Home Blog Page 1712

CBN Anchor Borrowers Loan Stands At N1.079 Trillion, With Over Four Million Beneficiaries

March 6, 2023

By Ayodele Oni

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has released N1.079 trillion under the Anchor Borrowers Programme, (ABP) since the programme commenced eight years ago.

The ABP is one of the steps being taken by the present administration to boost food production and assist small scale farmers.

Acting director, corporate communications of the CBN, Abdulmumin Isa, who disclosed this in a statement in Abuja on Monday also revealed that out of amount, N960 biillion is due for repayment.

He explained that repayment of loans under the ABP stood at N503 billion, representing 52.39 per cent, till date.

Isa stated that the apex bank remained committed to its developmental mandate of stimulating access to finance for the real sector.

He said that the ABP had supported about 4.57 million smallholder farmers who cultivated over 6.02 million hectares of 21 commodities across the country.

Isa listed the commodities as rice, wheat, cowpea, millet, maize, cotton, fish, soya bean, poultry, cassava, groundnut, ginger, sorghum, oil palm, cocoa, sesame, tomato, castor seed, yellow pepper, onions, and cattle/dairy.

He explained that the ABP had contributed significantly to the increased national output of focal commodities, with maize and rice peaking at 12.2 and 9.0 million metric tonnes in 2021 and 2022 respectively.

According to him, the programme has also helped to improve the national average yield per hectare of the commodities, with productivity per hectare almost doubling within the eight years of the programme’s implementation.

The acting director, disclosed that repayments under the ABP have been made through cash or produce by the beneficiaries.

“The outstanding due balance on loans was still under moratorium due to the COVID-19 forbearance granted to beneficiaries of the apex bank’s interventions in March 2020 and extended to Feb. 28, 2022.

“It is pertinent to note that the tenor of loans under the ABP is based on the commodity gestation period.”

Oyo Guber: Makinde Faces Battle Of His Life; Aides Angry With Him

James Orji

March 6, 2023

Governor Seyi Makinde’s inner caucus is not happy with him just a few days before the critical governorship election.

For instance, one of the aides of the billionare governor was only short of cursing him last week while speaking on the chances of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in the governorship election coming up this weekend.

The aide said the governor has put the party in a very precarious situation, and should be blamed if the PDP did not return to power.

The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC has fixed the governorship election across the country for this weekend, bearing any last change in its plan.

But the March 11, 2023 election in the Pacesetters state, as the state is widely known appears to have become a nightmare for the ruling Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, who has ruled the state for four years ad is now at the verge of losing it.

According to those watching the state, the outcome of the February 25 presidential and National Assembly election in which the party performed woefully, has presented a very dicey situation in the quest for the PDP to continue to rule the state.

The PDP plans to return Makinde to the Agodi Government House in a few days, but the reality on the ground poses a big challenge to the incumbent re-election bid.

For instance, the PDP lost the three senatorial seats to the rival All Progressives Congress, APC, two weeks ago apart from the House of Representatives seats that have now been largely won by the opposition.

Since the Prof. Mahmood Yakubu-led announced the results which obviously did not favour the party, not a few members of the PDP in the state, essentially some government officials have blamed the governor for his party’s woeful performance.

Citing the governor’s alliance with the PDP G5 governors who declined to support Atiku Abubakar, the party’s presidential candidate in the just concluded presidential election, those close to the state’s helmsman said the governor refused to listen to his advisers who warned him against working against the party in the presidential election.

Recall that Makinde is one of the PDP governors led by Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers state, who rebelled against the party over the emergence of Atiku as the party flagbearer, and went ahead to work against him in the election that produced Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the APC as president-elect.

The outcome of the presidential election, not a few in the state said has now put the party in a serious dilemma of how to win the governorship election in a few days.

It has also divided Governor Makinde’s cabinet, many of whom believe that PDP has been will struggle to win the governorship election. If it manages to win.

“Seyi has boxed the party into a corner by towing an unpopular path. The opposition has now capitalized on that to relaunch themselves into reckoning due to what I can describe as the governor’s indiscretion,” a source close to the governor said on Monday.

The incumbent is contesting with Senator Teslim Folarin of the APC and Adebayo Adelabu of the Social Democratic Party, PDP, who are considered strong opponents in their own right.

Folarin, a former Senate Leader is a serial governorship contender who has vowed this time to win, citing the groundswell of support the APC received in the last presidential and National Assembly election.

Adelabu, who last week debunked the suggestion that he has stepped down from the race, and is in it to win, is a former Central Bank Deputy Governor who lost narrowly to Makinde in 2019.

A visibly angry source in the party said the leaders of the party were already having a problem with the governor over his choice of appointments and financial provisions for the party, saying the G5 Governors only made the problem in the state PDP worse.

“Many state contracts were awarded to outsiders who did not work for the party’s victory in 2019 under the guise of ‘concession or outsourcing’, while sensitive and lucrative appointments were awarded to individuals considered as ‘technocrats’ by the governor,’ the source said.

The source cited the appointment of Olubamiwo Adeosun as Secretary to the State Government, SSG, even though she was not a member of the party.

Makinde, after winning the election four years ago named her the state’s government scribe, poaching her from an oil company, SPDC where she previously worked.

The larger-than-life influence of some non-indigenes in the governor’s kitchen cabinet’ has also not failed to rile some of his close advisers who insist that they are not benefitting much from the government they helped to bring into power.

“The tide in the Saturday election can only turn in his favour if he corrects these mistakes. We need to be empowered as foot soldiers at the grassroots,” another source said.

In spite of the seeming threat posed to Governor Makinde’s second-term ambition, not a few insist that he has performed beyond expectations in terms of project delivery to the people of the state.

Close watchers of the politics of the state insist that it remains to be seen whether this will work in his favour in the make or mar election.

Tinubu: Kalu Eyes Senate Presidency

Tosin Olatokunbo

March 6, 2023

Following the declaration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress, APC, as the winner of the February 25 Presidential Election, focus has shifted to how the ruling party will share powers among contending interests in the country.

The former Lagos State Governor was declared the winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, after beating close runners-up Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and Peter Obi of the Labour Party, LP.

Baring any Court orders, Tinubu will be Commander-in-Chief after President Muhammadu Buhari whose tenure will end. Kashim Shetima will be the Vice President.

The next focus will now be on who the party chooses as the Senate President. As expected, not a few Senators from the APC, including Orji Uzor Kalu, the Magazine learned, are lobbying the powers-that-be in the party to occupy the position.

Instructively, Femi Gbajabiamila, the current Speaker of the House of Representatives, it has been learned, is favoured to return to his position , by those close to Tinubu and members of the party largely from the South West, and the North who cited his performance and popularity among Nigerians. This, however is not possible as the Speaker of the House and the President cannot come from same State, same Zone.

According to the results announced by INEC last week, Kalu, a returning senator won the seat for Abia North, and is expected to be among the 109 senators in the 10th Assembly.

