Connect with us

News

Why the persecution of Obla, SAN by EFCC can’t Stand 

Published

on

To be precise, on 28 November 2016, Chief Godwin Obla (SAN), a former prosecutor with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), was arraigned before a Lagos High Court in Suit No: LD/3671C/16 alongside the  Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, then a Judge of the Federal High Court, on the allegation that he bribed the latter with the sum of N5 million to secure the conviction of the Defendant in Charge No.:FHC/L/C/482C/10 between the Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Raymond TemisanOmatseye.
Interestingly, the case of FRN V Omatseye was a criminal prosecution in respect of which the EFCC itself had briefed Obla and provided the proof of evidence, witnesses and other information utilized by Oblain the course of the trial.
This trial commenced in February 2011 before  Justice Binta Nyako until 2013 when Obla filed an amended Charge and the Defendant was consequently rearraigned before  Justice Ajumogobia.
The entire trial spanned the course of 5 years i.e. between the first arraignment in 2011 and 20 May 2016 whenthe judgment convicting the Defendant for sundry breaches of the Public Procurement Act was delivered.
In this 5 -year period, Obla appeared before the Court on at least 46 occasions along with junior Counsel on behalf on the EFCC.
It is on record that Omatseye’s conviction was very significant in the fight against corruption and was widely celebrated as the first conviction ever secured by the EFCC for breach of contract approval thresholds under the Public Procurement Act.
 One factor which lends credence to this assertion was the wide celebration by the EFCC of this conviction/Judgment. For instance, the EFCC in its Press Release dated 20th May 2016(which continues to appear on its website www.efccnigeria.org)had the following to say about the Judgment:
“After five years of grueling legal battle, justice is finally served as a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos today convicted a former Director General of the Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, NIMASA, Mr. TemisanOmatseye.
Justice Rita Ofili- Ajumogobia in a landmark ruling convicted the former DG on 25 of the 27-count charge bordering on alleged contract variation, bid rigging and awarding contract above his approval limit which violates the provisions of the Public Procurement Act, brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.”
Again, on May 27 2016, the Acting Chairman of the EFCC, whilst speaking at the launch of the “Clean Hands Against Corruption Campaign” at the Eagle Square in Abuja alluded to the conviction of Raymond Omatseye as one of the “140 convictions the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has secured in six months.”
It is perhaps curious that the same EFCC which lauded the conviction of Raymond Omatseye at several fora, made a complete volte-face to allege that the conviction was secured as a result of “perversion of justice”, moresoas no indication has been given as to whatever motivation Obla might have had to pay a bribe to secure a conviction on a case investigated by the EFCC and for which the EFCC itself provided the witnesses and proof of evidence.  By alleging that Obla attempted to “pervert the course of justice” in the case of FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA v. OMATSEYE, one wonders whether the EFCC was contending that the accused person in that case- who was investigated by the EFCC itself, ought not to have been tried at all, much less convicted and instead ought to have been discharged and acquitted.
In addition to the Omatseye trial,at several times between 2008 and 2015, Obla was engaged by the EFCC to prosecute and/or defend a number of cases at various courts against persons alleged to have been involved in economic and financial crimes or in respect of which the EFCC had been sued.
By virtue of the various instructions of the EFCC to Obla for these various cases, Obla led the prosecution of over 40 cases and spearheaded the recovery of various properties and assets (including cash and shares in Banks and other companies) for the benefit of the EFCC and the Federal Government of Nigeria. All of these forfeited properties/monies were duly handed over to the EFCC.
Despite these sterling achievements as a prosecutor, the EFCC consistently failed to pay Obla’s professional fees and to reimburse him for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him in the course of representing the EFCC in all those cases. All demands by Obla for payment of the said fees and expenses as well as all the reminders issued in their regard were ignored by the EFCC.
Despite the EFCC’s treatment of Obla’s request for fees, to ensure the unimpeded prosecution of these cases, many of which were at crucial and delicate stages of trial, Obla, on behalf and with the full knowledge of the EFCC, continued to incur out-of-pocket expenses to cover filing fees, transport costs for himself and junior colleagues (including flight tickets to attend matters outside jurisdiction), clerical and secretarial costs, accommodation, telephone services, appearances costs etc., all of which culminated in several judgments/rulings/orders in favour of the EFCC and the forfeiture of significant assets and properties (real and monetary).
