Connect with us

Nigeria

Presidency, Onochie, Senate and sanctity of future elections

Published

on

IT was in October 2020 that President Muhammadu Buhari nominated four commissioners for inclusion in the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). But, out of the five nominees whose names were sent via a letter to the Nigeria Senate including, Lauretta Onochie, Kunle Ajayi, Seidu Ahmed and Mohammed Sani, that of Onochie raised much dust.

Nigerians were bitter with the President, wondering what he intended to achieve by appointing his Personal Assistant on Social Media as a member of the nation’s electoral umpire.Many of those that raised their voices against the nomination, especially the Nigeria Bar of Association, were riled by the act of impunity by the President, particularly the implication of Onochie’s appointment on the country’s electoral process.

It was further recalled how President Buhari stonewalled the reforms of the electoral process by his reluctance and outright refusal to assent to the 2010 Electoral Act as amended by the Eighth plenary of the National Assembly.

Although the Ninth National Assembly assured that passage of the Electoral Act was its priority legislative assignment, two years after the lawmakers came on board Nigeria is yet to have an updated Electoral Act.

It was therefore against that background that two years to the next general election, President Buhari insisted on renewing the submission of the names of his Personal Assistant on New Media, Onochie, to the Senate for confirmation after it was stepped down eight months ago.

In his letter seeking confirmation for the nominee, which was read by the President of Senate, Ahmed Lawan, President Buhari remarked that the appointment was in line with paragraph 14 of Part 1f of the first schedule of the 1999 Constitution.

And just like it happened last year, when her named propped up at the Senate sitting, Nigerians were incensed at the possibility of having a well known card-carrying member of a political party-All Progressives Congress (APC)-as INEC commissioner. This is just as the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), maintained that Ms. Onochie has no business in INEC as one of its commissioners.

Civil society groups also weighed in on the matter, expressing outrage that having the President’s aide and APC chieftain in INEC would remove every semblance of public confidence in the Commission, particularly the 2023 general elections.

In virtually all the voices of opposition to Onochie’s nomination, much stress was laid on Section 14(2a) of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The section stipulates: “A member of the commission shall be non-partisan and a person of unquestionable integrity.”

But, either the Presidency was oblivious to the constitutional wedge or desirous of rubbing in its control on the Senate, Onochie’s name made it back to the Red Chamber. And the sparks began to fly once more.

Contest of law, loyalty
NO sooner than the letter introducing the subject matter reached the Senate President’s table that the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) raised strong objections, warning that it would consider litigation to impress it upon the Presidency that the rule of law must be observed on the issue.

Even as the NBA picked holes on Onochie’s fitness to serve as INEC commissioner, it noted that the President ought and should have consulted with stakeholders so as to avoid the imperatives of ego and sentiments. While urging the Senate to decline clearance for the President’s aide, the NBA, through a letter addressed to Chairman of Senate Committee on INEC, Alhaji Kabiru Gaya (APC, Kano) said the nominee’s political affiliation violates her appointment to the sensitive office.

NBA’s Head of Public Interest and Development Law, Mr. Monday Ubani, who signed the letter demanded that Onochie should be dropped on the premise of her political bias. Citing the need to observe due process, NBA expressed doubts as to whether the Council of State was consulted before Ms. Onochie was nominated in line with Section 154 (3) of the Constitution.

He argued: “By law, the council has the authority to advise the President as he exercises his power over INEC and any appointment in the electoral commission. Most importantly, Paragraph 14 of Part I of the Third Schedule of the Constitution (as amended) in Section 30 Number 1 of 2020, says a member of INEC should be ‘non-partisan.

“Can Ms. Lauretta Onochie be regarded by anyone in Nigeria, knowing her antecedent as the Special Assistant to the President, as ‘non-partisan’ under the Nigerian context? The right answer is No.”

Last year, precisely on   October 12, 2020, the Senate spurned her nomination in response to massive protest by some Senators, who noted her active partisan political participation.