Apart from occupying the position of Senate Chief Whip in the Senate, Kalu, according to checks is the highest ranking senator from the south east, which sources in the party said is favoured to produce the Senate President, according to the power sharing arrangement that has already been drawn by the ruling party.

The former Governor of Abia State, according to information gathered, is highly being favoured to succeed incumbent Ahmad Lawan, who was declared the rightful candidate of Yobe South seantorial district by the Supreme Court barely a week before the February 25 presidential and National Assembly election. He went ahead to win the election for the 6th time and not being favoured to return to his position as Senate President because the Vice President-elect is, like him, from the North-east Zone.

The party is thinking towards the South-east for two reasons: to get the support of the people of that region who have been crying over marginalisation, and to restore security by building trusts among the Igbo that they are part of Nigeria.”

According to another close source to the President-elect, who said his name should not be mentioned because he is not authorised to speak for the party, Tinubu “wants to build a broad based government” that carries everybody in the country along.

Another source also confided in the magazine that Kalu “came into the mix because of the unflinching support he gave Tinubu following his emergence as APC Presidential candidate, citing for instance that the former Abia helmsman even “took Tinubu to his mother as a way of building trust that his family is solidly behind his presidential ambition.”

Analysts insist that it will not be impossible for Kalu to have a smooth sail in his quest to become the Senate President, except the power brokers decide to abandon their support for him in a last minute change of mind.

For instance , they cited precedence which favours Kalu. Apart from this, they insist that as a ranking Senator, the former Governor has a good chance to clinch the position of the third most powerful government official in the counnty.

Citing precedence, those that favour Kalu said the position was occupied by Evan Ewerem and Adolphus Wabara, both from the South east during the tenure of President Olusegun Obasanjo. They expect the power sharing arrangement in the APC to follow the same trajectory when Tinubu, from the South West becomes President.

Those in the school of thought also opined that the ruling party will try to avoid a repeat of what happened in the Eight Senate when crisis in the party lead to the emergence of Bukola Saraki as Senate President despite opposition from his Party.

“The party is trying to ensure that its house is put in order before the inauguration of the new National Assembly to avoid the pitfalls of the past, a source in the party who spoke on Monday said, adding that “the Chief Whip as a ranking Senator from the South-east, I think, should be given the first choice of refusal.”

In his congratulatory message to Tinubu last week, Kalu said Tinubu has the mandate of a wide spectrum of Nigerians to rule.

He said, “I congratulate President Muhammadu Buhari, President-elect, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and the entire All Progressives Congress (APC) family and Nigerians in general on the outcome of the presidential election.

“Tinubu’s victory in the poll is a testimony to his general acceptability across board.

“The President- elect no doubt will take Nigeria to greater heights in view of his intellectual capacity and political sagacity.

“I am optimistic that the President-elect will run an all inclusive and participatory government for the sake of national cohesion.

“Nigerians will not be disappointed in Tinubu’s leadership”.

The former Abia Governor was among the candidates that initially declared interest in the Presidency but later made a U-turn to support Lawan who later lost the APC presidential ticket to Tinubu.

Not a few insist that Nigerians should expect a serious clash among APC Senators who want to become Senate President by the time the National Assembly is inaugurated in June.

Meanwhile, the Senate Chief Whip has yet to openly declare his interest in the position, even though those close to him informed the magazine that he has his eyes on the top job.

Gov Election: INEC Mulls Postponement Over BIVAS

Tosin Olatokunbo

March 6, 2023

The postponement of the March 11, 2023 governorship election will become inevitable except the Court of Appeal grants the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC permission to reconfigure the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BIVAS.

This is the position of the Prof. Mahmood Yakub-led INEC barely five days into the election, the News Agency of Nigeria, NAN said.

The electoral umpire said it is prepared for the governorship and state houses of Assembly elections in at least 30 states across the country

But there is a snag. The court must make a pronouncement for the BIVAS, used in the February 25 presidential and National Assembly elections, to be reconfigured so that they can be used for the election this weekend.

INEC, according to sources has gone to the Court of Appeal to vacate a court order secured by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP last week to restrain the commission from tampering with the materials used during the presidential election, for which Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress, APC has now been declared the winner.

Information embedded in the BVAS machines must not be tampered with until the due inspection was conducted and certified true copies of them issued the court said.

Sources in the Commission disclosed on Sunday that the order will prevent it from conducting the election except it is vacated by a higher court.

The source, who requested anonymity, said INEC would require sufficient time to reconfigure the BVAS needed to conduct the elections that would take place on Saturday.

“The commission’s legal department is actually preparing an application to be filled in the court on Monday to seek an order for it to reconfigure its BVAS for Saturday governorship and state houses of assembly elections,” the source said.

The source further stated that considering the number of BVAS required to conduct the election across states, INEC needed to reconfigure the BVAS used for the March 25 elections and deploy them to polling units for the upcoming election.

Another source in the Commission added that INEC technical team have to be deployed on time to commence the re-configuration of the device, which has to be done one by one.

Therefore, the order was important if the Saturday governorship and state parliamentary elections must hold as scheduled, otherwise the postponement of the election became inevitable.

On Friday, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal granted leave to the presidential candidates of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, and his Peoples Democratic Party counterpart, Atiku Abubakar, to have access to all the sensitive materials used by INEC for the conduct of the February 25 presidential election.

A panel of the appellate court led by Justice Joseph Ikyegh made the order after it heard two separate ex parte applications the two aggrieved presidential candidates filed alongside their political parties.

The presidential election has been widely disputed by the PDP and Labour Party, LP candidates who claimed that it was flawed, citing for instance, the refusal of the Commission to upload the results on its platform as required by the Electoral Act.

Meanwhile, the PDP said it is going ahead with its planned protest on Monday against the announcement of Tinubu as the winner of the now contested election.

Orji Kalu Could Be Next Senate President – APC Sources; Izunaso On Standby

Adesina Soyooye

March 6, 2023

By Adesina Soyooye

If fillers from the National Leadership of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, is anything to by, the current Senate Chief Whip, Senator Orji Uzor Kalu, could become the next Senate President.

As the APC’s Presidential Candidate, Bola Tinubu, has been declared the President-elect, the Party is trying to balance high-profile offices among the six geopolitical Zones of the Country

Tinubu is from the South-west, while his Deputy, Kashim Shettima is from the North-east.

Sources from the Party told this magazine that the Party would Zone the office of the Senate President to the South-east. If it is zoned to the Zone, it means the highest ranking Senator from there would get it. Currently, Kalu the Senate Chief Whip, is the highest ranking Senator from the Zone.

As the Chief Whip, he is number four in the Senate hierarchy behind the Senate President, Deputy Senate President and the Majority Leader.