Notwithstandingits persistent failure to pay Obla’s fees, the EFCC, by a letter dated 14thMarch 2016 purported to disengage Obla from providing legal services to the Commission. In response to the EFCC’s letter, Obla wrote a letter to the EFCC dated14th April 2016 by which he issued a reminder on the long overdue fees and expenses owed to him. It was in the course of this exchange on the issue of fees that the EFCC, perhaps motivated by a desire to avoid the payment of its debts to Obla, filed a criminal charge against Obla and  Justice Ajumogobia before the High Court of Lagos State in SUIT NO: LD/3671C/16, alleging that Obla bribed Justice Ajumogobia to ‘procure’ the conviction ofOmatseye in the EFCC case of FRN V OMATSEYE (Charge No.: FHC/L/C/482C/1.
Obla has since filed a suit against the EFCC before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Suit No: CV/3220/17 claimingthe sum of N 685,389,928.10 (Six Hundred and Eighty-Five Million, Three Hundred and Eighty-Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira and 10 Kobo) and $ 202,460.47 (Two Hundred and Two Thousand, Four Hundred and Sixty Dollars and Forty-Seven Cents) as fees and expenses owed to him by the EFCC.
This suit was initially before the  Justice Valentine Ashi(of blessed memory), and in the course of the trial the parties had led their evidence and filed their final addresses.
It was while waiting for a date for the adoption of the respective final addresses that news filtered in of the unfortunate demise of the presiding Judge.
The case has recently started de novo before the Justice Adeniyi of the High Court of the FCT.
On 28 November 2016, Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia and Godwin Obla (SAN) were arraigned before Justice Hakeem Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court, Ikejaon a 30-count Information dated November 17, 2016- Suit No: LD/3671C/16.The Information was subsequently substituted with a 31-Count Amended Information dated21st February 2018.
Obla was only affected by Counts 1-4 of the information where he was charged with the following:
Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice contrary to section 97(1) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, No. 11, 2011.
That you HON. JUSTICE RITA NGOZI OFILI AJUMOGOBIA AND GODWIN OBLA (SAN) on or about the 21st day of May, 2015 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, conspired with one another to pervert the course of justice in Charge No. FHC/L/C/482C/10 with the sum of N 5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira).
Attempt to pervert the course of justice contrary to section 97 (1) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, No. 11, 2011
That you HON. JUSTICE RITA NGOZI OFILI AJUMOGOBIA AND GODWIN OBLA (SAN) on or about the 21st of May 2015 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, attempted to pervert the course of justice in Charge No. FHC/L/C/482C/10 with the sum of N 5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira)
Offering gratification to a public official contrary to section 64 (1) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, No. 11, 2011
That you GODWIN OBLA (SAN) on or about the 21st day of May, 2015 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court intentionally gave the sum of N 5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira only) to Hon. Justice RITA NGOZI OFILI AJUMOGOBIA of the Federal High Court directly from your Obla and Company’s account No. 1015319084 domiciled in the United Bank for Africa Plc, in order that the said Judge acts in the exercise of her official duties.
Offering gratification to a public official contrary to section 64 (1) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, No. 11, 2011.
That you GODWIN OBLA (SAN) on or about the 21st day of May, 2015 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, intentionally gave the sum of N 5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira only) to Hon. Justice RITA NGOZI OFILI AJUMOGOBIA of the Federal High Court directly from your Obla and Company’s account No. 1015319084 domiciled in the United Bank for Africa Plc, in order that the said Judge refrains from acting in the exercise of her official duties.”
The trial before the Lagos State High Court spanned more than two (2) years and came up on more than 22 separate dates between28th November 2018 and 16th April 2019 as follows: 28thNovember 2016, 8thDecember 2016, 9thJanuary 2017, 30thJanuary 2017,10thMarch 2017, 17thMarch 2017, 28th April 2017, 26thMay 2017, 1stJune 2017, 6thJuly 2018,  29thSeptember 2017, 10thNovember 2017, 26thJanuary 2018, 23rdFebruary 2018, 23rdMarch 2018, 20thApril 2018, 25thMay 2018, 8thJune 2018, 14thSeptember 2018, 2ndNovember 2018, 14thDecember 2018, 25thJanuary 2019 and 16thApril 2019.