A source confided in The Guardian that after Mrs. Amina Zakari bowed out of INEC, President Buhari sees Onochie as a loyal ally that would fill the void created. “President Buhari reposes much confidence in women and he is interested in pushing the few that have always been around him. That is why he is insisting on having the Delta-born lady to be in INEC,” the source stated.

But, in rewarding loyalty, it would be seen how the Senators, majority of whom belong to the governing APC would navigate their way through the constitutional huddles raised by Nigerians, particularly the NBA. Would the APC Senators save the President’s ego or bow to the intendments of the Constitution on this issue of Ms. Onochie’s recommendation for INEC?

That dilemma was discernible last Wednesday, when Senate Leader, Dr. Yahaya Abdullahi (APC, Kebbi North) conveyed President Buhari’s letter asking the lawmakers to confirm the nominees. In a voice subdued by the reality of the moment, Senator Abdullahi invited his colleagues “to consider the request of Mr. President on the confirmation of the nomination of the following persons for appointment as commissioners of INEC in accordance with paragraph 14 part I(F) of the third schedule to the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.

“The nominees are: Prof. Muhammad Sani Kallah (Commissioner Katsina); Lauretta Onochie (Commissioner Delta), Prof. Kunle Cornelius Ajayi (Commissioner Ekiti); Saidu Babura Ahmad (Commissioner Jigawa); Prof. Sani Muhammad Adam (Commissioner North Central) and Dr. Baba Bila (Commissioner North East).”

Rising to the tricky occasion, the Senate Minority Leader, Enyinnaya Abaribe (PDP, Abia South) wondered aloud why no other nominee was chosen by the President to replace Onochie after the first failed excursion. Perfunctorily seconding the motion, Abaribe observed, “We have dealt with the matter of the nomination of Lauretta Onochie. So, we feel surprised the same name has resurfaced no longer as a national commissioner, but as Delta State commissioner.

“Reluctantly, I second the motion that these nominations be referred to the appropriate committee for action. We shall meet in Philippi.”

The Senate President in familiar manner had tried to rationalise Onochie’s nomination by explaining that instead of Resident Electoral Commissioner, the Presidential aide was being appointed as INEC national commissioner to represent Delta State.

Yet, as a ranking Senator, it was obvious that Abaribe knows that the final showdown would come after the Senate Committee on INEC concludes its work. The allusion to Philippi therefore, is a veiled reference to the clash of constitution and Presidential consideration, which propelled the second missionary journey of the Delta nominee.

The job of sifting through the various arguments marshalled by those opposed to Onochie’s nomination, as well as petitions by civil society groups, including NBA and the Situation Room falls on the committee, which is expected to submit its report for confirmation or rejection thereafter.

Senator Abdullahi’s voice was not smooth while reading out the presidential communication, perhaps out of quiet reflection on the fact that the instant confirmation exercise was contrary to the practice adopted by the Ahmed Lawan-led Senate, which completes screening and confirmation within weeks. But, on account of Onochie, the current exercise is taking almost one year.Impartial umpire
SPEAKING when the INEC chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, visited the Presidential Villa to render update on the scale of damage and destruction visited on the commission’s offices across the country, President Buhari assured that he would provide the electoral umpire all it needs to deliver credible polls.

The President emphasised that there should be no speculations as to whether he would leave office at the end of his tenure on May 29, 2023, stressing that he does not subscribe to fraud in any form.

If the President’s concerns about the survival of democracy after his tenure are real, this is the time to clean up the Electoral Act, and that includes putting men and women of integrity into INEC. Bulldozing the way for Onochie in the Senate in the hope of gaining unfair advantage for any party at the 2023 polls is an old, crooked route Nigerians don’t want to experience.

For the NASS, this is another opportunity to correct an execute arm that is bent on over-hyping its advantages. It happened to former acting chairman of the EFCC, Ibrahim Magu, when the Presidency refused to surrender his nomination to the due process of NASS screening, and at the end of the day, Magu was ditched and his efforts of five years plus were wasted.

