Home Blog Page 2013

Presidential Hopeful, Sowore Opens Up On Assets

By
Ayodele Oni
-
0

By Ayodele Oni

In tandem with what he preaches, Human rights activist and the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress,(AAC) Omoyele Sowore, said his worth is not more than that of an average Nigerian.

Sowore, who publicly declared his assets ahead of the 2023 general elections in compliance with an advocacy organisation, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), made the remark in his social media handle.

SERAP had in a tweet challenged Sowore to publish details of his assets and to publicly commit to rejecting vote-buying and electoral bribery before and during the elections.

SERAP wrote “Dear ‪@YeleSowore Ahead of the February 2023 presidential election, we’re again calling on you to show leadership by urgently publishing details of your assets and publicly rejecting vote-buying and electoral bribery before and during the elections.”

Replying to the tweet, the AAC presidential candidate said he had two cars, and a house in his hometown in Ondo State worth N5 million among other assets.

The activist explained that he had never operated an offshore account(s) or worked with a tax haven to hide any asset, adding that he rejects vote-buying on or before 2023 election date.

“I have two used cars: a Toyota Camry & Lexus RX 350, a home in my village worth may be N5m, three iPhones, a Galaxy Note 10 Lite (if you could call those assets), SaharaReporters Media Group (don’t know the worth as of today), a four-bedroom bungalow in New Jersey & nothing more.

“The Federal government of Nigeria froze my bank accounts since 2019 after I was arrested over ‪#RevolutionNow protest on August 3rd 2019.

“A ‪@gtbank account I operated in Nigeria had N4,800 left in before my arrest, I managed to open a ‪ @kudabankhelp with N463.00 as of this evening.

“I reject vote-buying on or before the 2023 election date. I also recently opened a ‪@capitalone US bank account that has in it about $300.

“I have a ‪@ZenithBank campaign account for the ‪#Sowore2023 Presidential account. I have nothing more besides financial support that I occasionally get from friends and family (if those count as assets).

“I have never operated any offshore account(s) or worked with a tax haven to hide my assets. These are the assets I have in my entire life.”

APC Muslim/Muslim Ticket, Political Strategy To Win Election – Fayemi

By
Ayodele Oni
-
0

By Ayodele Oni

Chairman, Nigeria Governors Forum, (NGF) and Ekiti State Governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi has counselled the leadership of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) on what members will do before next year’s election to be relevant politically.

He advised that CAN should engage the leadership of the political parties and lay members demands before them ahead of the 2023.

The governor also noted that rather than overflogging  the issue of religion, Christians should evolve a charter of demands  from the parties.

Dr Fayemi  gave this admonition inAdo Ekiti, while receiving the new executives of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Ekiti State Chapter led by its Chairman, Dr Emmanuel Aribasoye.

He  allayed the fears of Christians in the country over the raging issue of Muslim-Muslim ticket of the APC,  saying it was not done to undermine their influence or relevance, but simply a calculated political strategy by the party to win the Presidential election.

According  to him, the choice of a Muslim running mate for the APC Presidential candidate was not because there were no competent Christian politicians from the North as being erroneously peddled in some quarters.

“The Christian leadership should use this current challenge as an opportunity to present a charter of demands to all political candidates, especially our party (APC), outlining the irreducible minimum conditions acceptable to Christians in the next political dispensation.

“A charter of demands that would represent those values you preach to us in church highlighting our concerns, stressing the place of Christendom in the Nigeria project and then placing our demands before the political leaders.

“I want the Church to organise debates around issues of concerns among all the candidates.”

According to him, this would bring out some advantages for the Christians in the current arrangement, rather than flogging the issue of Muslim-Muslim ticket.

“While it is desirous to see one of us on either side of the presidential ticket, I think it is important for us to look beyond the religious profession of the gladiators or even their ethnic or geopolitical origin.”

He urged Christian leaders to eschew what he called “the theology of disengagement” and embrace politics by converting the current challenge to an opportunity to present a charter of demands to all political candidates based on irreducible minimum conditions acceptable to Christendom.

“Many Christians see politics as a dirty game, and for this reason are disengaged from the political process. It’s time for us to realize that there are compelling reasons for Christians to participate in politics.

“In my own opinion, whatever makes us good Christians makes us good citizens.

“You raised a matter that is agitating the minds of many Christians particularly Christians who are not in politics but I can tell you that Christians who are in politics are equally concerned about the matter you have raised about the Muslim-Muslim ticket.

“Not so much because of faith but because of fair representation and representation in a multi ethnic, multi religious, multi- cultural setting is always going to be an issue of concern.

“But I have also had cause to discuss this with our political associates and our fathers in the Lord.

“But where we are now, my plea with Christians is to do that which is expected of us. Yes, the agitation must continue and on my part as a Christian, I have been talking to both the Presidential candidate and other leaders of the party that we need to take quick steps that we should have taken earlier by approaching the leadership in Christendom and explain the context of the selection that was about to happen.

“Even if they don’t agree with our choice, they would have seen the sincerity of purpose and understood that the decision was not on ground of competence because we have competent Christians all over Nigeria, but on grounds of strategic political moves, which is what we do in politics.

“We have to look at scenarios and calculate where the votes would come from, it is a game of numbers.

“I think it is time for Christians to move away from the theology of disengagement – the notion that politics is dirty and that it is not for a child of God.

“When serious Christians committed to the ideals of social justice and the common good turn away from politics, they open the door for unprincipled opportunists to take power.

“Fortunately, not all of us can or will be in elective office. Not all of us have to. What matters is for each of us to find our place in the move to build our nation and be faithful to the demands of that task.”