At the Lagos High Court, the EFCC called 14 witnesses and eventually closed its case on14th September 2018.
In the course of its presentation of its case, the EFCC demonstrated that whereas the Charge against Obla was for the payment of N 5 millionfrom his UBA Account, allegedly to Justice Ajumogobia to pervert the course of justice, the evidence before the Court was that no payment was made by Obla into any of her personal accounts. Instead, the payment of the N 5 million in contention was to a registered company – Nigel &Colive Ltd- whose directors did not include Ajumogobia.
Other elements of the EFCC’s case included that no petition was filed against Obla alleging any wrongdoing on Obla’s part in connection with the Omatseye case; that the EFCC did not investigate Obla’s defence that the payment of the amount in question was for the purpose of obtaining building materials for his construction site; that the EFCC defended the Omatseye Judgment and vigorously  resisted the Appeal against his conviction; and that the EFCC’s conclusion that Obla paid a bribe was essentially not predicated on any hard facts.
Obla immediately responded to the closure of the prosecution’s case by filing a no case submission on the same date (14thSeptember 2018), seeking an order of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution had not made out a sufficient case to warrant a defence.
Notwithstanding the weighty submissions made in Obla’s no case submission, the EFCC never filed any reaction to it before the Court.
After Obla filed his no case submission and the EFCC failed/refused to file any response, Justice Ajumogobiafiled a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that, being a judicial officer and by virtue of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of NGANJIWA V FRN(delivered on 11th December 2017), the charge against her could not have been filed until after disciplinary action by the National Judicial Council had been taken against her. Surprisingly, the EFCC Counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, who had conveniently failed to respond to Obla’s no case submission, immediately filed a counter affidavit conceding to Justice Ajumogobia’s objection and in fact urged the court to strike out the charge and discharge both Obla and Ajumogobia.
Obla’s Counsel (Chief I.A. Adedipe, SAN andChief F.O. Orbih, SAN)both argued that considering the stage of the proceedings, the EFCC’s failure/refusal to file any response to Obla’s no case submission ought to be interpreted as a concession to the fact that Obla was entitled to an order discharging and acquitting him on all the counts of the Amended Information related to him.
The Judge however opined that since the jurisdiction of the Court had been challenged, the only issue to consider was whether or not the Court had the jurisdiction to continue with the trial.
Consequently, after more than two years of trial, Justice H. Oshodi on 16th April 2019delivered a ruling striking out the charge before the Lagos High Court. The Court held that based on the judicial precedent set by the case of Nganjiwa V. FRN, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit, as the EFCC “jumped the gun” in filing the Amended Information.
The Court, in its Ruling, seriously deprecated the conduct of both the EFCC and its Counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo and condemned its prosecution of the case in the following words:
                “Before concluding, the Court will want to make one or two comments.
As noted above, the Prosecution, as at Monday 11th December 2017 was aware, as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal in HON. JUSTICE HYELADZIRA NGANJIWA V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (Supra) that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the criminal action filed against the 1stDefendant. As at that day, the 1stAmended Information was yet to be filed. As at that day, the 12th (twelfth) witness for the Prosecution was still giving evidence. One would have thought that the Prosecution would have urged the Court to strike out the case as a consequence of the decision of the Court of Appeal. But no! the Prosecution still persisted, like a bull running amok, amended the Information and called 2 (two) further witnesses.
It ought to be pointed out for record purpose that a counsel is a minister in the temple of justice and as an officer of the Court, a counsel has a duty to assist the Court rather than mislead it. In other climes, where learned counsel that find themselves in such a position, as an officer of the court, will have brought a proper application to have the case abated. Why the Prosecution went on with proceedings when it is obvious that all what the Court was doing amounted to a nullity is best known to them. Precious judicial time had been wasted. Though the Court is aware of the provision of Section 285 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2015, which is against a Private Prosecutor, it is so unfortunate that in our judicial system, we have still not devised ways and means to condemn a Prosecuting Agency of the Government, be it State or Federal, in a  criminal action by the payment of heavy cost in situations as this instance, having in mind that a Defendant will have incurred cost in defending the charge, albeit a worthless charge.
