumstances.

“So, he cannot threaten anybody because he is not more Nigerian than anybody. Besides, nobody is above the law. The constitution is the only document that guides how everybody operates in Nigeria, so nobody should claim to be above it.

“If the tribunal has established that he did not get 25 percent of the votes cast in the FCT, there is nothing anybody can do. That is just it and no amount of threat from him can change anything. The constitution must prevail at all times. That is the only thing that will make the outside world respect us as a nation,” he said.

 

Advertisement

News

37 Miners Killed By Toxic Gas In Plateau; FG Yet To React

Published

on

By

The Federal government has remained silent after reports emerged that carbon monoxide, a poisonous gas, left 37 miners dead and 25 hospitalized at a mining site located in the Zurak Wase Local Government of Plateau State.

This was disclosed in a report by a security journalist, Zagazola Makama, on Wednesday.

Sources told Makama that the incident occurred at the Solid Mining Company early on Feb. 18.

The victims are between 20 and 35 years old and were conducting routine mining operations when they inhaled toxic gas that had accumulated in the poorly ventilated tunnels, the report said.

Makama said, “The site is under strict control, and emergency protocols are being followed to manage the situation,” a source told Makama.

Meanwhile, there is no indication that the Nigerian government nor the Plateau State, and security operatives have reacted to the incident or done anything on the matter.

There are no official statements from both quarters confirming or debunking the incident as of filing this report on Wednesday.

Continue Reading

News

Dangote Projects Naira Appreciation To N1,100/$ In 2026

Published

on

By

Aliko Dangote, Chairman of the Dangote Group, forecasts that the naira will appreciate to N1,100 per dollar within 2026.

He shared this outlook on Tuesday during the federal government’s unveiling of the National Industrial Policy 2025.

The naira has strengthened in recent weeks, appreciating to N1,335.95 per dollar at the official market and N1,380/$ at the black market on Tuesday.

Commenting on the development, the billionaire businessman said the country has the potential to generate large-scale consumption, industrial growth, and disposable incomes.

“I mean today if you look at it, your excellency, I believe with the policies that you have implemented in government, people now have started seeing the result and manufacturers are very very happy,” Dangote said.

“Today, the dollar is N1,340. Mr. Vice-President, I can assure you with what I know, blocking all this importation and co, naira this year will be as low as N1,100 if we are lucky.

“The only thing is for maybe the government to stop the naira from getting stronger so that they will keep collecting more naira.

“But it’s a catch-22 situation where, now, if the naira gets stronger it means that everything will go down. Everything will go down because we are an import-based country which we shouldn’t be.

“What you should be is to manufacture all the things that we need.”

On February 12, Femi Otedola, the chairman of First HoldCo, expressed optimism that the naira will strengthen meaningfully and will trade below N1,000/$1 before year-end as domestic refining is fully underway.

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Defend Our Sovereignty: Falana, Ibrahim, Bugaje Reject US Military Presence

Published

on

By

A group of Nigerian leaders, including Femi Falana and Jibrin Ibrahim, has condemned the recent deployment of U.S. troops as a violation of national sovereignty and a dangerous precedent for foreign meddling.

The backlash follows the arrival of U.S. military aircraft last week, part of a mission involving roughly 200 American soldiers tasked with advisory and training roles.

While U.S. officials describe the steady influx of personnel as a temporary counter-terrorism support measure, critics argue the presence of foreign forces undermines the country’s independence.

But Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters (DHQ) insisted that the US personnel are technical specialists serving strictly in an advisory and training capacity not combat troops and that all activities will be conducted under the authority, direction, and control of the Nigerian government in close coordination with the Armed Forces of Nigeria.

In a joint statement titled “No to Foreign Forces in Our Land: Defend Our Sovereignty”, the group said the presence of US soldiers in Nigeria raises serious constitutional and sovereignty concerns.

