Politics
IN DEFENCE OF SHETTIMA OVER ALLEGED NEPOTISM.
By: Dr. Umar Duhu
As I perused the article published on August 4, 2025, I was taken aback by the blatant fabrications and mischievous reporting designed to malign the character and reputation of Vice President Kashim Shettima GCON.
As a concerned citizen and a member of the APC, I feel compelled to set the record straight and correct the misleading narrative perpetuated by the article, which is nothing short of a calumny.
It is imperative to correct the misleading assertion that Vice President Kashim Shettima channeled resources to other states in the North East region during the 2023 elections. In reality, the APC emerged victorious in only Borno State in the North East, rendering the claim of resource allocation to other states in the region patently false. This error betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the electoral dynamics of the North East Region, which is a clear manifestation of ignorance of the pertinent facts.
The article’s claims of nepotism and marginalization are unfounded and lack concrete evidence. The accusations made by certain APC chieftains from the North East region are politically motivated and driven by personal interests, which is a classic case of mens rea. It is surprising that the authors of the article failed to provide any credible evidence to support their claims, relying instead on hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations, which is a clear breach of the principles of audi alteram partem.
A cursory examination of the North East Development Commission (NEDC) Establishment Act of 2017 reveals that the Act does not mandate the rotation of the Managing Director and CEO position among the six North East states. In fact, Section 10 (1) and (2) of the NEDC Act provides that the Managing Director shall be appointed by the President and shall hold office for a term of four years, renewable for only one further term of four years. Therefore, the allegations of Shettima’s interference in the NEDC are baseless and demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the Commission’s Governing Statutes, which is a manifest error.
Moreover, it is essential to correct the misleading narrative that Vice President Shettima is responsible for appointments. The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, not the Vice President, makes all appointments, as enshrined in Section 147 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). This fundamental fact has been conveniently ignored in the article, revealing a lack of understanding of the constitutional roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Vice President.
Contrary to the allegations of nepotism, the Office of the Vice President has a diverse team with appointments reflecting the federal character of Nigeria. In fact, several persons appointed in the Office of the Vice President are not from Borno State or the North East region. They are not even from the same faith with the Vice President. This demonstrates the commitment to inclusivity and diversity, and belies the claims of nepotism and favouritism, which are nothing short of a mere canard.
The article’s assertion that Vice President Shettima replaced other NEDC Commissioners and Appointees from across the region with individuals loyal to him is a gross exaggeration. The changes made to the NEDC leadership were done in accordance with established procedures and protocols, and were intended to enhance the Commission’s effectiveness and efficiency, which is a legitimate exercise of the powers conferred on the President by the NEDC Act.
It is apparent that the article’s authors are attempting to create a false narrative to support their own political agendas. The ADC party’s desperation to gain traction in the North East region is evident in this malicious report, which seeks to exploit ethnic and regional sentiments for political gain, a clear case of argumentum ad hominem.
I urge the public to disregard this baseless and mischievous article, as it is nothing but a desperate attempt to try to discredit the Vice President Kashim Shettima and create unnecessary tension within the APC. I also call on the authors of the article to retract their false claims and apologize for their malicious and defamatory statements, else, history will not be kind to them and their cohorts.
Umar D. Duhu, LLM, Ph.D.
galadimadluku@gmail.com
An independent investigation by Nigerian Concord Newspaper has found no evidence linking a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, to the Utan Bran compensation case or other alleged scandals at the Federal Ministry of Justice.
The investigation, conducted at the Federal Ministry of Justice, followed reports in sections of the media alleging misconduct by the former chief law officer of the federation.
Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act indicate that Chief Aondoakaa was not involved in the legal firms that handled the Utan Bran compensation matter. Findings further show that the judgement debt related to the case was reportedly paid in 2006 under the tenure of a former Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN, during the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Multiple officials at the Federal Ministry of Justice, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described Chief Aondoakaa’s tenure as one marked by adherence to the rule of law. The sources said court orders were generally complied with during his time in office.
They also questioned claims portraying the former Attorney General as emblematic of alleged institutional failings within the legal system, stating that no specific instance had been cited in which he abused public office or undermined court judgements.
Regarding reports suggesting that Chief Aondoakaa interfered with court processes during the post-election period of the 2007 National Assembly elections, sources within the ministry said available records do not support claims that he acted to obstruct court orders or delay the swearing-in of elected officials.
On questions surrounding eligibility to hold public office, legal practitioners pointed to established Supreme Court jurisprudence, which holds that concurrent judgements carry equal legal weight with lead judgements. A concurring opinion by Justice Mary Odili, JSC, was cited as stating that the issue of disqualification from public office did not arise in the matter concerning Aondoakaa.
The case is reportedly the subject of further judicial proceedings, following claims that earlier judgements were obtained through misrepresentation. The matter remains pending before the courts.
Sources also said documents generated during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, and signed by senior officials of the Ministry of Justice, support the position that Chief Aondoakaa was not implicated in the Utan Bran case. Nigerian Concord Newspaper said it would publish the documents after concluding its investigation.
Further findings indicate that the former Attorney General was not linked to major cases such as the Halliburton scandal, the OPL 245 (Malabu) oil deal, or the recovery of Abacha-era assets.
Supporters of Aondoakaa also note that he was cleared by his party to participate in the 2023 governorship primary election, arguing that this further demonstrates that no court order barred him from holding public office.
Legal experts reaffirm that qualifications and disqualifications for elective office are constitutionally defined, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation, which established that constitutional provisions on eligibility cannot be expanded or restricted by implication.