With the APC winning the most seats in the Senate, it is taken for granted that it would produce the Senate President which is currently occupied by Senator Ahmed Lawan, PhD. Ahmed is from the same Zone as Vice President-elect, Senator Shettima.

Since first timers hardly occupy the office of the Senate President, and other APC Senators from the South-east are first-timers, the other Senator-elect who could compete with Orji for the office, if indeed it is zoned to the South-east, is Senator Osita Izunaso.

Izunaso was first elected to the Senate in 2007 to represent Imo West, under the Peoples Democratic Party’s Government. But he was defeated after serving one term, and had been trying since that loss to get back to the Senate. Now, in the APC, after decamping from the PDP, and serving as APC’s Organising Secretary, he got lucky on February 25, 2023, when he won back the Senate seat.

Being his second time in the Senate, Izunaso cannot quite be regarded as a green horn in the National Assembly.

In 2022, Orji Kalu had declared interest in running for the office of the President of the Federal Republic, but later withdrew, long before the Primary, and picked the Senatorial election form. Thereafter, he gave his full support to the Presidential ambition of Lawan, and transferred same to Tinubu when he won the Primaries.

In 1999, the Senate President was zoned to the South-east. But it became a shame when one after the other they were impeached. The office went round the five States of the South-east States – Dr Chuba Okadigbo, Evan Enwerem, Adolphus Wabara, Anyim Pius Anyim, Ken Nnamani.

Crisis In Labour Party Over Endorsement Of Governor Makinde For Re-Election

Akinwale Kasali

March 6, 2023

By Akinwale Kasali

The Labour Party, LP, in Oyo State is presently polarized following the endorsement of Governor Seyi Makinde of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, by a faction in the Party.

Chairman of the Labour Party in the state, Sadiq Atayese, had endorsed Makinde during a news conference at the party office, Molete, Ibadan on Sunday.

Atayese had said that Governor Makinde was endorsed due to the similarity of ideology, competence, compassion for the masses and numerous achievements of the Governor in many sectors.

But this did not augur well with the governorship candidate of the LP in the State, Tawfiq Akinwale, who said he remained the candidate of party.

He stated that he was not in the know of the endorsement of Makinde.

“I remain the candidate of the Labour Party for March 11, 2023 (elections) and my party has never changed that status quo. I do not know anything about the purported adoption. Is he an orphan? By the grace of Almighty God, I am a winner already!” Akinwale said in response to a text message sent by our correspondent.

Also, a Chieftain of the All Progressives Congress in the State, Akin Akinwale, in reaction on Twitter said it was the “hungry faction” of the LP that endorsed Makinde.

“After all my Uncle did for your party in Oyo State. Anyway, it is the hungry faction of Oyo LP that endorsed Seyi Makinde,” he tweeted.

During the endorsement of Makinde by the Atayese led LP in the State, he said, “The last Presidential election was keenly contested by the three major parties in the country and the result of the election as announced by INEC shows that Labour Party is a force to reckon with.

“The result of the Presidential election in Oyo State is similar to that. While the result of the election in its entirety is still a subject of contention, the take-home of the election is that a third force party that emerged barely a year ago has grown to become a strong force because of the quality of its candidate.

“Having considered this, in the upcoming election in our dear state, we have decided to support a candidate with the character, competence, and capacity to lead and who is also concerned about the wellbeing of the citizens as it is obvious that no party can win the governorship election alone.

“However, the main priority should be that the citizens win through the emergence of a candidate that best serves their interest.

“Based on this, we have decided to work with the Party whose candidate aligns with ours in terms of security, agricultural development, and financial well-being. And it is obvious that the current administration of Seyi Makinde has done this.

“And we hereby call on all citizens of Oyo State to vote for him. This decision was taken with serious consideration for the party’s future in the state.”

He added that the Party structure in the State remained intact as its Assembly candidates across the State were still in the race.

Uzodimma To Imo People: Don’t Be Discouraged, Come Out Saturday And Vote

The Source

March 5, 2023

The Governor of Imo State, Senator Hope Uzodimma has told Imo people not to be discouraged by the outcome of the recently held presidential and national assembly elections, urging them to come out on Saturday, March 11, 2023 to vote in the governorship and state assembly elections.

Uzodimma made the appeal on Sunday, March 5, 2023 after Mass at the Government House Chapel, Owerri while addressing the congregation.

The Governor enjoined Imo people to be more realistic in their decisions, noting that “Nigeria is a National project and there is every need to be part of the Federation.”

He reminded Imo people once more that “government is about the people” hence they should not be discouraged because their preferred Presidential candidate or any other candidate for that matter did not win the last election.

” You should see reasons to come out and vote on Saturday.”

Turning to his Party, Governor Uzodimma promised to do his best to ensure that the APC wins the election on Saturday, even as he advised Party members to devote time to organize the LGAs for the the task ahead.

The Governor used the opportunity to thank all those who participated in the February 25, 2023 election as well as those who did not participate, and proceeded to congratulate all those who won.

On the inconclusive polls, he sought for God’s intervention.

Uzodimma however bemoaned a situation where some Party faithful who were given responsibilities sat on the fence and described the act as sabotage

“There is nothing to gain by sabotaging the system already put in place for success of a programme.”

He said that those who withheld resources mapped out for elections or went to a corner to hide showed the highest level of sabotage and appealed to all not to sabotage themselves, because “both God and government see such bad behaviour.”

He thanked the Clergy for their fervent prayers that made it possible for people to come out and vote and urged them not to relent “because it is not over until it is over.”

Present at the Mass were the Deputy Governor of Imo State, Prof Placid Njoku, the Speaker Imo State House of Assembly, Barr Emeka Nduka and his wife, some members of the State Executive Council, some traditional rulers, business man and APC chieftain, Chief Tony Chukwu among others.

March 11: Oshiomole, Obaseki Battle For Soul Of Edo Legislature

Ayodele Oni

March 5, 2023

By Ayodele Oni

The battle to control the next legislature in Edo state is raging between Governor Godwin Obaseki and his predecessor, Adams Oshiomole.

Oshiomole, who was last week elected senator to represent Edo central at the red chamber is accused by Obaseki of doing everything to ensure that the All Progressive Congress (APC) commands the majority of the next parliament.

Special Adviser to the Edo State Governor on Media, Crusoe Osagie, said the recent statement by the former Edo State Governor, Adams Oshiomhole on the fate of Governor Godwin Obaseki in the Edo State House of Assembly polls exposes Oshiomhole’s insidious plan to oust Governor Obaseki through impeachment.

In a statement, Osagie expressed confidence that Edo people, as they did in 2020, will again rise in defense of the governor at the polls on Saturday, March 11, and vote massively for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), electing a House controlled by the PDP.

The governor’s aide said, “The recent statement by the former Edo State Governor, Adams Oshiomhole on the fate of Governor Godwin Obaseki in the Edo State House of Assembly polls exposes his insidious plan to oust the current governor through impeachment.