If the Presidency and the NASS leadership think they can force their way with Onochie’s nomination, they should also prepare to meet Nigerians in the court of law.

For now, civic groups and opposition parties are insisting that the President must withdraw Onochie’s ‘undemocratic’ nomination on grounds that it could impair the impartiality expected of INEC and credibility of forthcoming elections.

As a certified member of APC, Ms. Onochie openly worked for President Buhari and APC’s interest during previous general elections in 2015 and 2019, a closeness the constitution abhors.

It could be argued that what ultimately happens to Ms. Onochie’s nomination at the Senate would serve as a backcloth to examine what the Presidency and National Assembly intends to do about the Electoral Act amendment and other issues connected to reforming the electoral process for credible polls.

Culled from the Guardian News Nigeria

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Books

‘My Life of Duty and Allegiance’ —An Elder Statesman’s Version of the Truth

Published

on

  • Book Title: My Life of Duty and Allegiance
  • Author: Yakubu Gowon
  • Publishers: Continuity Books.
  • Reviewer: Dr Emeaba O. Emeaba
  • Pages: 881

When a military ruler who presided over a nation’s most catastrophic civil war waits until his tenth decade to publish his memoirs, the reader expects either a profound exercise in grand self-justification or an unburdening of the conscience. In My Life of Duty and Allegiance, General Yakubu Gowon—who assumed power in Nigeria in 1966 at the astonishingly raw age of 31—attempts to give us both. What emerges across 881 densely packed pages is a deeply complex, often moving, yet fundamentally contradictory document: the work of an elder statesman striving to polish his historical legacy, even as his own words repeatedly fracture the varnish.

Gowon’s narrative arc follows a classic post-independence path. Raised in Daura and Wusasa by Christian missionary parents, he traces his early life with an endearing warmth, detailing his rapid ascent through Sandhurst and the Royal Military Academy into the elite officer corps of a newly independent Nigeria. But the heart of the volume, inevitably, is the thirty-month Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), born of the widespread anti-Igbo pogroms that drove a traumatized populace back to the Eastern Region, where secession was declared not out of mere political ambition, but as a desperate, last-stand effort to protect a people facing systemic annihilation—and the turbulent decade of military rule that surrounded it.

To his credit, Gowon writes with an understated dignity that sets his work apart from the bombastic memoirs typical of West Africa’s mid-century military junta leaders. He paints himself not as a tyrant, but as a reluctant servant of statehood—a devout Christian officer forced by tragedy and duty to hold a fracturing federation together at all costs. His reflections on the post-war reconciliation era, anchored by his famous post-conflict decree of “No victor, no vanquished,” radiate a genuine desire to present himself as a noble unifier.

Yet, for all its graceful prose and pious framing, the memoir’s historical value lies less in what it succeeds in proving than in where it visibly falters under critical scrutiny. For historians and careful readers alike, My Life of Duty and Allegiance contains profound textual and factual fractures—moments where the author’s defensive manoeuvring unwittingly conflicts with established records and even his own narrative logic.

Consider Gowon’s account of the chaotic July 29, 1966 counter-coup that brought him to power. Seeking to distance himself from the brutal assassination of his predecessor, General Aguiyi-Ironsi, Gowon writes of an impulsive attempt to save the Supreme Commander by phoning the Ikeja airport to order a rescue helicopter under “Major Paul Dickson.” It is a dramatic, noble story—except that military archives establish there was no officer by that name in the armed forces; the only Paul Dickson present was an Air Force staff sergeant tasked with sentry duty. More damaging still is the author’s silence regarding documented transcripts from that very afternoon, in which he authorized the arrest of Ironsi by rebellious officers, famously pausing before asking, “Can you do it?”