An independent investigation by Nigerian Concord Newspaper has found no evidence linking a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, to the Utan Bran compensation case or other alleged scandals at the Federal Ministry of Justice.
The investigation, conducted at the Federal Ministry of Justice, followed reports in sections of the media alleging misconduct by the former chief law officer of the federation.
Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act indicate that Chief Aondoakaa was not involved in the legal firms that handled the Utan Bran compensation matter. Findings further show that the judgement debt related to the case was reportedly paid in 2006 under the tenure of a former Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN, during the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Multiple officials at the Federal Ministry of Justice, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described Chief Aondoakaa’s tenure as one marked by adherence to the rule of law. The sources said court orders were generally complied with during his time in office.
They also questioned claims portraying the former Attorney General as emblematic of alleged institutional failings within the legal system, stating that no specific instance had been cited in which he abused public office or undermined court judgements.
Regarding reports suggesting that Chief Aondoakaa interfered with court processes during the post-election period of the 2007 National Assembly elections, sources within the ministry said available records do not support claims that he acted to obstruct court orders or delay the swearing-in of elected officials.
On questions surrounding eligibility to hold public office, legal practitioners pointed to established Supreme Court jurisprudence, which holds that concurrent judgements carry equal legal weight with lead judgements. A concurring opinion by Justice Mary Odili, JSC, was cited as stating that the issue of disqualification from public office did not arise in the matter concerning Aondoakaa.
The case is reportedly the subject of further judicial proceedings, following claims that earlier judgements were obtained through misrepresentation. The matter remains pending before the courts.
Sources also said documents generated during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, and signed by senior officials of the Ministry of Justice, support the position that Chief Aondoakaa was not implicated in the Utan Bran case. Nigerian Concord Newspaper said it would publish the documents after concluding its investigation.
Further findings indicate that the former Attorney General was not linked to major cases such as the Halliburton scandal, the OPL 245 (Malabu) oil deal, or the recovery of Abacha-era assets.
Supporters of Aondoakaa also note that he was cleared by his party to participate in the 2023 governorship primary election, arguing that this further demonstrates that no court order barred him from holding public office.
Legal experts reaffirm that qualifications and disqualifications for elective office are constitutionally defined, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation, which established that constitutional provisions on eligibility cannot be expanded or restricted by implication.
An independent investigation by Nigerian Concord Newspaper has found no evidence linking a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, to the Utan Bran compensation case or other alleged scandals at the Federal Ministry of Justice.
The investigation, conducted at the Federal Ministry of Justice, followed reports in sections of the media alleging misconduct by the former chief law officer of the federation.
Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act indicate that Chief Aondoakaa was not involved in the legal firms that handled the Utan Bran compensation matter. Findings further show that the judgement debt related to the case was reportedly paid in 2006 under the tenure of a former Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN, during the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Multiple officials at the Federal Ministry of Justice, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described Chief Aondoakaa’s tenure as one marked by adherence to the rule of law. The sources said court orders were generally complied with during his time in office.
They also questioned claims portraying the former Attorney General as emblematic of alleged institutional failings within the legal system, stating that no specific instance had been cited in which he abused public office or undermined court judgements.
Regarding reports suggesting that Chief Aondoakaa interfered with court processes during the post-election period of the 2007 National Assembly elections, sources within the ministry said available records do not support claims that he acted to obstruct court orders or delay the swearing-in of elected officials.
On questions surrounding eligibility to hold public office, legal practitioners pointed to established Supreme Court jurisprudence, which holds that concurrent judgements carry equal legal weight with lead judgements. A concurring opinion by Justice Mary Odili, JSC, was cited as stating that the issue of disqualification from public office did not arise in the matter concerning Aondoakaa.
The case is reportedly the subject of further judicial proceedings, following claims that earlier judgements were obtained through misrepresentation. The matter remains pending before the courts.
Sources also said documents generated during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, and signed by senior officials of the Ministry of Justice, support the position that Chief Aondoakaa was not implicated in the Utan Bran case. Nigerian Concord Newspaper said it would publish the documents after concluding its investigation.
Further findings indicate that the former Attorney General was not linked to major cases such as the Halliburton scandal, the OPL 245 (Malabu) oil deal, or the recovery of Abacha-era assets.
Supporters of Aondoakaa also note that he was cleared by his party to participate in the 2023 governorship primary election, arguing that this further demonstrates that no court order barred him from holding public office.
Legal experts reaffirm that qualifications and disqualifications for elective office are constitutionally defined, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation, which established that constitutional provisions on eligibility cannot be expanded or restricted by implication.
Audi: Trajectory of Success and Changing the Narrative
We’ve Known Each Other Since the 90s; I’m Qualified to Call Him a Scumbag – El-Rufai
Electronic Transmission: This Is Just a Warning Protest, We’ll Wait Till Tomorrow – Isaac Fayose
-
Uncategorized5 years agoFG, states urged to harness flooding for ranching, others with technology – Agbaje
-
Headlines10 years agoBreaking: EFCC seals Borno House of Assembly, as Hon members take to their heels
-
News12 years agoNigeria Security Operatives Stage Manhunt For Homosexual Perpetrator
-
News9 years agoHow 21-year-old Girl fled community over accusation of lesbianism
-
News10 years agoYobe Gov Moves Against Deputy
-
Opinion7 years ago7 signs she has friend zoned you
-
Technology4 years ago
Online job placement company headhunts women
-
Headlines10 years agoBorno Dep Gov Abducts Another Church Leader