“We are, however, confident that, like it happened in 2020 when Edo people stood with the governor despite the bullying and intimidation by Oshiomhole and his paymasters, Edo people will again rise in defense of the governor at the polls on Saturday, March 11; vote massively for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and elect a House controlled by the PDP.

“Obaseki has never placed his confidence in any man or godfather. He has placed his confidence in God and the people.

“It is curious that it is Oshiomhole who has come forward with the agenda of the APC and not any of the candidates.

“One wonders if Oshiomhole will be a member of the Edo State House of Assembly after the polls. This, obviously, points to who and where the instructions will be issued if the party’s candidates are mistakenly elected into the House.

“Edo people can see the handwriting on the wall and we are certain that they will troop out en masse to vote for the candidates of the PDP in the election to sustain the developmental strides of the Governor Obaseki-led government.”

In a response media aide to Oshiomole, Victor Oshiokedescrobed Governor Obaseki as “a corrosive politician whose attitudes are patently leprous in nature. He contaminates and destroys any party, place, or person that he associates with.

“For almost seven years, he has governed Edo State like Herod. Totally insensitive to the aspirations, frustrations, and cries of the people who elected him.

“But on February 25, 2023, Edo people unambiguously rejected him and his PDP faction in the Presidential, Senate and House of Representatives polls.

“For the first time since the return to democracy in 1999, Edo State PDP failed to win any seat in the national assembly, a direct consequence of Godwin Obaseki’s cantankerous, vicious and reckless use of state power to intimidate, oppress, terrorise and pauperise our people.

“On March 11, Edo people will once again go to the polls to put the final nail on the coffin of impunity, hatred, insecurity, maladministration, destruction of private properties, economic retrogression, infrastructural decay and disrespect for traditional institutions which are the unfortunate hallmarks of Godwin Obaseki’s two tenures in office.

“No man is God and Oshiomhole is not God. He has never pretended to have godly powers, so he cannot install or decree who becomes a member of the House of Assembly.

“That is for the electorates to do. But as a leader, Oshiomhole is calling on all Edo people to come out and vote for all APC candidates so that true democracy can once again be restored in Edo State.

“However, we must not forget the adage which says that ‘the evil that men do haunt them even while they are alive and torture their souls when they die.’ All the evils of Godwin Obaseki are gradually but certainly catching up with him, even while he is still in office.

“One can only imagine how his life would be when he leaves office soon. Godwin Obaseki is panicking because Comrade Adams Oshiomhole is calling on Edo people to come out peacefully to vote their choice of March 11.

“Left for Obaseki, the 10 man aberration called Edo State House of Assembly should remain in place till the end of his tenure in November 2024. But fortunately, he has no powers to make that a reality.

‘At no time did Comrade Adams Oshiomhole mention impeachment in his message to Edo people. But perhaps Obaseki knows that he has committed impeachable offenses, so all that rings in his ears now is impeachment.

“That is why he is running helter-skelter to prevent a peaceful, free and fair election that will produce an independent parliament in Edo State.

“Is it not an irony that just two weeks ago, Godwin Obaseki and his deputy Philip Shaibu were boasting that they have retired Adams Oshiomhole from politics, but today Oshiomhole has a four year tenure as a Senator of the Federal Republic which has not even started yet, and they are crying foul that Oshiomhole is campaigning for APC candidates for Edo House of Assembly? Liars have no conscience indeed.

Obviously, Godwin Obaseki has seen the handwriting on the wall, that Edo people are wiser now. No amount of last minute appeal can save him and his PDP faction from the impending electoral defeat.”

PDP Takes To The Streets Monday

The Source

March 5, 2023

By Gideon Njoku

The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, says it will take to the Streets in Abuja, Monday, to protest the outcome of the Presidential Election held on Saturday, 25th February, 2023.

In the very keenly contested Election, the Candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Bola Tinubu, as declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, beat the Candidates of the PDP, Atiku Abubakar, and Peter Obi of the Labour Party, LP, to the second and third places respectively.

The three Candidates won in 12 States each. However, Tinubu scored more votes and spread than Atiku and Obi.

But both Atiku and Obi, as well as their Parties, have since rejected the results and Tinubu’s victory. They have headed to the Court.

Not a few people and organisations, including international observers, condemned the election, dismissing it as very much below standards.

The election, as was seen in video and audio recordings and evidences was froth by vote buying, vote suppression, deliberate hiding and hoarding of election materials, snatching of ballot boxes, dumping of ballot papers in bushes and gutters and lonely roads, violence, and disenfranchisement of voters.

In addition to going to the Court, the PDP, in a statement signed by the Director of Administration, on behalf of the Director General, Presidential Campaign Organisation, has invited its members to a protest march to INEC National Headquarters, Abuja, on Monday, 6th March, 2023.

According to the invitation, the take-off point is the Legacy House, Abuja. It will terminate at the INEC Headquarters. The dress code is black.

The invitation letter reads:

“I am directed to respectfully invite Your Excellencies:

The National Chairman, Dr Iyrochia Ayu, The Vice Presidential Candidate and Governor of Delta State, Dr. Ifeanyichukwu Okowa, Governors of;

Akwa Ibom and Chairman of PCC, Mr Udom Emmanuel,

Sokoto state and DG of PCC, Rt Hon Aminu Waziri Tambuwal,

and Governors of Bayelsa, Edo, Adamawa, Bauchi, Taraba and Osun States; Former Senate Presidents, Senator David Mark and Senator Dr Abubakar Bukola Saraki, BOT members, NEC members, PDP Senators and House of Representatives Members, NWC members of the party, DDGs, Directors, Deputies and Assistant Directors of NCMC;

Members of the PCC; Leadership of People Living With Disabilities and all other Stakeholders to a protest match to INEC Office as follows-

“DATE: Monday 6th March, 2023.

“TIME: 10Am Prompt

“DRESS CODE: Black.

“TAKE OFF POINT: From Legacy House, Maitama, Abuja.

“Endeavour to be very punctual please.

“Signed:

Director of Admin

For DG, PCO”

25% of FCT: INEC Wrong To Declare Tinubu Winner

The Source

March 5, 2023

By Mike Ozekhome

Introduction

Election is a process that must be carried out within the bounds of the laws of the land. In Nigeria, elections are held every four years. Extant laws are made to ensure that it is only the candidate that has the overwhelming support and acceptance of majority of Nigerians that becomes the President. That is what democracy is all about.

Democracy as a concept, was popularised on 19th November, 1863, by Abraham Lincoln, a former American President, during his Gettysburg Declaration, as government of the people, by the people and for the people. Sundry legal issues have arisen from the conduct of the 2023 general elections which held on Saturday, 25th February, 2023. Did the election reflect the mantra of section 14(2) of the 1999 Constitution to the effect that “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria?” I think not.