It has to be restated that there is no doubt that a counsel is duty bound to present his clients’ case with utmost devotion. But such devotion must be coloured with professional discretion. In other words, counsel must be the master in the conduct of his client’s case and should not be dictated to by his client as to how to conduct the case. It is in recognition of that authority of counsel that Rules 14(c) and 18(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, published as Government Notice No. 69 in Federal Official Gazette No. 5 of 18th January 1980 which deals with how far a lawyer may go in supporting a client’s case and the right of the lawyer to control the incidents of the trial, makes it a provision of a law.
No fear of judicial disfavour of public unpopularity should restrain counsel from the full discharge of his duty. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defence. It must however be borne in mind that the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law…”
The ruling of the Lagos State High Court and the comments of the trial Judge raisea few interesting issues.
For instance, why did the prosecution deliberately refuse to notify the Lagos State High Court that the Court lacked jurisdiction as soon as it became aware of that fact? This is even more curious when it is considered that the EFCC was a party to the NGANJIWA case and that it was in fact the same prosecutor (Rotimi Oyedepo) that appeared for the Federal Republic of Nigeria in that case that prosecuted the case against Obla and Ajumogobia at the Lagos State High Court. Again, it is worth asking what the prosecution intended to achieve by calling more witnesses in the trial even after becoming aware that by the decision inNGANJIWA’S case the Court lacked the jurisdiction to try the case, only to subsequently concede to the court’s lack of jurisdiction several months after at the time it did.
It would seem from the observations made by  Justice Oshodi J. in his ruling, that the prosecution’s desire to proceed with a trial even when it was apparent that the court lacked jurisdiction smacked of an intent to persecute the defendants, and not to prosecute them within the bounds of the law.
On 16th April 2019- the same date the Lagos High Court delivered its judgment striking out the Information against Obla and Ajumogobia- Obla filed a notice of appeal (APPEAL NO: CA/LAG/CR/517/2019)challenging the decision of the Court to merely strike out the Information without acquitting him. This Notice of Appeal was subsequently replaced by one filed on 30thApril 2019.
This Appeal mainly seeks an Order of the Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting Obla on the relevant counts of the Information filed at the High Court of Lagos State, having regard to the EFCC’s failure to respond to his no case submission and its concession to the lack of jurisdiction at that stage. The prayers sought in the Appeal (which is currently before the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division) are as follows:
a.       “AN ORDER of the Court of Appeal allowing this appeal and setting aside the decision/Ruling of the High Court of Justice of Lagos State delivered on 16 April 2019.
b.       AN ORDER of the Court of Appealinvoking its jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act Cap. C36 LFN 2004 by assuming jurisdiction over the Appellant’s Application made on 25 January 2019and granting an order permitting the separate trial of the Appellant on Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the 1st Amended Information dated 21 February 2018.
AND/OR ALTERNATIVELY
c.        AN ORDER of the Court of Appeal invoking its jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Cap. C36 LFN 2004to hear and determine the Appellant’s no case submission dated14 September 2018.
d.       A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERdischarging and acquitting the Appellant on Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 as contained in the 1st Amended Information dated 21st February 2018.”
Obla’sAppellant’S Brief was filed on 8 May 2019 and it was served on the EFCC on the same day. Following the EFCC’s failure to file its Brief, Obla’s Counsel filed a Notice of Motion dated 8November 2019 (Motion No: CA/LAG/ROA/CA/128/M/2019) seeking an Order setting the Appeal down for hearing on the Appellant’s Brief alone. The Court of Appeal then fixed 17 October 2019 to hear the said application.
On 16 October 2019, just one day before the date fixed for the hearing of the motion, the EFCCfinally filed its Brief of Argument along with an application to regularize its position in the Appeal.Obla immediately filed his Reply Brief on 17 October 2019 and on the said date withdrew the application dated 8 November 2019.
The Appeal has now been fixed for hearing on 28th May 2020.