Earlier, the new Chairman of CAN in the state, Dr Aribasoye who  commended the Governor’s generosity to CAN in Ekiti and his spirit of sportsmanship  in stepping down for Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the APC Convention, said the church was not in any way comfortable with the Muslim-Muslim ticket of the ruling party, describing it as a “cause for concern”

Dr Aribasoye  highlighted some of the achievements of the administration to include prompt payment of workers’ salaries, construction of International Cargo Airport and peaceful conduct of Governorship election in the state.

He used the occasion to invite the Governor to the National Convention of CAN taking place at the end of the month.

Atiku Ridicules Tinubu; Asks Him To Present Himself To An Hour Long TV Interview

By
The Source
-
0

The Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Atiku Abubakar, says his counterpart in the All Progressives Congress, APC, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, is  not capable of granting an hour-long interview.

Atiku, in a statement signed on his behalf by his Media Adviser, Paul Ibe, said Tinubu will not be “as articulate and mentally stable as Atiku.”

Atiku’s response followed a reaction by Tinubu to the interview Atiku granted the ARISE TV on Friday.

In the interview, Atiku said, among other things, that one of the fundamental disagreements he had with Tinubu, as far back as 2007 when Tinubu demanded to be his running mate under the now defunct ACN, was the issue of a Muslim-Muslim ticket.

Irked by that, Tinubu had, in a statement signed on his behalf by the Director, Media and Communication of his Campaign Organisation, Bayo Onanuga, said Atiku was not one to be trusted. He dismissed Atiku’s performance in the interview  as embarrassing and said he mixed up facts.

But Atiku has reacted by asking Tinubu to come forward and take the hot seat for an hour. “Mr Tinubu has not sat down to do any prolonged interview for obvious reasons. Nigerians have seen him talk in public and can themselves gauge the reason why he is mortified to do so.”

Following is the full text of the Press Statement.

We Challenge Bola Tinubu To Take The Hot Seat

“We were rather amused to read the knee jerk response from the Tinubu Campaign Organisation to the wave making interview granted by Waziri Atiku Abubakar to Arise TV on Thursday, July 21, 2022.

“Amusement, because we expected this. Mr. Tinubu has not sat down to do any prolonged interview for obvious reasons. Nigerians have seen him talk in public and can themselves gauge the reason why he is mortified to do so.

“Nevertheless, I will now take the issues in their statement one after the other.

* “The Tinubu campaign exposed its gross desperation and vacuousness by citing the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 1999, to declare Waziri Atiku Abubakar’s stance on engaging in a side business while he was a young custom officer as a breach of the law. It is pertinent to educate the Tinubu campaign organisation that Nigeria is not under a military regime and our Constitutions are not retroactive in nature.

*”Again, the Tinubu campaign betrayed either dishonesty or lack of attention to detail by claiming that Atiku Abubakar said oil contributed 20% of Nigeria’s GDP. That is a lie. What the Waziri said is as follows:

‘Oil only maybe accounts for about 20% of our GDP’.

* “The use of the word maybe by the Waziri was in reflection to the different figures given. While the Nigerian Bureau of Statistics states a figure close to 10%, other multilateral organisations have given a much higher figure of between 15-20%. So, while the jury is still out, it is right to qualify the contribution of oil and gas as a maybe. However, we do like to point out that Waziri Atiku Abubakar mentioned both the PDP and the APC during the interview and did not forget the name of his own party.

* “It seems the Tinubu campaign organisation (can a disorganised body be called an organisation?) does not know the meaning of rotation of power and micro zoning. So, we will gladly educate them. Rotation of power refers to a constitutional provision where power is zoned between North and South. Micro-zoning refers to a non constitutional idea, where power is zoned not between North and South, but amongst geo-political zones. We hope this cures the political illiteracy of the authors of that document.

” The rude response also accuses Waziri Atiku Abubakar of having ‘limited education’. *Atiku Abubakar has an earned Masters degree from Anglia Ruskin University. We challenge any of the present Presidential candidates to present an equal or higher degree. Moreover, his university attendance is a matter of verified record. Can we say the same about some other persons?

*” On President Lincoln, we are afraid the poor student of history is the Tinubu campaign disorganisation. Yes, it is true that Lincoln ran for President with his name on the ballot twice. But he ran at other times, and failed to get his name on the ballot.

* “In conclusion, we would like to challenge Bola Tinubu to subject himself to an hour long interview, like the Waziri did, and if he is able to be as articulate and mentally present as our candidate, then he can talk. Until then, we will only want to remind him and his yes men that they are not in a position to point fingers when they have not sat on the hot seat.”

The Presidential election is in February 2023.

Wike Says He Will Reply Atiku, Expose Happenings In The PDP

By
The Source
-
0

By Gideon Njoku

The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, is on edge. This is a consequence of the threat by Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike, to talk about the Party’s Presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, and expose the recent happenings in the Party.

Governor Wike’s threat came on Saturday following the interview granted to ARISE TV by Atiku on Friday.

During the interview, Atiku was asked why he overlooked Wike, and picked Delta State Governor, Dr Ifeanyi Okowa as his running mate.

Wike, a Presidential aspirant, had come a respectable second to Atiku during the Primary. Following Atiku’s victory, the candidate and the Party set up a Committee to shortlist a possible running mate to Atiku. The Committee, made up of 17 members was chaired by Benue State Governor, Samuel Ortom.

Three people were shortlist – Wike, Okowa and Akwa Ibom State Governor, Udom Emmanuel. According to Ortom, Wike came first. 14 out of the 17 members voted for him.