My humble opinion is that the 2023 Presidential elections dwarfs and diminishes the 2007 Presidential Elections (which the then President, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, had admitted) in all indices of a fundamentally flawed election.

The 2023 Presidential elections witnessed massive turnout as Nigerians were interested in voluntarily electing leaders of their choice. The polls were however bedeviled by large-scale irregularities, bare-face manipulations and brazen non-compliance with extant laws governing the electoral process in Nigeria.

INEC even shut down its portal for over 24 hours due to what it called technical hitches and glitches. The main issue that is currently trending is whether or not, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu (“Tinubu”), the Presidential candidate of the All Progressive Congress (APC) did not meet the constitutional requirement of polling at least not less than one quarter (1/4) of votes cast in the elections in at least two third (2/3) majority of all the States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT); and whether he should have been declared the winner of the Presidential elections as done by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

This legal conundrum has suffered several commentaries from Jurists, Scholars, political analysts; and even the not so informed. This rather lengthy dissertation is my humble contribution as a Nigerian to the current debate. It is interesting to note that amidst this legal uncertainty, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the APC candidate, was nonetheless declared “winner” and even presented with the “Certificate of Return” as “President-elect” of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This was done by INEC on Wednesday, 1st of March, 2023.

The collation, declaration and issuance of certificate of return, I humbly submit, all run counter to the provisions of sections 25, 47(2), 60(1), (2), (4) and (5); 62; 64(4)(a) & (b); 70; and 148 of the Electoral Act; paragraph 38 of the INEC Guidelines and Regulations; paragraphs 2.8.4; 2.9.0; and 2.9.1; of the INEC Manual For Election Officials, 2023; and judicial authorities.

Results from the manually transmitted results as collated and declared by INEC on the 1st day of March, 2023, showed that Tinubu, the candidate of the APC, on the face of it, was said to have secured the highest number of votes cast at the presidential election.

He is said to have garnered a total of 8,794,726, to allegedly defeat his closest rivals, Waziri Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who was said to have got a total of 6,984,520; with Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP), being ascribed with 6,101,533 votes.

However, in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, where we have total valid votes of 478,923, Tinubu, the candidate of the APC, was said to have secured only 90,902 (19.76%) of the votes cast at the FCT; with Atiku alleged to have 74,194 (16.13%); and Peter Obi said to have 281,717 (61.23%). Did Tinubu win? Let us discuss.

Electing a president where there are two or more presidential candidates

The Constitution is the birth certificate of any Nation. It is the organic law, the fons et origo and the grundnorm. See ROSSEK V. ACB LTD (1993) 8NWLR (PT 312) 382; DAPIALONG V. DARIYE (2007) 8 NWLR (PT 1036) 332.

For purposes of clarity and better appreciation of issues, section 134(2) of the 1999 Constitution provides as follows:

“A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected, where, there being more than two candidates for the election-

(a) He has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and

(b) He has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.” (Emphasis added)

The above provisions have been interpreted differently by several lawyers and non-legal minds. Some opine that it is not mandatory that a candidate must secure 25% votes in the Federal Capital Territory. Others disagree. I am of the latter school of thought.

A skeletal digest of the section reveals that the law provides for two limbs of requirements that are conjunctive and not disjunctive; that is, (a) the candidate must have the majority of votes cast at the election; and (b) he must have not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all States of the Federation AND the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

Furthermore, there are two instances contemplated in the provision dealing with where there are only 2 candidates; and where there are more than 2 candidates. In both situations, any of the candidates must satisfy both conditions of 25% in 24 States; and 25% in the FCT, Abuja. One without the other cannot work.

Please, note that sub section (3) provides that where the candidates still fail to satisfy the requirements, there shall be a second election in accordance with sub section (4); and the candidates shall be the highest vote scorer, followed by the next highest vote scorer; and this election shall be held within 7 days of the results of the forgoing elections subject to fulfilment of the above usual conditions.

Accordingly, by sub section (5), where a candidate is not still elected, then within another 7 days, the National Electoral Commission (INEC) shall conduct another election; and this time, if a candidate simply has a majority of the votes cast, he shall be declared winner. In other words, this time around, the second limb of satisfying the 2/3 of States of the Federation and FCT, no longer arises.

The 25% Constitutional requirement and legal and governance issues arising therefrom

The gravamen of this discourse is the mathematical exactitude of the requirement of 25%. The wordings of the Constitution are quite clear and unambiguous. They demand for not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the elections in each of at least 2/3 of all the States; AND the Federal Capital Territory. By a judicial mathematical analysis, 2/3 of 36 States is equal to 24 States, and in addition, the FCT, Abuja.

As an example, if I request to see 24 Corpers in my law firm AND OKON, it means I want to see 25 persons in all; but Okon must be one of the 25 persons. So if 25 persons in my law firm show up, without Okon, have I had all the persons I want to see? The answer is NO. To satisfy my request, Okon must show up in addition to the 24, thus making the 25 persons I desire to see.

What the law states is that the candidate must have 25% of votes in those States; and the FCT, Abuja.

The law does not contemplate that the candidate must win those States. The jurisprudence behind this provision is to ensure that the President as the Numero Uno citizen of the Nation, enjoys a reasonable range of widespread acceptance by majority of the people he seeks to govern, including those inhabiting the seat of power where he would govern from.

To know whether a candidate must win 25% of 24 States aside the FCT, Abuja, to be declared as winner, we must consider the provisions of section 134 against the background of a community reading of sections 2(2), 3(1) & (4), 48, 297, 298, 299, 301, and 302 of the 1999 Constitution.

We shall now replicate this sections verbatim ad literatim before dabbling into the legal gymnastics of interpretation in the light of decided judicial authorities and scholarly ingenuity.

Section 2(2) CFRN:

“Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory.”

The section did not just say “states”. It added “And the Federal Capital Territory”.

Section 3(1) & (4) CFRN:

“(1)There shall be 36 states in Nigeria, that is to say, Abia, Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Benue, Borno, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Edo, Ekiti, Enugu, Gombe, Imo, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Lagos, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, Oyo, Plateau, Rivers, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara.”

The FCT, Abuja was not mentioned here. However, in section 3 (4) The Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, is as defined in Part II of the First Scheduled to this Constitution.” It was thus treated separately.

Section 48 CFRN:

“The Senate shall consist of three Senators from each State and one from the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”

Here, the FCT, Abuja was recognised as different from other states.

Section 297 CFRN:

“(1)There shall be a Federal Capital Territory, Abuja the boundaries of which are as defined in Part II of the First Schedule to this Constitution.

(2)The ownership of all lands comprised in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall vest in the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.

The above provisions clearly identified the FCT, Abuja, and its lands as distinct and different from states.

Section 298 CFRN:

“The Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall be the Capital of the Federation and seat of the Government of the Federation.”

This section gives the FCT, Abuja, a special status as “the Capital of the Federation and the seat of the Government of the Federation”. No other state was accorded this special status.