On 17th April 2019 – a day after the ruling of the Lagos State High Court striking out the charge and discharging the defendants- the EFCC re-arraigned the defendants before Justice R.  Aikawa of the Federal High Court on an 18-count Charge bordering on conspiracy, unlawful enrichment, and money laundering- Charge No: FHC/139C/19.
 A review of this fresh Charge shows thatCounts 1,2 and 3which affect Obla personally are predicated on the same facts and elements as Counts 1,2,3 and 4 of the Information struck out by the Lagos High Court (SUIT NO: LD/3671C/16).
In effect therefore, the filing of this fresh Charge at the Federal High Court on the same facts and evidence as the Information previously struck out by the Lagos High Court (and which is the basis of Obla’s pending appeal) appeared to be an abuse of Court process.
In line with the above, Obla filed an application at the Federal High Court to quash the charge for being an abuse of Court process and a constructive attempt to render Obla’s pending appeal nugatory.
The motion also sought an alternativeorder permitting the separate trial of the Defendants. This Application was predicated on the following points:
That the charge filed at the Federal High Court is:
a.       On the same set of facts and in relation to the same transaction which were/was the subject of the prosecution at the Lagos State High Court.
b.       Against the same Defendants as with the case at the Lagos High Court
c.        Founded on the same proof of evidence and witnesses as with the prosecution at the Lagos High Court.
d.       Prejudicial to the appeal filed by Obla and is obviously intended to overreach him in the prosecution of the said appeal.
On 28th June 2019  Justice R. Aikawa of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division delivered a Ruling dismissing this application. Curiously, for more than three months after the delivery of this ruling, despite numerous and sustained attempts to obtain a copy of the ruling, Obla was unable to obtain a copy of this Ruling for the purpose of appealing against it until 15thOctober 2019.
The eventual release of the copy of the Ruling bearing the text of the Judge’s Ruling followed after a ruling without any text was initially handed over to Obla’s lawyers. This blank ruling was thereafter retrieved and replaced with the correct ruling in circumstances that seemed to suggest that the ruling was either not written initially or was deliberately withheld from Obla in order to frustrate his appeal.
 Owing to the circumstances surrounding the non-release (and eventual release) of this ruling on Obla’s application and the general state of the matter, Obla’s lawyers wrote to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court asking for the Charge to be reassigned to another Judge of the Federal High Courton the ground that Obla may not obtain a fair trial under the Judge presentlyseisedof the matter (i.e. Hon. Justice R.M. Aikawa).
The case at the Federal High Court is currently awaiting the decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court as to whether the Charge should be reassigned to another Judge of the Federal High Court or not. In the meantime, the case has been adjourned to April 29th 2020.
Obla’s travails at the hand of the EFCC- an organization he served as a frontline prosecutor for over five years may not be unconnected with what appears to be a persecution agenda harboured by some elements within the Commission.
The circumstances of his case appear to lend credence to this perspective. Obla, for the five years he was prosecuting for the EFCC, consistently championed the prosecution of several corruption-related cases for the EFCC and obtaining the forfeiture of cash and assets worth several billions of Naira.
However, as soon as a new leadership was appointed to head the anti-graft commission, the table seemingly turned, and he became the hunted.
First, he was invited on several occasions over his perceived role in the Halliburton case- for which he was appointed by the former Attorney General Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke, as part of the legal team which negotiate the plea bargain agreements with the companies involved in the scandal, which culminated in the recovery of the unprecedented sum of $200million for the Federal Government of Nigeria.
Thereafter the EFCC has filed criminal charges at the Lagos State High Court and the Federal High Court respectively alleging that he paid a bribe for a case handled on EFCC’s behalf.
Obla’s travails may not also be unconnected with his suit against the EFCC seeking the recovery of his professional fees to the tune of overN 685,389,928.10 (Six Hundred and Eighty-Five Million, Three Hundred and Eighty-Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira and 10 Kobo).
It is a mystery that after years of meritorious service to the EFCC in various capacities, particularly as prosecutor in no less than 40 cases involving economic and financial crimes- leading to various convictions and the forfeiture of various assets, the EFCC has chosen to treat him with disdain. It remains to be seen whether the pendulum of justice will eventually swing in Obla’s favour

