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

Texas Guardian News
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Books

The Color of Memory: A Rescue Mission in Print

Published

on

  • Book Title: Abiriba Calendar of Events: Past and Present.
  • Author: Dr. Nwojo Kalu Ugah and Prof. Igwe Ebe Udeh, PhD.
  • Publishers:  MIDIUN GROUP INC.
  • Reviewer: Emeaba Onuma Emeaba.
  • Pages: 129.

History is often a silent, monochromatic affair—a collection of graying facts relegated to the dusty corners of the academy. But every so often, a work arrives that refuses to let the past remain quiet. In their latest volume, Abiriba Calendar of Events: Past and Present, Dr. Nwojo Kalu Ugah and Prof. Igwe Ebe Udeh, PhD, do more than document a region; they stage a sensory intervention. Through a marriage of historical rigor and lively visual storytelling, the authors transform what might have been a static archive into a pulsing, audible record of the Abiriba people.

The importance of this intervention cannot be overstated. As a long-standing observer of the region’s social fabric, I find that this work stands as a thoughtful and valuable contribution to the documentation of Abiriba’s history, institutions, and cultural philosophy. It will serve both scholars and future generations as an important record of the distinctive republican heritage of the Abiriba people. It is a sentiment echoed throughout the three pages of glowing commendations that preface the text, where community titans and political leaders unite to praise a volume that has clearly become a communal milestone.

Dr. Ugah and Dr. Udeh’s most striking achievement is the “physicality” of the narrative. The book is heavily illustrated with archival photographs, many of which have been meticulously restored and brought into vivid color. By injecting color into the black-and-white silhouettes of the past, the authors collapse the distance between the contemporary reader and the historical subject. These images are literal and evidentiary; they do not merely “decorate” the text but are woven directly into the paragraphs. As the eye moves from a description of a festival to a photograph of dancers in mid-motion, the prose begins to hum.

However, the book’s unwavering devotion to preservation occasionally veers into the hagiographic. By focusing so intently on the “lively” and the “republican,” the authors sometimes sidestep the more uncomfortable frictions between these ancient rites and the complexities of the twenty-first century. One wishes for a more rigorous interrogation of how these traditions—some rooted in rigid social hierarchies or exclusionary practices—survive the scrutiny of a modern, globalized generation. At times, the narrative feels like a rescue mission so concerned with saving the artifacts that it forgets to ask whether the culture itself can sustain the weight of its own history without significant evolution. This idealistic lens, while beautiful, can occasionally obscure the very real internal conflicts that define a living, breathing community.

Despite this leaning toward the ideal, the book’s “sound” remains undeniable. The authors’ meticulous approach to sensory details suggests a profound sensitivity to the mechanics of cultural memory. By documenting the “snoring and bellowing” of the village drums—the ufĩẽ and the ikoro—with such granular detail, they transcend mere description. We see maidens of Am̃anta village daintily dressed for the Obina dance and Ukpo youths clothed in green ẹkọrọ weeds, and in doing so, we hear the pulse of the marketplace and the rhythm of the festival.

The volume’s sensory immersion is matched by its structural precision. Dr. Ugah and Dr. Udeh have included a comprehensive glossary of Abiriba terms, complete with English translations, ensuring that the “sound” of the culture is decoded for the uninitiated. This appendix is more than a utilitarian tool; it is a vital act of cultural rescue. By documenting the specific vocabulary of the month of Iri Am̃a or the legal principles of Onye Parị Ọba, the authors provide a permanent bridge between oral traditions and the written record.

In an era where history is often flattened by the passage of time, Dr. Ugah and Dr. Udeh have added depth and dimension back to the record. By the final page, the reader is left with the sense that they haven’t just read a history; they have witnessed a revival. They have ensured that, for the Abiriba people, the past will no longer be seen in shades of gray and will certainly no longer be silent.

_________

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

Texas Guardian News
Continue Reading

Africa

U.S. Signals More Strikes in Nigeria as Abuja Confirms Joint Military Campaign

Published

on

The United States has warned that further airstrikes against Islamic State targets in north-western Nigeria are imminent, as Nigerian officials confirmed that recent attacks were part of coordinated operations between both countries.

The warning came hours after U.S. forces struck militant camps in Sokoto State, an operation President Donald Trump publicly framed as a response to what he described as the killing of Christians in Nigeria. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the strikes were only the beginning.

“The president was clear last month: the killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria (and elsewhere) must end,” Hegseth wrote on X. “The Pentagon is always ready, so ISIS found out tonight—on Christmas. More to come. Grateful for Nigerian government support & cooperation.”

Nigeria’s foreign minister, Yusuf Tuggar, confirmed on Friday that the strikes were carried out as part of “joint ongoing operations,” pushing back against earlier tensions sparked by Trump’s public criticism of Nigeria’s handling of insecurity.

The airstrikes followed a brief diplomatic rift after Trump accused Nigeria’s government of failing to protect Christians from militant violence. Nigerian officials responded by reiterating that extremist groups in the country target both Christians and Muslims, and that the conflict is driven by insurgency and criminality rather than religious persecution.