The expectation was that Wike already carried the day.  But Atiku, instead, picked Okowa to the disappointment and shock of Wike’s camp.

Since then, Wike has kept his distance from Party activities. And has said no word. But he has been playing host to all cadres of Politicians from other Political Parties, including the All Progressives Congress, APC.

Asked why he shunned Wike for Okowa, Atiku said he wanted a President-in-waiting, somebody he could work with amicably, and somebody who understands how bad things are in Nigeria.

Atiku: “Governor Wike was nor rejected. Nobody was rejected in the Party. But you must understand that it is the prerogative of the candidate to pick his running mate – a running mate he believes he can work with amicably, and then, also deliver the policies of the Party, and also try to unify the Country.”

He said he found all those qualities in Okowa.

Obviously angered by Atiku’s response, Wike has promised to talk.

In a statement issued in Porthacourt on Saturday by his Media Aide, Kelvin Ebri, Wike said he would speak and let Nigerians know the truth about the PDP and the recent events surrounding it. He, also said he would speak on Atiku.

Wike: “On Atiku I will speak soon and Nigerians will know the actual truth of all that has transpired in the PDP in recent times.”

In the ARISE TV interview, Atiku said the Party was talking to Wike  and that issues would be sorted out.

Ebonyi South Senatorial Ticket: Twist In Ann Agom-Eze’s Candidacy; Withdrew Voluntarily; Could Lose Ticket

By
The Source
-
0
Princess Ann Agom-Eze

By Charles Igbo

Documents available to this medium show that Princess Ann Agom-Eze, the woman who floored Engr. Dave Umahi, Governor of Ebonyi State, at the Federal High Court, Abakaliki, to claim the All Progressives Congress, APC, Senatorial ticket of the Zone, withdew from the race.

Her letter of withdrawal shows that she did so voluntarily.

If confirmed, she could lose the ticket, and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC would be saddled with the task of supervising another Senatorial Primary election for the All Progressives Congress, APC.

Otherwise, the APC in the State stands to face the embarrassment of not fielding a candidate for the Zone.

A Federal High Court which gave judgement on the contentious ticket had sacked Governor Umahi as the Senatorial candidate on Friday. The Court, also, disqualified his younger brother, Austin Umahi, who apparently was a place-holder for him, from the race. The Judge, the Honourable Justice Riman, instead, gave the ticket to Princess Agom-Eze who, allegedly, came second during the Senatorial Primary which was monitored by INEC.

In disqualifying Governor Umahi from the race, the Judge said he had participated in the Presidential Primary of his Party, and that section 115 of the Electoral Act forbids a person who had taken part in a Primary for an office to take part in another Primary for a different office same year, same General Elections.

The first Primary was won by the Governor’s younger brother, Austin. The allegation is that a couple of aspirants were arm-twisted to step down. But apparently, the victory was for his elder brother, the Governor. As soon as the senior Umahi lost in the Presidential Primary, his younger brother wrote a letter to the National Chairman of the Party,  withdrawing from the race. That provided the Ebonyi APC an opportunity to organise another Primary which the Governor easily won.

In, also, disqualifying Austin Umahi,  Justice Riman said he voluntarily withdrew from the race.

Trouble started when INEC did not publish Governor Umahi’s name as a Senatorial candidate. INEC said it does not recognize the second Primary which gave the Governor the ticket. The Commission described it as illegal.

In reaction, Governor Umahi approached the Federal High Court to compel INEC to publish his name. Agom-Eze applied to be joined in the suit. She eventually carried the day.

However a twist has appeared. The same thing that happened to Umahi jnr. could happen to Agom-Eze if the document seen by this medium is anything to go by. Like Austin Umahi, she, also, withdrew from the race.

In a letter dated 9th June, 2022, and addressed to the National Chairman of the APC, titled Letter of Withdrawal, Agom-Eze said she had withdrawn from the race.

It reads: “I, Princess Ann Agom-Eze, having contested for the Senatorial Seat of Ebonyi South Senatorial Zone, and having come second in the contest, hereby, for the interest of our Party,  the All Progressives Congress (APC), withdraws.

“Mr Chairman Sir, I wish to assure you that the unity and interest of the party,  supersedes any other interest. I wish our great party well, and will always make myself available to serve the party in any other capacity.

“Thanks for all your support and that of the members of the National Working Committee of our great party, the All Progressives Congress.”

Agom-Eze had also filled out and signed another form of “Voluntary Withdrawal.”

The questions are: Why did she, after coming second, still write a letter of withdrawal from a race she had already been defeated?

Was she arm-twisted to write the letter? Does she have evidence of the arm-twisting? If she voluntarily withdrew, why did she apply to the Federal High Court to be joined in the suit? Will what is good for the goose, in this case, Austin Umahi, be good for the gander, in this case, Agom-Eze? Will both be, eventually, disqualified?

This hard nut will be cracked between the Courts, if Governor Umahi goes on an appeal, and INEC.

Prove Atiku Is Corrupt, Get  N12m — US Based  Nwoye

By
Adesina Soyooye
-
0
Billy Nwoye

By Adesina Soyooye

There is a bait for those who   accuse the Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Atiku Abubakar, of being corrupt.

For years, Atiku has been in the eye of the storm over allegations that he is not only corrupt but sold off State assets to himself while he was Vice President, and in charge of Privatisation.

But a United States based Nigerian, Billy Nwoye, has thrown his weight behind Atiku, and thrown a bait at Atiku’s accusers. He has challenged anybody harbouring such allegations to prove it and get the sum of $20,000, which translates to a whopping N12million.