This habit of offering personal alibis in place of historical accountability recurs at key junctures. Addressing the collapse of the crucial January 1967 Aburi Accord in Ghana—the peace agreement that represented the last diplomatic exit ramp before full-scale war—Gowon attributes his acquiescence to a “shivering fever,” claiming he was too ill upon returning to Lagos to make sound decisions. Yet audio recordings of the conference reveal a lucid, composed negotiator. The subsequent dismantling of the accord via Decree No. 8 was not the by-product of malaria, but a calculated political retreat orchestrated under heavy pressure from senior federal bureaucrats and military advisers who feared a loss of centralized revenue and power.

Perhaps most unsettling is the book’s arithmetic of tragedy. In describing the devastating human toll of the civil war—where federal blockades and famine devastated the civilian population—Gowon routinely reduces the casualties to “thousands who perished.” To reduce a conflict in which an estimated one to two million Biafran non-combatants died of starvation and military action to a mere “thousand” is not simply an exercise in semantic gobbledygook; it is an attempt to rewrite the scale of a national catastrophe.

When the text turns to post-war governance, the contradictions deepen. Gowon presents his fiscal policies and the post-war “Three Rs” (Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, and Reconciliation) as gestures of generous magnanimity. Yet he glosses over the brutal reality of the federal policy that awarded a flat sum of just £20 to returning Easterners regardless of their prior bank balances, alongside the controversial Abandoned Properties Act. To reconcile such economic penalization with the high-minded rhetoric of “No victor, no vanquished” requires a degree of cognitive dissonance that the memoir simply cannot sustain.

Similarly, Gowon defends his 1974 decision to indefinitely postpone the transition to civilian rule—a betrayal of his own promises that directly prompted his overthrow in 1975—by citing the political unreadiness of the nation. It is the classic, self-serving paradox of the military autocrat: claiming the nation is too fragile for democracy after nearly a decade of absolute military control without constructing the very institutions necessary to support it.

The performative nature of the memoir’s publication was further underscored at its public launch in Abuja, where General Theophilus Danjuma—the key officer behind the July 1966 operation against Ironsi that vaulted Gowon to supreme power—served as the event’s primary benefactor, donating a staggering ₦3 billion to the project. For critics, the spectacle was less an act of literary patronage than a symbolic closing of ranks among the war’s chief beneficiaries. That a former career officer whose vast post-military fortune stems not from industrial enterprise, manufacturing, or commercial risk, but from lucrative state-awarded discretionary oil concessions, could single-handedly underwrite the celebration of the regime’s official story speaks volumes. It highlights a troubling continuation of the “spoils of war”—a political economy where the wealth and historical narrative of the state remain firmly concentrated in the hands of the very men who reshaped it by force.

My Life of Duty and Allegiance remains an indispensable primary source. It offers an intimate, highly readable window into the mind of a leader who stood at the absolute epicentre of modern Africa’s most traumatic conflict. But readers seeking a candid historical accounting will be disappointed. General Gowon has given us an evidence of faith, duty, and deliberate selective memory. In trying so painstakingly to defend his record, the aging commander has inadvertently provided the very evidence that destabilizes his official history.

_________

♦ Dr. Emeaba, the author of “A Dictionary of Literature,” writes dime novels in the style of the Onitsha Market Literature sub-genre.

Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Can Nigerian Voters Replicate America’s Midterm Electoral Revolt?

Published

on

“Nigeria does not merely need a voters’ revolt. It needs an electoral revolution.” —Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo

Over the past few days, I have been reflecting on America’s historic midterm elections and reading various analyses of the remarkable voter revolt against the political establishment. American voters demonstrated their willingness to punish political failure at the ballot box. But can Nigerians similarly defeat entrenched power when the very institutions entrusted with protecting their votes remain vulnerable to political interference?

America’s November 3 midterm elections delivered a devastating political verdict. Voters, frustrated by rising living costs, the Iran war, and growing dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump’s leadership, handed Democrats control of both chambers of Congress. Republican strongholds fell, political loyalties shifted, and voters demonstrated that incumbency is no insurance against public anger.