Section 299 CFRN provides that:

“The provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation; and accordingly-

(a) all the legislative powers, the executive powers and the judicial powers vested in the House of Assembly, the Governor of a State and in the courts of a State shall, respectively, vest in the National Assembly, the President of the Federation and in the courts which by virtue of the foregoing provisions are courts established for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(b) all the powers referred to in paragraph (a) of this section shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution; and

(c) the provisions of this Constitution pertaining to the matters aforesaid shall be read with such modifications and adaptations as may be reasonably necessary to bring them into conformity with the provisions of this section.”

Section 301 CFRN:

“Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of section 299 of this Constitution, in its application to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, this Constitution shall be construed as if-

(a) references to the Governor, Deputy Governor and the executive council of a State (howsoever called) were references to the President, Vice- President and the executive council of the Federation (howsoever called) respectively;

(b) references to the Chief Judge and Judges of the High Court of a State were references to the Chief Judge and Judges of the High Court, which is established for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja by the provisions of this Constitution; and

(c) references to persons, offices and authorities of a State were references to the persons, offices and authorities of the Federation with like status, designations and powers, respectively; and in particular, as if references to the Attorney-General, Commissioners and the Auditor-General for a State were references to the Attorney-General, Ministers and the Auditor-General of the Federation with like status, designations and powers.”

Both sections 297 and 301 clearly donates all the attributes and powers of a state (Legislative, Judicial, Executive Offices, designations and powers) to the FCT as a separate legal entity.

Section 302 CFRN provides that:

“The President may, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 147 of this Constitution, appoint for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja a Minister who shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be delegated to him by the President, from time to time.”

The above provisions were pronounced upon and upheld in BAKARI V. OGUNDIPE (2020) LPELR – 4957 (SC), (PER BODE RHODES-VIVOR, JSC, rtd).

Thus, the FCT, Abuja, like any state in the Federation, has its own courts, distinct Chief Judge, a Senator; executive powers exercised by the President for it, similar to Governors of states, legislative powers vested on the NASS, instead of states with Houses of Assembly; with a Minister as its administrative Head rather than a Governor. It is distinct from states.

This Constitution imbroglio becomes easy to untie when we recall some precedents.

In AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI & 2 ORS (1979) FNLR Vol. 2, the apex Court considered Section 34A(1)(c)(ii) of the Electoral Decree which is impari material, except that it did not add “And the FCT, Abuja.” It held:

“A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected to such office where-

i.He has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and

ii.He has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation.”

The difference between this Decree and Section 134 of the Constitution being considered is the addition of “and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja’’ under our extant 1999 Constitution.

In AWOLOWO’S CASE, Fatayi-Williams, CJN, held that Section 34(1)(c)(ii) of the Decree was a clumsily worded section which was nevertheless devoid of any semantic ambiguity. In that same case, Obaseki, J.S.C., construed the meanings of the word “each” and the words “States in the Federation”. He held that the word “each” in subsection (1)(C)(ii) of section 34A qualified “a whole State”; and that the words “States in the Federation referred to the land area and not votes. For the avoidance of doubt, we shall reproduce the exact words of the learned Justice; thus:

“The word ‘each’ in the subsection (1) (c)(ii) of Section 34A qualifies a whole State and not a fraction of a State and to interpret otherwise is to overlook the disharmony between the word ‘each’ and the fraction ‘two-thirds’. …Looking at the subsection still further, the words ‘States in the Federation’ can only refer to the land area and not the votes. Arising from the interpretation that 2/3 of all the States in the Federation refers to the land area and not the votes, the result of the voting in Kano State can only mean what is stated in Exhibit ‘T’ and ‘T2’ and nothing else. …”

By way of extrapolation, the “land area” of the FCT must be distinguished from the land area of each of the 24 States of the Federation.

The definition of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja

The Federal Capital Territory is defined in Part II of the First Schedule to the Constitution. The definition is in relation to Sections 3 (Chapter I) and 297 (Chapter VIII) of the Constitution. Section 299 of the 1999 Constitution which is in Chapter VIII, flows directly from the provisions of Section 297 of the Constitution. Section 299 of the Constitution states that “the provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation.” Part 11 of the Constitution also defines the FCT as a land area of its own, separate and distract from the land mass of any other State.

Consequently, the 1999 Constitution has introduced a new dimension different from the 1979 Constitution, by adding a further requirement of 25% in “and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”

In BABA-PANYA V. PRESIDENT, FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt 1643), 423), it was held that the FCT is to be treated like a State and that it is not superior or inferior to any State in the Federation. The facts of this case are that the Appellant had filed a suit at the Federal High Court, Abuja, asking the court to determine whether by the combined provisions of Section 147(1), (3),(14) and 299 of the 1999 Constitution, the indigenes of the FCT, Abuja, are entitled to Ministerial appointment and whether the continued refusal or failure by previous and current Presidents to so appoint an indigene of FCT, Abuja, as Minister of the Federation was tantamount to a flagrant violation of the Constitution. The court held that:

“By the combined effect of the provisions of Sections 299, 147(1) and (3) and 14(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, it is obligatory or mandatory for the president of Nigeria to appoint at least one Minister from the indigenes of FCT, Abuja as a Minister to represent them in the Federal Executive Cabinet of the Federation. Failure to appoint any Minister from amongst the indigenes of FCT, Abuja, is a fragrant violation of the Constitution. The provisions are aimed at ensuring equal and fair participation of all States in the recognition of the diversity of the people of this country and the need to forge national unity, promote a sense of belonging among all the peoples in the Federation. …”

The gravamen of this judgment is simply that whatever is applicable to States in the Federation shall equally be applied to the FCT. If the Constitution therefore requires votes cast in at least two-thirds States in the Federation “and the FCT, Abuja,” it is compulsory that every candidate must meet that requirement of “and the FCT, Abuja,” before he is declared the winner. Tinubu did not. It was therefore unconstitutional and illegal for him to have been declared President-elect and presented with a Certificate of Return by INEC.

The status of the FCT in the Constitution

Flowing from the above, let us now examine section 299 of the 1999 Constitution.

In BAKARI V. OGUNDIPE (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1768) 1, the apex court of the land held:

“By virtue of section 299(a), (b), of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, as if it were one of the States of the Federation; and accordingly all the Legislative powers, the executive powers and the judicial powers vested in the House of Assembly, the Governor of a State and in the courts of a State shall respectively, vest in the National Assembly, the President of the Federation and in the courts which by virtue of the provisions are courts established for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; all the powers referred to in paragraph of the section shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution; and the provisions of the Constitution pertaining to the matters aforesaid shall be read with such modifications and adaptations as may be reasonably necessary to bring them into conformity with the provisions of the section. By virtue of the provisions of section 299 of the Constitution, it is so clear that Abuja, the Federal Capital of Nigeria, has the status of a State. It is as if it is one of the States of the Federation.” (Pp. 36-37, paras. E-A). See also, with approval, the following authorities; NEPA vs. ENDEGERO (2002) LPELR-1957(SC). BABA-PANYA vs. PRESIDENT, FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (pt. 1643)395; (2018) LPELR-44573(CA), IBORI V. OGBORU (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 920) 102.