Nwoye, a Politician in the USA, is the first Nigerian elected to  City Council member in Altadena in the County of Los Angeles in 2003.

The deadline for the proof that Atiku sold State assets to himself is August 1, 2022.

Nwoye who was, also,  Special Adviser to Governor Gray Davis on Consular Matters. insisted he was conversant  with the activities of Abubakar between as Nigeria’s Vice President between 1999 and 2007.

Nwoye: “I had the opportunity of working with Atiku when he negotiated bilateral cooperation between the State of California, the fifth largest economy in the world and Nigeria through the office of the former Lieutenant Governor, Cruz Bustamante.

“I will like to offer a reward of $20,000 (12 million Naira) to anyone who can PROVE that the UNIFIER sold all assets to himself between 1999 and 2007. You have until August 1st, 2022 to present the proofs and claim the reward.”

ARISE TV Interview: Six Lies Told By Atiku – Tinubu

By
The Source
-
0
Bola Ahmed Tinubu

The Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, has reacted, ferociously, to the interview the Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Alhaji Abubakar, granted ARISE TV on Friday.

In the interview which covered a number of areas, Atiku had taken a dig at Tinubu over his choice of Senator Kashim Shettima, a fellow Muslim, as his running mate.

Atiku said Tinubu had always desired a Muslim-Muslim ticket, and revealed that Tinubu’s demand to be his running mate in the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN, in 2007, which he turned down, was a fundamental point of departure between two of them, politically.

But in a strongly-worded statement signed on his behalf by Bayo Onanuga, Director, Media & Communication, Tinubu Campaign Organisation, Tinubu not only punctured the claim, but pointed out six lies Atiku told in the interview. He said Atiku’s performance was embarrassing, and showed he is not prepared for the job.

Following the full text of the statement.

“Mr Presidential candidate: Lincoln did not contest US Presidency five or six times, Takeaways from Atiku Abubakar bungled interview on ARISE Television

“We have watched Alhaji Atiku Abubakar’s interview on ARISE Television and were extremely shocked by the many lies and ignorance displayed by the Peoples Democratic Party’s presidential candidate.

“In the interview, Alhaji Atiku exposed himself as a man who is not prepared for the job he is applying for and a man who can not be entrusted with our commonwealth. He was flippant in his response to important questions about his record of service and how he made money while serving in Customs. He muddled up facts and exhibited befuddling absence of mind

“Here are our takeaways from the bungled interview:

*1. PDP candidate is a law breaker:

It was most shocking Atiku admitted that he cheated the system for decades and engaged in gross misconduct as a government worker. As a customs officer at the Idi-Iroko border, Atiku revealed that he ran a commercial taxi service, claiming ‘there is no law stopping public officers from doing business in Nigeria”. He punched harder, claiming there is no conflict of interest in doing so.

“We found this to be untrue.

“Every officer in the civil service is expected to comply with a code of conduct and service rules which bar civil and public servants from engaging in private business while in government employment to the detriment of the service he/she is employed to render to the public. The 1999 constitution further codifies this in Part I, Fifth Schedule, Section of 2 (b).

“It says a public officer shall not, except where he is not employed on full-time basis engage or participate in the management or running of any private business, profession or trade. The rules however allow a public officer to engage in farming.

“We wonder which rule or which law Atiku was relying upon for his gross misconduct as a public officer. It is our considered view that Atiku gamed the system all through his career in public service, culminating in his founding of the Intel Logistics along with Late Shehu Yar’Adua and some Italians, even while he was still in the employment of the Nigeria Customs Service.

* 2 Poor Knowledge of key sectors of the economy:

We also found it surprising that the PDP presidential candidate does not know the contribution of the oil and gas industry to Nigeria’s GDP. He claimed the sector represents 20% of our national GDP whereas it is below 10 percent and it is still falling owing to the growth of the non-oil sector under the current All Progressives Congress led administration of President Muhammadu Buhari.

*3. False Data from Egypt:

Atiku Abubakar wanted to impress his audience with his supposed knowledge of international affairs. He ended up embarrassing himself with false data he cited from Egypt. We found his claim that Egypt has 2 million police officers on the streets to be untrue. Various sources put the number at about 500,000 for a population of 104 million and not 80 million as falsely claimed by Atiku.

*4. Rotational Presidency:
Asked to justify why the PDP jettisoned Section 3c of its own constitution which enshrines power rotation between the North and South, Atiku tried to fudge his answer by focussing on Governor Nyesom Wike and his effort to reconcile with him after he, a northerner snatched the presidential ticket that ought to have been taken by a southerner. While Atiku was playing to the gallery on APC’s Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket, he didn’t see seeking to be President after 8years of a President from his part of Nigeria as politics of exclusion.

“Probed further, Atiku provided several contradictory answers. In one breath, he said power rotation is not in the constitution. In another breath, he said the PDP has never “micro zoned any position’. Then he admitted that the party has always rotated power between the North and the South. Atiku’s justification as to why he became PDP’s presidential candidate, instead of a southerner is a perfect example in ellipsis: “In politics”, he said, “we negotiate power through negotiations(Sic)”. Whatever that means.

“Atiku, never an expert in not telling the truth also did not come clean over his once-upon a time preference for same-faith ticket. In 1993, after Atiku and Kingibe lost to MKO Abiola in the SDP presidential primary in Jos, Atiku was the choice of the Yar’Adua camp to become Abiola’s running mate. Abiola overlooked him and picked the more cerebral diplomat and bureaucrat, Babagana Kingibe. In all the tonnes of biographies written about him, there was no where he said he opposed Shehu Yar’Adua’s support for his candidacy as Abiola’s VP. He was not against it, since it favoured him. Now, it is politically convenient and opportunistic for him to oppose the Tinubu-Shettima ticket.