The message was unmistakable: when governance fails, the electorate can withdraw its mandate. But across Nigeria, the American revolt has inspired a provocative question: Can Nigerians replicate this electoral uprising in the 2027 presidential election?

The comparison is compelling, but the institutional realities are profoundly different.

Nigeria has no shortage of reasons for electoral rebellion. Economic hardship, persistent inflation, unemployment, deteriorating purchasing power, insecurity, and widespread distrust of government have created a deeply frustrated population. From kidnapping and rural banditry to failing infrastructure and declining public confidence, the country’s governance challenges demand serious political accountability.

Yet frustration alone does not remove a government. Elections do. And therein lies Nigeria’s democratic predicament.

In the United States, elections are administered through decentralized state and local institutions operating under federal and state laws. Election officials, courts, observers, and established legal procedures provide multiple layers of accountability. The system is imperfect, frequently litigated, and vulnerable to partisan disputes. Nevertheless, its decentralized structure makes nationwide electoral manipulation by a single executive authority considerably more difficult.

Nigeria operates differently. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is constitutionally established as an independent institution. However, its chairman and national commissioners are appointed by the president, subject to Senate confirmation. This arrangement creates legitimate concerns about institutional autonomy, particularly when the appointing authority belongs to a political party contesting the elections.

Nigeria’s electoral history reinforces these concerns. The controversial 2007 presidential election exposed serious weaknesses in electoral administration. In 2015, however, Nigerians demonstrated that incumbency could be defeated when Goodluck Jonathan lost to Muhammadu Buhari. That historic transition remains powerful evidence that peaceful electoral change is possible.

But the 2023 presidential election again exposed institutional distrust. Disputes over electronic result transmission, transparency, and electoral procedures eventually reached the Supreme Court, which upheld President Bola Tinubu’s victory.

Courts are constitutionally empowered to resolve election disputes. The problem is not judicial involvement itself, but the perception that electoral outcomes increasingly depend on litigation rather than the unquestioned credibility of votes cast.

When citizens begin to believe that ballots are merely preliminary documents awaiting judicial interpretation, democracy suffers a dangerous credibility crisis.

Equally troubling is the protection of votes. INEC administers federal elections, while the Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies provide electoral security. These institutions operate within a centralized federal framework, raising concerns about executive influence over personnel, deployment, and operational independence.

How, then, can Nigerians stage an American-style electoral revolt when the institutions protecting their votes are themselves subjects of public suspicion? The answer requires more than opposition slogans, social media outrage, or massive political rallies.

First, Nigeria must constitutionally reform INEC’s appointment process. An independent, multipartisan selection mechanism, transparent public hearings, protected tenure, and guaranteed funding would reduce executive influence and strengthen electoral credibility.

Second, judicial independence must become nonnegotiable. Transparent appointments, financial autonomy, enforceable ethical standards, and expedited election petitions are essential. Courts must remain impartial arbiters, not become perceived substitutes for the electorate.

Third, electronic transmission and public verification of polling-unit results must become legally enforceable safeguards, supported by independent audits and meaningful penalties for manipulation.

Fourth, election security must be operationally insulated from partisan directives. Electoral offenses, including intimidation, ballot destruction, and result falsification, must attract swift and credible prosecution.

Voters must organize beyond ethnic loyalty

Finally, voters must organize beyond ethnic loyalty, religious sentiment, and online activism. They must register, mobilize, monitor polling units, document irregularities, and protect their electoral mandate through lawful civic participation. The ultimate tragedy of Nigerian democracy is not that citizens lack the courage to reject failed leadership. It is that they cannot consistently trust the machinery entrusted with translating their rejection into political change.

America’s midterms demonstrated the power of electoral accountability. Nigeria’s 2027 elections must confront a more fundamental question: whether the ballot remains stronger than the political establishment.