There is no ruckus or brouhaha with the clear position of the courts as stated above. This is because the Constitution is clear on the separate and distinct status of the FCT. It is treated as any other State in Nigeria.

Consequently, a community reading of sections 2(2), 3(1)(4), 297, 299, 301 and 302, shows that the contemplation of the draftsman was indeed to consider FCT as separate and distinct from any other State in the Federation. It must be borne in mind that, “Judex est lex loquens”, (i.e, the Judge is the speaking law”). In other words, the law is what the courts say it is, and “nothing more pretentious” – Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. We must note that, the primary responsibility of the Judiciary is “jus decere”; and not “jus devere” (to interpret laws and not to make laws). We are constrained, at this juncture, not to dabble into some jurisprudential schools of thoughts.

CANONS OF INTERPRETATION VIS-A-VIS THE 25% CONUNDRUM

Let us now examine some canons of interpretation as they pertain to this analysis.

The primary canon of interpretation of the Constitution is the “literal rule” as held by the apex court in A.G, ABIA STATE V. A.G FEDERATION (2022) 16 NWLR (PT. 1856) 205. SEE ALSO N.P.A PLC V. LOTUS PLASTIC LTD. (2005) 19 NWLR (PT. 959)158; GANA V. S.D.P (2019) 11 NWLR (PT. 1684) 510; A.G, LAGOS STATE V. A.G, ABIA STATE V. A-G FED. (2018) 17 NWLR (PT. 1648) 299 AT 412; MARWA & ORS V. NYAKO & ORS (2012) LPELR-7837(SC).

Accordingly, where words are clear and unambiguous, the court must so interpret them without any further ado; or going outside them. In KASSIM V. SADIKU (2021) 18 NWLR (pt. 1807) 123, the Supreme Court held that:

“where a statute of the Constitution or a subsidiary legislation,…prescribes a procedure for seeking remedy or the doing if anything or act, and the language used is clear and unambiguous, that is the only procedure open to the parties concerned, and any departure therefrom will be an exercise in futility. See also INAKOJU V. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 427; S.B.N LTD V. AJILO (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 97) 305.

A court is not to go on a voyage of discovery when words are clear in Statute. See ARAKA V. EGBUE (2003) 17 NWLR (PT. 848)1; ABACHA V. FRN (2014) 6 NWLR (PT. 1402) 43; KRAUS THOMPSON ORGANIZATION V. N.I.P.S.S (2004) 17 NWLR (pt. 901) 44.

It is thus trite law that where a provision of a statute is clear and unambiguous, only its natural meaning, and not any other, is to be given to its interpretation. See A-G., ABIA STATE V. A-G., FEDERATION (2002) 17 WRN 1; (2002) 6 NWLR (PT. 763) 264 AT 485 – 486, TEXACO PANAMA INC. V. SHELL P.D.C.N. LTD. (2002) 14 WRN 121; (2002) 5 NWLR (PT. 759) 209 AT 227 – 228, TASHA V. U.B.N. PLC. (2003) 36 WRN 64; (2002) 3 NWLR (PT. 753) PAGE 99 AT 106, O.A.U. ILE-IFE V. R. A. OLIYIDE AND SONS LTD. (2001) 7 NWLR (PT. 712) PAGE 456 AT 473, AKPAN V. UMALI (2002) 23 WRN 52; (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.767).

It is only where the literal interpretation of a section is impossible without doing violence to the law that the court should start engaging other rules of interpretation. There is none here.

Happily, the word “AND” and “EACH” have enjoyed judicial pronouncements with great erudition. In BUHARI V. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (PT.1120) 246, the Supreme Court held, per Tobi JSC,:

“The final word I should examine briefly is the conjunction “and” joining the larger part of the Subsection with the smaller part of “that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.” The word “and”, being a conjunction, performing the function of joining two expressions or sentences which could be inseparable, integrated, joint or matched…” See Ndoma-Egba v. Chukwuogor (2004) 2 S.C. (Pt. I) 107; (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 869) 382.”

On the word, “EACH”, on the other hand, the Supreme Court in EYISI & ORS v. STATE (2000) LPELR-1186(SC), held:

“each” means being one of two or more distinct individuals; each one. See Black’s Law Dictionary (sixth Edition) where “each” is defined as “a distributive adjective pronoun, which denotes or refers to every one of the persons or things mentioned; every one or two or more persons or things, composing the whole, separately considered”. Per SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC (Pp 15 – 15).

The “Mischief Rule” is only employed where the old law did not provide for a matter and an interpretation is to cure or remedy that mischief. See UGWU V. ARARUME (2007) 12 NWLR (PT. 1048) 365; WILSON V. A.G. BENDEL STATE (1985) 1 NWLR (PT. 4) 572; GLOBAL EXCELLENCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. V. DUKE (2007) 16 NWLR (PT. 1059) 22, 47-48; AGBAJE V. FASHOLA (SUPRA) @ 1338 C-E; A.G. LAGOS STATE V. A.G. FEDERATION (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt. 833) 1.

The argument of those who have misconstrued section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution is to the effect that the use of the word “ALL” in the first limb of the said provision treats the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, as one of the component states of the Federation. The proponents of the view erroneously believe that since the FCT is treated as a State of the Federation, it means there is no additional requirement to meet the 25% constitutional requirement therein. They surprisingly find solace in several decisions of the apex court where the FCT was treated and referred to as a State of the Federation, including OKOYODE V. FCDA (2005) LPELR-41123(CA) (PP. 7-13 PARAS. A-A). With due respect, these cases actually firm up the FCT, Abuja, as a separate state that must be accorded every respect and status accorded the other 36 states.

Thus, section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution after generally stating all the States of the Federation where the 25% requirement is a sine qua non for a presidential candidate to be deemed duly elected, rather than exclude the FCT, Abuja, as one of the States of the Federation where the 25% is a requirement for a presidential candidate, went further to specifically use the word “and”, to include the FCT as one of the States of the Federation where the 25% constitutional requirement is a sine qua non. It is settled law that the use of the word “and” is conjunctive in interpretation of Statutes.

The implication is that after meeting the 25% requirements in 2/3 of the States of the Federation, the candidate must go further to meet the said 25% requirement in the FCT, Abuja, before he can be deemed duly elected.

General and specific provisions of a statute

Assuming, but not conceding, that the use of the word “ALL” encompasses the FCT, Abuja, as one of the component States of the Federation, it becomes an issue of whether a general provision of a statute can override a specific provision in the statute.