*5. Political Credentials:

Most reprehensible was Atiku’s lies about how many times he ran to become the governor of Adamawa or old Gongola state.

“Mr. Presidential candidate, in case you don’t know due to your limited education, you run for an office, only, when you are on the ballot in an election. Your signifying interest in an office does not mean the same as running for the office. From available records, the first time you contested the governorship election in your state was in 1999. Your name entered the ballot for the first time and you won.

*6. Poor grasp of history:

Atiku Abubakar also exhibited poor Knowledge of history when he claimed that Abraham Lincoln, one of America’s famous leaders, contested the presidency five to six times before he eventually won.

“This is a beer parlour tale that has been recycled over time. Lincoln contested the U.S. presidency twice. He ran in 1860 and 1864 and won both, before he was assassinated on 15 April, 1865.

“The false story about Lincoln’s failed presidential bids sprang from his previous failed state and national elections, from his state of Illinois. They were not the same as America’s presidential election.

“According to historians, Lincoln lost his first election in 1832 for Illinois state legislature. In 1834, he ran again and won.

“In 1843 he ran for Congress. He lost. Three years later in 1846, Lincoln ran for Congress again – this time he won and went to Washington. From established history, in 1848, Lincoln ran for re-election to Congress and lost. In 1854, he ran for Senate of the United States. He lost. Lincoln also made another failed bid for the U.S. Senate from Illinois in 1858. He lost to Democrat Steven Douglas.

“Our conclusion is that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar is ill-prepared to be President of Nigeria if he could bungle a Television interview that was planned well ahead of the day and time the duo of Dr. Reuben Abati and Ms.Tundun Abiola conducted it.

“We expected the PDP presidential candidate to be well informed on any issue before coming on national television to expose himself to avoidable ridicule.”

The Presidential election, scheduled for February 2023, is seen as a three-way horse race between Peter Obi, the Presidential candidate of the Labour Party, LP, Atiku and Tinubu. Speculation is that for the first time, there could be a run-off.

WAFCON 2022: Bayana Bayana Of South Africa Are African Women Champions

By
Akinwale Kasali
-
0
Bayana Bayana Of South Africa

By Akinwale Kasali

After four previous attempts, the Bayana of Bayana of South Africa are the Continental champions of Africa.

The Coach Ellis Desiree of South Africa girls, against all odds, broke another record and the jinx that had marred it from lifting the coveted trophy for over two decades.

South Africa recorded a 2-1 victory over their host, Atlas Lioness of Morocco, at the Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium on Saturday.

Three goals were scored in the second half, with Hildah Magaia netting a brace and Rosella Ayane putting fear into the visitors late in the match with her consolation strike.

But the South African ladies earned a hard-fought victory against a determined Moroccan outfit, who were eager to raise the trophy in front of 52 000-strong home crowd.

Banyana Bayana had been denied in four previous Women’s WAFCON finals – 2000, 2008, 2012 and 2018 – and at the 2022 edition, tasted glory for the first time in the history of the national senior women’s team.

It was also the first time since Bafana Bafana’s heroics in 1996 that a senior national football team was victorious in the Nations’ Cup.

Banyana Bayana return to South Africa on Tuesday, 26 July, with gold medals and an unbeaten streak more than a month since arriving in Rabat, Morocco, on Wednesday, 22 June, more than a week before the tournament kick-started.

Coach Desiree Ellis’s charges defeated tournament favourites Nigeria in their opening match before seeing off Burundi and Botswana to end top of Group C.

Slender 1-0 victories against Tunisia and Zambia in the quarter-finals and semi-finals, respectively, set up the final against Morocco, who knocked out Nigeria to ensure that a first-time champion will be crowned.

It was a nervy start to the final. Both Morocco and Banyana could not muster clean enough passes as the roars from the sold-out crowd looked to have gotten to the players on the field.

However, Banyana threatened first when Jermaine Seoposenwe showed tenacity in bursting forward, fending off a Moroccan defender in the hosts’ penalty area before knocking the ball towards Magaia, who put a strike towards the goal, but her effort was too gentle as a red shirt cleared the danger.

Magaia would get another chance courtesy of the help from Seoposenwe, who again provided the perfect pass to her teammate.

This time, however, Magaia attempted to chip the ball over the Moroccan goalkeeper Khadija Er-Rmichi but it ricocheted off the shoulder, and the Banyana forward attempted to backheel it into the back of the net on her second attempt, only for Nesryne El Chad to boot the ball out the danger area.

On the cusp of half-time, Morocco nearly broke the deadlock as Fatima Tagnaout darted beyond the Banyana defence and played in the perfect low cross in the 18th area with Ayane arriving late, but her left-footed strike went narrowly wide.

For all of her missed goal-scoring chances throughout the tournament, Magaia netted the opening goal 18 minutes into the second period that Seoposenwe superbly assisted. Nine minutes later, Magaia doubled Banyana’s lead, dinking the goalkeeper as she dove to stop the strike.

However, in almost typical South African fashion, it would become even more of a nervy ending as Morocco’s Ayana netted in the 80th minute with nine minutes of stoppage time added on. Somehow, through grit and character, they held on to clinch their first African title.