The statement was jointly signed by Femi Falana (SAN), Prof Jibrin Ibrahim, Dr Abubakar Siddique Mohammed, Dr Dauda Garuba, Prof Massaud Omar, Prof Mohammed Kuna, Engr YZ Ya’u, and Dr Usman Bugaje.

They recalled Nigeria’s historical resistance to foreign military domination and warned against what they described as a creeping neo-colonial arrangement.

“Nigeria’s history is replete with principled resistance to foreign military domination. At critical moments, our leaders civilian and military alike have asserted our sovereignty and rejected external interference. That legacy must not be abandoned,” the statement said.

They recalled the Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact of 1960, which was abolished in 1962 following widespread public opposition. “Political independence without military sovereignty is incomplete,” the statement noted, stressing that Nigerians had always resisted external interference in military affairs.

The group also cited Nigeria’s role in rejecting American pressure during the 1976 Organisation of African Unity (OAU) summit on Angola.

At the time, General Murtala Mohammed famously declared that “Africa has come of age and would no longer operate under the orbit of any extra-continental power. His words were not mere rhetoric but a declaration of continental dignity and sovereign equality.”

The signatories highlighted what they described as a troubling pattern of attempts to impose military agreements on Nigeria. “In 2001, a proposed Military Cooperation Agreement between the United States and Nigeria was withdrawn after strong opposition from Nigeria’s Ministry of Defence,” they recalled.

Similarly, in 2003, Nigeria signed a Bilateral Immunity Agreement (BIA) with the United States, shielding American citizens from surrender to the International Criminal Court. “By 2005, the Nigerian Senate nullified the agreement, citing constitutional violations and inconsistency with the Rome Statute,” the group said.

“These episodes demonstrate a consistent national principle: foreign military arrangements must comply with Nigeria’s Constitution and must never compromise our sovereignty,” they added.

They cited Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that no treaty between Nigeria and another country shall have the force of law unless enacted by the National Assembly.

The statement rejected any suggestion that Nigeria’s Armed Forces are incapable of defending the country. “Nigeria’s Armed Forces have a distinguished record in international peacekeeping under the United Nations and the African Union,” it said, citing Nigeria’s leading role in ECOMOG operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone.

“Rather than outsourcing our security, Nigeria should fully equip and modernise the Nigeria Police Force and the Armed Forces, strengthen intelligence coordination, improve welfare and morale of troops, invest in domestic defence production, and address socio-economic drivers of insecurity.”

They warned that sovereignty is not a ceremonial concept but the foundation of statehood. “Once foreign troops are stationed on national soil without transparent constitutional processes, sovereignty is diluted—incrementally, perhaps quietly—but meaningfully.

“Nigeria must not drift into arrangements that future generations will struggle to reverse. History teaches us that sovereignty surrendered in the name of expediency is rarely easily reclaimed,” the statement said.

They also urged the federal government to remain consistent with Nigeria’s tradition of rejecting neo-colonial defence pacts and unconstitutional agreements.

‘US security help has not improved any country’

Prof Jibrin Ibrahim, in an interview with Daily Trust, expressed worry that Nigerians appear less vigilant about potential defence arrangements compared to the 1960s, when the Anglo-Nigerian defence pact with the United Kingdom faced widespread public resistance.

“I’m concerned that, as we point out right from the 1960s, when the defence pacts were proposed by the government, there was resistance by the Nigerian people. They complained, they criticised them, they objected, and that led to the government backing down,” he said.

He lamented what he described as growing public indifference, noting that many Nigerians now argue that any foreign assistance, particularly from the United States, should be welcomed if it promises to address insecurity.

“Today, many people are saying that if the Americans are offering to help, why not accept it? But there is a lot of ignorance about the implications,” he added.

Prof Jibrin questioned the track record of U.S. military involvement abroad, arguing that American security interventions in other countries have not necessarily resulted in lasting peace or stability.

“In which country has America offered to help in security, led to improved security? There is none in the world. All their external involvements have been to deepen insecurity, rather than to improve the security situation,” he said.

 

Continue Reading

Trending