A democracy becomes a dangerous deception when citizens are permitted to vote but cannot confidently determine who wins. Nigeria does not merely need a voters’ revolt. It needs an electoral revolution in which institutions become stronger than incumbents, ballots become stronger than political influence, and the people’s verdict becomes stronger than the machinery of power.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Continue Reading

Education

Professor Josephine Onyido Earns Prestigious Nigerian Academy of Education Induction

Published

on

University of Port Harcourt scholar will be inducted into Nigeria’s apex education academy in Abuja, marking another milestone in a career spanning teaching, research, leadership, mentorship and advocacy

HOUSTON, TEXAS — Professor Josephine Azuka Onyido, an accomplished scholar and academic leader at the University of Port Harcourt, will be inducted into the Nigerian Academy of Education on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, in recognition of her contributions to the advancement of education.

The ceremony, scheduled for the Conference Hall of the National Commission for Colleges of Education in Abuja, places Onyido among scholars recognized for sustained contributions to education, research, and academic development in Nigeria.

A Professor in the Department of Educational Foundations at the University of Port Harcourt, Onyido has built a career encompassing teaching, research, administration, mentorship, curriculum development, and institutional service.

She described the forthcoming recognition as both an honor and a renewed obligation to education. “I receive this recognition with profound gratitude and humility. My journey in education has always been driven by the belief that scholarship must extend beyond the classroom and contribute meaningfully to society. This induction is not simply a personal achievement; it strengthens my responsibility to continue advancing quality education, mentoring future scholars, and promoting opportunities for women and girls. I am deeply grateful to my family, colleagues, students, and everyone who has been part of this journey.”

Onyido earned a Bachelor of Arts in Education (English), a Master of Education, and a Ph.D. in Sociology of Education. She is also a permanent member of the University of Port Harcourt Senate. Her scholarly record includes more than 90 journal articles, book chapters and Sociology of Education Made Easy, a textbook developed to make concepts in the discipline more accessible to students.

Much of her research examines the intersection of education and society, with particular emphasis on gender, women’s empowerment, educational development, social justice and the rights of women and girls. Her work advocates translating academic research into policies and practices that expand educational opportunities and strengthen human-capital development.

Beyond research, Onyido has occupied several academic leadership positions. She served as Acting Head of the Department of Educational Foundations from 2021 to 2023 and has worked as the Departmental Coordinator of Postgraduate Programs, the Anti-Plagiarism Coordinator, the Academic Adviser, and the Editor of the Port Harcourt Journal of Education Studies.

Her influence also extends beyond her university. She has served as an external examiner for several institutions and has participated as a resource person for the National Teachers’ Institute, the University of Port Harcourt, the Centers for Higher Education and Sandwich Programs, and the National Universities Commission verification exercise.

Internationally, Onyido represented the Niger Delta Development Commission at the African Women in Leadership Conference in Kigali, Rwanda, expanding her engagement with issues of women’s leadership, empowerment, and social transformation.

She belongs to several professional organizations, including the Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria, the Association of Sociologists of Education of Nigeria, and the International Association for Gender Equity.

Her academic and community work have earned numerous recognitions, including the Millennium Development Ambassador Award, Lecturer of the Year, Outstanding Project Supervisor, and Professional Service awards.

Yet Onyido’s story also reaches deeply into heritage and service. She is the great-great-granddaughter of King Josiah Constance Ockiya, MINGI VII, Amanyanabo of Nembe Kingdom and Supreme King of Brass. Her great-grandfather, Rev. Daniel Ockiya, translated the Bible into the Nembe language.

A committed Catholic and Jerusalem pilgrim, she has also served in church and community leadership positions and was recognized by the Catholic Women Organization of the Port Harcourt Diocese as a “Quintessential Woman.”

For Onyido, the November 4 induction represents more than another distinction on an extensive academic résumé. It recognizes a career built around an enduring principle: education achieves its greatest value when knowledge is transformed into opportunity, service, and social progress.

Continue Reading

Trending