IPOB: UN Orders Kanu’s Release

By
Tosin Olatokunbo
-
0

The United Nations, UN Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, has ordered the immediate and unconditional release of the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

The UN indicted Nigeria and Kenya Governments for the arrest and extraordinary rendition, torture, and continued detention of Nnamdi Kanu without due process.

The UN Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention also asked the Muhammadu Buhari-led government to pay him adequate compensation for the arbitrary violation of his fundamental human rights.

The group called for the investigation and punishment of government officials and security agents responsible for the torture of the pro-Biafra activist.

The UN directed Nigeria to report back within six months of the transmission of its opinions on Kanu’s matter, steps taken to comply with all the recommendations thereof.

The body also threatened to take further action to ensure the recommendations are complied with, noting that Nigeria and Kenya are signatories to the Convention and should comply.

The 16-page report dated July 20, 2022, was adopted on April 4 by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its 93rd session, held between March 30 – April 8, 2022.

The unedited version of the document sighted by Vanguard was marked: ”Opinion No. 25/2022 concerning Mr. Nwannekaenyi Nnamdi Kenny Okwu-Kanu (Nigeria and Kenya).”

The UN Group said that Kanu was a victim of State persecution as Nigeria failed to provide convincing explanations with proof that he is guilty of treason and other criminal allegations levelled against him.

It said there was no evidence that International laws were observed in the arrest and rendition of Kanu from Kenya.

“Noting the failure of the Government to explain what actions of Mr. Kanu amounted
to such criminal acts and how, and observing the lack of any evidence that any of his actions may in fact amount to such crimes, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Kanu is, in fact, being persecuted for the peaceful exercise of his rights, most notably his freedom of opinion and expression.

“In the present case, the Government of Nigeria has presented no exceptions permitted under article 19 (3) of the Covenant, nor is there any evidence to suggest that Mr. Kanu’s exercise of his right to freedom of opinion and expression was anything but peaceful.

”In fact, the Government has chosen not to provide any explanation for the arrest, detention, and subsequent proceedings against Mr. Kanu. In these circumstances, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Kanu’s detention is thus arbitrary under category II,” UN Working Group said.

The 16-page dossier read in part: “In the present case, Mr. Kanu was not furnished with an arrest warrant by Nigerian authorities, nor was he promptly informed of the grounds for his arrest in Nigeria. Consequently, the Working Group finds that Mr. Kanu’s continued deprivation of liberty
violates his rights under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article
9 of the Covenant, and principles 2, 4, and 10 of the Body of Principles and constitutes
arbitrary detention under category I.”

“Turning to the uncontested allegations that following his rendition to Nigeria, Mr. Kanu remained in pre-trial detention with his trial having been scheduled to commence
in January 2022, the Working Group recalls that it is a well-established norm of international law that pre-trial detention should be the exception rather than the rule, and should be ordered for the shortest time possible. Put differently, liberty is recognized under article 9 (3) of the Covenant as the core consideration, with detention merely as an exception.

“Therefore, detention pending trial must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence, or the recurrence of crime. Such determination was not carried out in the present case, in violation of Mr. Kanu’s rights under article 9 (3) of the Covenant.

“Further, in accordance with Article 9 (3) of the Covenant, an arrested person is to be
brought before a judge within 48 hours.27 This was not satisfied in the case of Mr. Kanu and
the Working Group, therefore, finds a violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, Article 9 (3) of the Covenant, and principles 11, 37, and 38 of the Body of
Principles.

“Furthermore, in order to establish that detention is indeed legal, anyone detained has
the right to challenge the legality of his or her detention before a court, as guaranteed by
Article 9 (4) of the Covenant. The Working Group wishes to recall that according to the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Rights of Anyone Deprived of their Liberty to Bring Proceedings before a Court, the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing human right, which is essential to preserve legality in a democratic society.

“This right, which is in fact a peremptory norm of international law, applies to all forms of deprivation of liberty, 29 to “all situations of
deprivation of liberty, including not only to detention for purposes of criminal proceedings but also to situations of detention under administrative and other fields of law, including military detention, security detention, detention under counter-terrorism measures”.

“Moreover, it also applies “irrespective of the place of detention or the legal terminology used in the legislation. Any form of deprivation of liberty on any ground must be subject to
effective oversight and control by the judiciary. This was also denied to Mr. Kanu, thus, violating his right under Article 9 (4) of the Covenant.

“Finally, turning to Mr. Kanu’s pre-trial detention in Nigeria, the Working Group recalls that according to international human rights law, in particular, Article 9 (3) of the Covenant, any person detained while awaiting trial is entitled to trial within a reasonable
time, or otherwise shall be released. Article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant also guarantees the
right of anyone charged with a criminal offense to be tried without undue delay. In the
absence of a substantive response from the Government of Nigeria, the Working Group finds no legitimate grounds for the delays in the trials against Mr. Kanu.

“Consequently, the Working Group finds that the Government of Nigeria failed to
establish a legal basis for the detention of Mr. Kanu. His detention is thus arbitrary under
category I.”

The UN Working Group said that both the Nigerian and Kenyan Governments should take responsibility for Kanu’s rights violations.

“The Working Group wishes once again to underscore the collusion between the
Governments of Kenya and Nigeria, in the rendition of Mr. Kanu, reiterate that both
Governments bear joint responsibility for any violations of Mr. Kanu’s rights in Kenya and
Nigeria.

“The Working Group has already established in its discussion of the detention of Mr. Kanu in Kenya that he was arrested and detained due to the peaceful exercise of his rights (see paras 52-54 above). The Working Group notes that the source has argued the same in relation to Mr. Kanu’s arrest, detention, and trial proceedings in Nigeria. Notably, the Government of Nigeria has chosen not to address the substance of these allegations.