News

STATEMENT ISSUED BY PROGRESSIVES ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, UNITY AND DEMOCRACY (PAJUD)

Published

on

THE FALLACIES OF MIKE IGINI

“It is mean and cowardly and an evidence of weakness and utter demerit, for any group of people to attempt to commend themselves to the public by the negative process of belittling and condemning others.”_

  • Chief Obafemi Awolowo, 28th April, 1951.

The attention of the Progressives Alliance for Justice, Unity and Democracy (PAJUD) has been drawn to the barrage of insults heaped by Mike Igini, former Resident Electoral Commissioner of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), against every perceived and imaginary obstacle to his personal agenda.

We posit that since the return of democracy in 1999, the Nigerian political and electoral firmament has been overdosed with different genres of characters – the good, the bad and the ugly.

We state categorically and without fear of contradiction that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is NOT responsible for the non-appointment of Mike Igini as either Chairman of INEC or National Commissioner since he left office in disgrace and engulfed in controversies in the South-South.

Igini must understand that such appointments are not done willy-nilly. They are based on several criteria. He has served two full terms as Resident Electoral Commissioner. For him to be nominated as National Commissioner, a vacancy must exist for his state. This is apart from the principle of rotation of the position among states in the geo-political zone.

Those who know President Bola Ahmed Tinubu closely know he is a leader who does not deliberately shut the door against competence and capacity. Anyone holding him in contempt on this matter is either being mischievous or acting out the script of the opposition, just like the present issue at stake.

It is unfortunate that Igini has allowed himself to be taken advantage of, dancing to the rhythm of anti-Tinubu and anti-Amupitan rogue agents.

We find it compelling to state unequivocally that Igini is blatantly scheming to discredit the present government and the Amupitan-led leadership of INEC in anticipation of reward by opposition elements and spent forces, if they ever win in the post-2027 general elections.

Over the years, we have watched the transformation of Igini from lawyer, to public affairs commentator, to agitator, until the PDP government appointed him Resident Electoral Commissioner.

We are amused at Igini’s feeble attempts at returning to public reckoning, using barefaced criticism, outright lies, mischief and fallacies against the Renewed Hope and reformative agenda as a springboard to relevance and prominence.

For an egocentric, self-seeking bigot and Mr. Know-All like Igini, he wants to remain relevant as a bride for any juicy INEC Election Management Committee headship or membership, which we know will never happen in this dispensation as a result of his antecedents while in office – an era marred by allegations of partisanship, disloyalty and endless controversies.

Your tenure as REC in Cross River State was characterised by mudslinging between you and a political party over unethical conduct unbecoming of an electoral officer. Similarly, your flexing of muscles and one-sided narratives during your tenure as REC of Akwa Ibom State is still very fresh in our memory. Till date, you are still spewing negative narratives against one of the politicians you fought in that state to high heavens.

Nigerians from all strata continue to wonder where the monies for the live telecast of Igini’s exit as Resident Electoral Commissioner of Akwa Ibom State originated from. In the history of INEC – from Dr. Ephraim Akpata, Alhaji Shehu Musa, Dr. Abel Guobadia, the much-vilified Prof. Maurice Iwu, Prof. Attahiru Jega reputed to be Igini’s benefactor, to Prof. Mahmood Yakubu – none of them had the temerity for such lavish display and grandeur during their exit. What was witnessed in the last days of Igini as REC in Akwa Ibom evokes serious questions about collective decency, decorum, moral rectitude and values.