The specific mention of the FCT, Abuja, overrides the general mention of all the other States of the Federation in the said provision. SEKANDE & ORS V. ARUBIELU & ORS (2013) LPELR-22801(CA) (PP. 22 PARAS. E), it was held thus:

“The law is that where specific provisions of a statute are subsequent to general provisions, the specific provisions will prevail. See AKPAN VS. STATE (1986) 3 NWLR part 27 p.225.” Per DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A.

In BUHARI V. OBASANJO (2003) All N.L.R. 168, the apex Court, without, directly deciding on the issue of “And” used in section 134, held thus:

“This provision appears clear to me. Where a candidate wins the highest number of votes cast in at least two thirds of the 36 States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, he is deemed to be elected …, I do not appreciate any ambiguity in the provision and even if there was one, this Court is bound to adopt a construction which is just, reasonable and sensible. (See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition, Chapter 10).”

Thus, their Lordships merely made general statement on the section which has been an enigma. They recognised that a candidate must score 25% votes in 24 states in Nigeria; “and the FCT, Abuja”.

It is to be noted that the 36 states can be collectively called “states” without mentioning their individual names, just like section 134 did. This is because in all respects, they share the same characteristics of being states. However, the FCT, Abuja, differs in character, form and content, from the 36 states. That is why it is specifically mentioned by name.

Conclusion

Section 299 of the CFRN states that the provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the FCT, Abuja, “AS IF IT WERE ONE OF THE STATES OF THE FEDERATION”. The careful and indeed, unambiguous, wording of this section suggests that the FCT is NOT a State, but should rather be treated as if it were one. Thus, in seeking 25% in 2/3 of ALL THE STATES of the Federation AND the FCT, the Constitution clearly distinguished the FCT as a separate entity or a special territory, wherein the Presidential candidate need obtain at least 25% of the total votes cast in the election.

The reason for this is not far-fetched, as Abuja is the melting pot which unites all ethnic groups, tribes, religions, backgrounds, and other distinct qualities and characteristics in our plural society. It is indeed a conglomerate of the different and distinct peoples in Nigeria, which according to Prof Onigu Otite, has about 474 ethnic groups; that speak over 350 languages. Abuja is regarded as the “Centre of Unity”, which is testament to its inclusiveness of all tribes, religions, backgrounds and ethnicity. Simply put, Abuja is a territory or land mass made up of individuals from every State and virtually from all Local Government Areas in the country. It is itself made up of 6 Area Councils distinct from the 768 LGCs in Nigeria, thus bringing the total to 774 LGCs in Nigeria. Therefore, scoring 25% of votes cast in the FCT is a Presidential candidate’s testament to being widely accepted by majority of the Nigerian people.

The framers of the Constitution certainly desired for Nigeria, a President that is widely accepted with a national spread and not one that has only the support of his tribe or region. Hence they provided in the Constitution the sections relating to the election of the President because of our peculiarities as a multi-diverse, multi-facetted nation. The provisions contained in Section 134 of the Constitution are meant to reflect this. In the same light, the framers of the Constitution viewed the FCT as a melting pot, a sort of mini-Nigeria. Thus, like a commentator posited, the position or status of the FCT assumes that of a COMPULSORY question that a presidential candidate must answer in the electoral examination.

Whilst it is true that a literal reading of section 299 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic shows that the Federal Capital Territory is not a State, but from the words, “as if it were one”, contained in the provision, section 229 actually indeed grants the FCT benefits accruing to states in Nigeria and ensures its treatment as such with respect to legislative, judicial and executive powers. Section 299 does not for the purpose of section 134 confer on the FCT the status of a subordinate of a State. The provision – like most in the Constitution – displays the Federal Capital Territory as distinct from any other state; and as such requires a Presidential candidate to not only attain 25% (a quarter) of the votes in two-third of the 36 states in Nigeria but also attain 25% (a quarter) of the votes in the FCT in order to be duly elected as such.

To me, the only logical conclusion is that sections 134 and 299 are not mutually exclusive or contradictory. Rather, section 299 actually supports and complements section 134. To show this distinctiveness, FCT has never conducted any elections, either for Gubernatorial candidates, or for State Houses of Assembly Members as done by States. Rather, in accordance with section 301 of the Constitution, the FCT is governed by the President with an appointed Minister as his proxy in the form of Minister of the FCT.

Likewise, the FCT does not have its own State House of Assembly, but rather legislates through the National Assembly. This therefore speaks to its distinct status, which is not affected by section 299.

Whether Abuja is regarded as a full State, pseudo-State, quasi-State, or semi-State, is immaterial. Even if it is none of these, what matters is the intention of the Constitution-makers.

If, in their wisdom, they decided to reckon with the votes cast in even a single LGA in Nigeria, along with votes cast in the 36 States recognized under the 1999 Constitution, for the purpose of deciding the winner of a Presidential election, then the 6 Area Councils in the FCT cannot be treated lesser or ignored..

Once that intention can be deduced from the plain, simple and ordinary grammatical meaning of the WORDS USED then, as in the present scenario, then they have to be followed. See EZE v. UNIJOS (2021) 2 NWLR Pt. 1760 pg. 208 SC; KASSIM v. ADESEMOWO (2021) 18 NWLR Pt. 1807 pg. 67 SC; N.U.P v. INEC (2021) 17 NWLR Pt. 1805 pg. 305 SC; A.P.C v. E. S. I. E (2021) 16 NWLR Pt 180 pg. 1 SC and AGUMA v. A. P. C (2021) 14 NWLR Pt. 1796 pg. 351, S.C.

There can be no room to resort to other aids of interpretation which only become necessary and resorted to in the event of ambiguity in the words used in the Statutes. I respectfully submit that none exists in the provisions of section 134(2)(b). Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu having not met the 25% votes threshold in the FCT, Abuja, was definitely not qualified to have been declared President-elect by INEC.

Thus, INEC ought not to have declared Tinubu as the winner of the 2023 Presidential election. Doing so Nicodemously, especially as it did in the wee hours of the morning of 1st March, 2023, when innocent Nigerians were fast asleep, puts a bigger question mark on the integrity and credibility of the said declaration. Presenting Tinubu with a Certificate of Return, was, I humbly submit, odious and putrid. Tinubu therefore carries with him and on his neck, a very heavy moral burden in the form of an albatross.

Governing a country of 219.7 million people (as at 3rd March, 2023), goes well beyond mere legal calisthenics. It borders more on the process’ credibility, acceptability, legitimacy and the high moral grounds of the candidate.

The current eerie, and mournful mood in Nigeria, without any form of celebration or jubilation, represents nothing but peace of the graveyard. It is ominous and foreboding. It requires no violent street protests, demonstrations, barricades, rallies, pamphleteering or leafleteering. It is a loud silence. I so humbly submit.

Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb, LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D. Litt., is a Senior Legal Practitioner

1...1,7111,7121,713...2,964 Page 1,712 of 2,964