“The Working Group notes that it is not contested that Mr. Kanu is accused of the crime of conspiracy to commit a treasonable felony through an agreement with others to be broadcast from London, in view of the establishment of a Biafran sovereignty. The source notes that, while treason consists of “levying war” against Nigeria under Nigerian law, the Federal Government of Nigeria does not allege any action implicating Mr. Kanu in the contemplation, planning, or incitement of war against Nigeria. The source argues that
Mr. Kanu was, in fact advocating for a peaceful referendum for the establishment of a Biafran
sovereignty, in conformity with international and other relevant laws.

“The Working Group recalls that freedom of opinion and expression, as expressed in article 19 of the Covenant, is an indispensable condition for the full development of the person. It is essential for any society and constitutes the foundation stone for every free and democratic society. It also recalls that freedom of expression includes the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and that this right includes the expression and receipt of communications of every form of idea and opinion capable of transmission to others, including political opinions.

“Similarly, in Resolution 12/16, the Human Rights Council called on States to refrain from imposing restrictions which are not consistent with article 19 (3), including on the discussion of government policies and political debate; reporting on human rights; engaging in peaceful demonstrations or political activities, including for peace or democracy; and expression of opinion and dissent, religion or belief.”

The UN Working Group further said that the Nigeria Government could not disprove claims by Kanu that he was denied adequate legal representation, including access to his US lawyer.

“The source has submitted, and the Government did not address, that Mr. Kanu was denied effective legal representation. The Working Group considers legal representation as being a core facet of the right to a fair trial. Legal assistance should be available at all stages of criminal proceedings, namely, pre-trial, trial, and appellate stages, to ensure compliance with fair trial guarantees. Any denial of access to lawyers substantially undermines and compromises an accused individual’s capacity to defend him or herself in any judicial proceedings.

“As the Working Group has stated in principle nine and guideline 8 of its Basic Principles,
persons deprived of their liberty have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice,
at any time during their detention, including immediately after the moment of apprehension, and must be promptly informed of this right upon apprehension. Access to legal counsel should not be unlawfully or unreasonably restricted.

“Article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant entitles defendants to adequate time and facilities
for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing. Defendants must have access to documents and other evidence, including “all materials that the prosecution plans to offer in court against the accused or that could assist the defence.

“Recalling general comment No. 32, a detainee has the right to have “prompt access” to legal counsel, meaning that a lawyer must be able to have private communications and meetings with the detainee and be able to attend all the investigations without interference or restrictions. A detainee also ought to have access to “effective counsel.”

“All of this was denied to Mr. Kanu. In the Working Group’s view, by failing to allow
Mr. Kanu to be represented by lawyers of his choice, including an international counsel,
the Government denied Mr. Kanu’s right to legal assistance at all times, which is inherent in the right to liberty and security of the person, as well as the right to a fair and public hearing
by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with articles 3, 9, 10, and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14 of the
Covenant, articles 37 (b) and (d) and 40 (2) (b) (ii) and principles 15, 17, and 18 of the Body
of Principles and principles 1, 5, 7, 8, 21, and 22 of the Basic Principles on the Role of
Lawyers.

“The Working Group is also disturbed by the source’s report of the treatment of
Mr. Kanus’s lawyers recalls its jurisprudence highlighting that such treatment of lawyers is entirely unacceptable and violates articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.41 It is the legal and positive duty of the State to protect everyone on its territory or under its jurisdiction against any human rights violation and to provide remedy whenever a violation still occurs.

“The Working Group also considers that Mr. Kanu’s presumption of innocence was
violated as the Department surrounded the court complex with an array of armed forces,
creating an atmosphere of intimidation and danger (see para. 9), a submission which the
Government has chosen not to contest. The Working Group recalls that defendants should
not be presented to the court in a manner indicating that they may be dangerous criminals, as this also undermines the presumption of innocence. The Working Group finds a breach of Article 14 (2) of the Covenant.

“Further, according to the source and uncontested by the Government, following his
rendition to Nigeria, Mr. Kanu was detained in solitary confinement within the headquarters
of the Department in Abuja, Nigeria. He is reportedly currently still held in a very small cell where he is exposed to daily psychological and mental torture without access to other inmates or any other person except for the Department officers. Mr. Kanu is also allegedly denied access to reading or writing materials and has been refused access to professional medical care despite a serious heart ailment.

“The source reports that Mr. Kanu’s life is in jeopardy and that he suffers from a medical condition occasioned by gradual depletion of potassium in his system, which has defied any medical solution given to him within the Department facilities.

“The Working Group is seriously concerned about the treatment to which Mr. Kanu has been subjected. Especially noting its finding that Mr. Kanu was subjected to extraordinary rendition as well as his treatment prior to that, the Working Group considers it unlikely that Mr. Kanu would have been able to effectively assist with and participate in his own defence during the proceedings against him, and that such treatment proceedings against him, rendering them inherently unfair and unjust, in violation of article 14 of the Covenant. For all the reasons above, the Working Group finds that the fair trial rights and procedural guarantees of Mr. Kanu under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenant, and other relevant human rights standards were not observed and that such violations are of such gravity as to render Mr. Kanu’s detention arbitrary under category III.”

“Mr. Kanu is an activist and the leader of the organization Indigenous People of Biafra,
which he founded in 2012. The source alleges that the Government of Nigeria is targeting
Mr. Kanu, due to his political expression, in particular, due to his membership in a group
politically opposed to the Nigerian Government on the question of Biafra, his widely published criticism of the Government, and his work with and advocacy for the Indigenous People of Biafra. The Government has chosen not to address these allegations.