Any argument in support of such an extravagant exit lacks integrity, for the simple reason that the pay slip of INEC Resident Electoral Commissioners and even National Commissioners is not a hidden document. It is known to the Nigerian public.

We believe that if we are sincere in this country, Igini should focus on more important non-partisan issues than chasing shadows. Igini should also address his own record, including the troubling episode of a Kenyan national engaged by INEC as a consultant some years ago, where the voter register fingerprints of Nigerians were allegedly compromised and handed to foreign interests. That despicable act is still fresh in our memory.

As overwhelming majority of Nigerians with voting rights are aware, there is an uncanny lust for power by desperate opposition politicians lurking on the horizon. They are deploying everything on earth just to grab power in 2027, and for no just cause but simply for selfish personal aggrandizement. They have recruited former staff, Directors, Resident Electoral Commissioners and National Commissioners to help execute their warped agenda and barefaced propaganda to deceive gullible Nigerians who will swallow every hook, line and sinker narrative framed by them.

We unreservedly agree with many who have suggested that as a believer in God, Igini should not allow his mind to be poisoned by the notion that any power outside the influence of God could have been responsible for the failure of his emergence as either National Commissioner or Chairman of the Commission.

Whatever it is, there seems to be more to it than meets the eye. The process of creating anarchy starts with incitement against the government, the electoral empire and security agencies. It often appears so smooth as to be imperceptible, hence those who engineer it enjoy the process at the initial stage, only to be consumed at the end of the day.

Elements in the class of Igini, who are acting out the script of falsehood purveyors and peddlers, will be put to shame at the end of the day. There is no doubt that Nigerians are going to have a well-deserved, credible, transparent, free and fair election in the 2027 general elections.

Above all, nobody can dispute the fact that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu nominated people with impeccable ability, capacity, loyalty, patriotism and honesty as members of the election management structure that will drive our democracy forward, in a manner that both Nigerians and the international community will be proud of like never before in our annals.

The focus of the Tinubu administration remains its much stronger determination to protect and respect the sanctity and fidelity of the ballot during the forthcoming elections.

We implore Mike Igini to stop the rabble-rousing, negative framing, mischief, mudslinging and casting of aspersions against the electoral umpire and Mr. President, and find something reasonable to do to earn a living just like other Nigerians, instead of going from one radio station to television stations across the country. His antics are already known to Nigerians who are far more sophisticated and politically savvy than before.

A word is enough for the wise… “WHEN YOU CONDEMN PEOPLE, YOU BRING JUDGEMENT ON YOURSELF.”

Signed:Comrade Yakubu Dan Abba
Country Representative, PAJUD.

Continue Reading

News

PAJUD Accuses Mike Igini of Political Grandstanding, Defends Tinubu, Amupitan

Published

on

The Progressives Alliance for Justice, Unity and Democracy (PAJUD) has accused former Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mike Igini, of attempting to discredit President Bola Tinubu’s administration and the leadership of the electoral body, describing his criticisms as politically motivated.

The group, in a statement signed by its Country Representative, Comrade Yakubu Dan Abba, alleged that Igini was seeking to regain public relevance through persistent criticism of the government and the leadership of INEC under its current chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan.

PAJUD, however, did not provide independent evidence to substantiate its allegations about Igini’s motives.

The group maintained that Tinubu was not responsible for Igini’s non-appointment as INEC chairman or national commissioner after completing his tenure as a Resident Electoral Commissioner, arguing that such appointments were subject to established criteria, vacancies and rotation arrangements among states within geopolitical zones.

“Those who know President Bola Ahmed Tinubu closely know he is a leader who does not deliberately shut the door against competence and capacity,” the statement said.

The group further alleged that Igini’s criticisms were intended to undermine the current administration and INEC’s leadership in anticipation of political rewards from opposition elements following the 2027 general elections.

PAJUD also questioned Igini’s record during his service as Resident Electoral Commissioner in Cross River and Akwa Ibom states, citing past disagreements with political actors and what it described as controversies surrounding his conduct in office.

It also raised questions about the cost and circumstances of the live television broadcast of Igini’s exit from office in Akwa Ibom State, comparing the event with the departures of previous INEC chairmen and other senior electoral officials.

The group did not provide documentary evidence to establish wrongdoing in connection with the broadcast.

In another allegation, PAJUD called on Igini to address what it described as concerns surrounding the engagement of a Kenyan national as an INEC consultant and the alleged compromise of Nigerian voters’ fingerprint data. The statement, however, did not present evidence establishing that Igini was personally responsible for any compromise of the data.

The alliance accused opposition politicians of attempting to discredit the electoral system ahead of the 2027 elections, alleging that some former electoral officials were being used to advance political interests. It did not identify the individuals allegedly involved or provide evidence supporting the claim.

PAJUD, meanwhile, expressed confidence in the ability of the current INEC leadership to conduct credible, transparent, free and fair elections in 2027.

It said the Tinubu administration remained committed to protecting the integrity of the ballot, adding that the president had nominated individuals it described as capable, patriotic and committed to the country’s democratic development.

The group urged Igini to refrain from what it characterised as inflammatory criticism of the president and the electoral commission, insisting that public discourse on electoral reform should be guided by responsibility and respect for democratic institutions.

Quoting former Premier of the Western Region, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the alliance recalled his statement of April 28, 1951, that it was “mean and cowardly” for any group to seek public approval by belittling and condemning others.

PAJUD concluded by urging Nigerians to remain confident in the electoral process ahead of the 2027 general elections, while reiterating its support for the Tinubu administration and the current leadership of INEC.

Continue Reading

News

FJF Backs NSCDC Probe into Niger Miners’ Deaths, Cautions Diaspora Group Against Protest

Published

on

The Freelance Journalist Federation (FJF) has expressed confidence in the committee investigating the reported deaths of 37 miners in Niger State, urging the public to allow the panel to conclude its assignment without undue pressure.

The federation’s position followed threats by the Nigeria Diaspora Organizations and Community for Human Rights (NDOCHR) to stage a protest at the headquarters of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Abuja over alleged delays in releasing the investigation’s findings.

FJF in a statement issued on Friday and jointly signed by FJF conveners Ibrahim Ali, Jonathan Modi, Okpara Isaac and Christopher Abah, described the investigative process as transparent and thorough, insisting that sufficient time should be allowed for the committee to complete its work and establish the facts surrounding the incident.

The federation criticised the proposed demonstration, describing it as unnecessary and politically motivated, while warning against actions that could heighten tensions over an issue involving the loss of human lives.

It also commended the leadership of the NSCDC, the Minister of Interior and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for what it described as their commitment to transparency, accountability and the rule of law.

According to the FJF, local civil society organisations monitoring the proceedings have expressed satisfaction with the panel’s conduct. However, the federation maintained that the investigation should be allowed to run its course before conclusions are drawn.

The group also rejected calls by the diaspora organisation for the immediate removal and prosecution of the NSCDC Commandant-General, Dr Ahmed Abubakar Audi, describing the demands as premature and inconsistent with the principle of fair hearing.
It argued that calls for sanctions before the conclusion of the investigation could undermine due process and prejudice public perception of the committee’s work.

The NDOCHR had also threatened to petition the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague over the matter. In response, the FJF maintained that Nigeria’s domestic legal and investigative institutions should be allowed to address the allegations through established procedures.

The federation urged Nigerians in the diaspora to exercise restraint and avoid actions that could inflame political tensions or interfere with the ongoing investigation.

It urged members of the public to remain calm and await the committee’s official findings, stressing that a thorough investigation was necessary to establish the circumstances surrounding the reported deaths and determine any responsibility arising from the incident.
The committee’s final findings and any subsequent official actions are expected to be central to resolving the concerns surrounding the incident.

The statement further called on the Inspector-General of Police and other security agencies to take appropriate steps to maintain public order in the Federal Capital Territory.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.