“The Working Group finds that Mr. Kanu has indeed been targeted by the Government
as a human rights defender on account of his freedom of opinion and expression as well as
his position regarding the sovereignty of Biafra. As Mr. Kanu has been targeted on account of his activism in galvanizing momentum for a referendum on the sovereignty of Biafra, the Working Group considers that his detention violates articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, and is arbitrary under category V.

Concluding remarks: “The Working Group wishes to record its very serious concern for the well-being of Mr. Kanu, who, according to the source and uncontested by the Government of Nigeria,
remains in solitary confinement since his arbitrary detention in Nigeria on 29 June 2021. He has been denied medical treatment and medication for his heart condition. The Working Group recalls that prolonged solitary confinement in excess of 15 consecutive days is prohibited under rules 43(1)(b) and 44 of the Mandela Rules.

“The Working Group is also obliged to remind the Government of Nigeria that in accordance with article 10 of the Covenant, all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect to the inherent dignity of the human person and that denial of medical assistance constitutes a violation of the Nelson Mandela Rules, rules 24, 25, 27 and 30 in particular.

”According to the source, throughout Mr. Kanu’s detention in Kenya and transfer to Nigeria, no family members knew about his location or could access him, and Mr. Kanu was not permitted to contact his family during this detention. These allegations have not been contested by either Governments. The Working Group stresses that, under international human rights law, all detained and imprisoned individuals have the right to communicate and be visited by their families.

“The right to receive visits applies to all detainees, “regardless of the offence of which they are suspected or accused.” Under Principle 19 of the Body of Principles, this right could be subject only to conditions and restrictions that are appropriate to a legitimate aim. Neither Government have argued that the restrictions placed on Mr. Kanu’s contact with his family conformed with this requirement. As a result, the Working Group finds that the restrictions placed on Mr. Kanu’s contact with his family violated his right to contact with the outside world under rules 43 (3) and 58 (1) of the Nelson Mandela Rules and principles 15 and 19 of the Body of Principles.

“Noting the treatment to which Mr. Kanu has been subjected at the hands of both Kenyan and Nigerian authorities as well as his continued solitary confinement, the Working
Group refers this case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment for further consideration.

“The Working Group also wishes to reemphasize its very serious concern over the apparent collusion between the Governments of Kenya and Nigeria in this case and reiterates its findings that both Governments are jointly responsible for the violations of Mr. Kanu’s rights in both jurisdictions. The present Opinion concerns solely the treatment and rights of Mr. Kanu and is position

“In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: In relation to Kenya and Nigeria.

“The deprivation of liberty of Nwannekaenyi Nnamdi Kenny Okwu-Kanu, being in
contravention of articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 26 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights is arbitrary and falls within Categories I, II, III, and V.

“The Working Group requests the Governments of Kenya and Nigeria to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Kanu without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

” The Working Group considers that taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be for the Government of Nigeria to release Mr. Kanu
immediately and for both Governments to accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.

”In the current context of the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the threat that it poses in places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government of Nigeria to take urgent action to ensure the immediate, unconditional release of Mr. Kanu.

” The Working Group urges the two Governments to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Kanu and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.

”In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment for appropriate action.

“The Working Group requests the Governments to disseminate the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible.

Follow-up procedure:

“In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Governments to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including (a) Whether Mr. Kanu has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b) Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Kanu;
(c) Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Kanu
rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation; (d) Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to harmonize the laws and practices of Kenya and Nigeria with its international obligations in line with the present opinion; (e) Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.

“The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and whether further technical assistance is required, for example, through a visit by the Working Group.

“The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present opinion.

“However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.

”The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.”

[NAIJANEWS]

Ekiti: Fresh Lockdown Looms As COVID Cases Rise To 74

By
Ayodele Oni
-
0

By Ayodele Oni

Ekiti State residents are currently gripped with fear over the spike of corona virus infection in the state. The state government, it was learnt is already contemplating a fresh lockdown if the situation persists.

The State Commissioner for Health and Human Services, Dr Oyebanji Filani in a statement in Ado Ekiti, explained that the new cases were recorded after the Eld- EL- Kabir celebration.

The commissioner noted that there was a significant decline in the number of positive COVID-19 cases and low occupancy in the isolation centres before the Eid El Kabir celebrations which occurred early this month.

Even at the height of COVID 19 breakdown in the country, Ekiti remains one of the states which recorded lowest number of cases.

The commissioner appealed to residents of the state to adhere strictly to the government’s public health and social measures to prevent the spread of the virus.

Filani announced some measures to be observed to mitigate the spread of the virus, which include wearing of facemasks in public gatherings, maintaining hand hygiene through proper handwashing or use of alcohol-based hand rub, social or physical distancing.

Others are reporting at the nearest health facility when sick, getting tested and isolated if positive and adhering to COVID-19 measures by banks and other institutions.

He said vaccination remains the most effective means of curbing the pandemic and encouraged all residents of the state to get vaccinated.

Dr Filani confirmed that a total of 384,730 persons were fully vaccinated in the state, leaving greater number of unvaccinated residents.

He explained that the state government has trained and deployed over 80 mobile vaccination teams and 177 health facility-based teams across local governments in the state.

The commissioner encouraged citizens to visit the vaccination post to get their complete COVID-19 jabs.

1...2,0122,0132,014...2,992Page 2,013 of 2,992