Speaking to Channels Television, Tuggar said Nigeria provided intelligence support for the strikes in Sokoto and described close coordination with Washington. He said he spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio for nearly 20 minutes before briefing President Bola Tinubu and receiving approval to proceed, followed by another call with Rubio to finalize arrangements.

“We have been working closely with the Americans,” Tuggar said. “This is what we’ve always been hoping for—to work together to combat terrorism and stop the deaths of innocent Nigerians. It’s a collaborative effort.”

U.S. Africa Command later confirmed that the strikes were conducted in coordination with Nigerian authorities. An earlier statement, later removed, had suggested the operation was carried out at Nigeria’s request.

Trump, speaking in an interview with Politico, said the operation had originally been scheduled for Wednesday but was delayed at his instruction. “They were going to do it earlier,” he said. “And I said, ‘Nope, let’s give a Christmas present.’ They didn’t think that was coming, but we hit them hard. Every camp got decimated.”

Neither the U.S. nor Nigerian authorities have disclosed casualty figures or confirmed whether militants were killed. Tuggar, when asked whether additional strikes were planned, said only: “You can call it a new phase of an old conflict. For us, this is ongoing.”

Nigeria is officially a secular state, with a population split roughly between Muslims and Christians. While violence against Christian communities has drawn increasing attention from religious conservatives in the United States, Nigeria’s government maintains that extremist groups operate without regard to faith, attacking civilians across religious lines.

Trump’s public rhetoric contrasts with his 2024 campaign messaging, in which he cast himself as a “candidate of peace” who would pull the United States out of what he called endless foreign wars. Yet his second term has already seen expanded U.S. military action abroad, including strikes in Yemen, Iran, and Syria, as well as a significant military buildup in the Caribbean directed at Venezuela.

On the ground in Sokoto State, residents of Jabo village—near one of the strike sites—reported panic and confusion as missiles hit nearby areas. Local residents said no casualties had been recorded, but security forces quickly sealed off the area.

“As it approached our area, the heat became intense,” Abubakar Sani told the Associated Press. “The government should take appropriate measures to protect us. We have never experienced anything like this before.”

Another resident, farmer Sanusi Madabo, said the night sky glowed red for hours. “It was almost like daytime,” he said. “We only learned later that it was a U.S. airstrike.”

For now, both Washington and Abuja are projecting unity. Whether the strikes mark a sustained shift in strategy—or another brief escalation in a long war—remains unclear.

Texas Guardian News
Continue Reading

Africa

Nigeria–Burkina Faso Rift: Military Power, Mistrust, and a Region Out of Balance

Published

on

The brief detention of a Nigerian Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft and its crew in Burkina Faso may have ended quietly, but it exposed a deeper rift shaped by mistrust, insecurity, and uneven military power in West Africa. What was officially a technical emergency landing quickly became a diplomatic and security flashpoint, reflecting not hostility between equals, but anxiety between unequally matched states navigating very different political realities.

On December 8, 2025, the Nigerian Air Force transport aircraft made an unscheduled landing in Bobo-Dioulasso while en route to Portugal. Nigerian authorities described the stop as a precautionary response to a technical fault—standard procedure under international aviation and military safety protocols. Burkina Faso acknowledged the emergency landing but emphasized that the aircraft had violated its airspace, prompting the temporary detention of 11 Nigerian personnel while investigations and repairs were conducted. Within days, the crew and aircraft were released, underscoring a professional, if tense, resolution.

Yet the symbolism mattered. In a Sahel region gripped by coups, insurgencies, and fragile legitimacy, airspace is not merely technical—it is political. Burkina Faso’s reaction reflected a state on edge, hyper-vigilant about sovereignty amid persistent internal threats. Nigeria’s response, measured and restrained, reflected confidence rooted in capacity.

The military imbalance between the two countries is stark. Nigeria fields one of Africa’s most formidable armed forces, with a tri-service structure that includes a large, well-equipped air force, a dominant regional navy, and a sizable army capable of sustained operations. The Nigerian Air Force operates fighter jets such as the JF-17 and F-7Ni, as well as A-29 Super Tucanos for counterinsurgency operations, heavy transport aircraft like the C-130, and an extensive helicopter fleet. This force is designed not only for internal security but for regional power projection and multinational operations.

Burkina Faso’s military, by contrast, is compact and narrowly focused. Its air arm relies on a limited number of light attack aircraft, including Super Tucanos, and a small helicopter fleet primarily dedicated to internal counterinsurgency. There is no navy, no strategic airlift capacity comparable to Nigeria’s, and limited logistical depth. The Burkinabè military is stretched thin, fighting multiple insurgent groups while also managing the political consequences of repeated military takeovers.

This imbalance shapes behavior. Nigeria’s military posture is institutional, outward-looking, and anchored in regional frameworks such as ECOWAS. Burkina Faso’s posture is defensive, reactive, and inward-facing. Where Nigeria seeks stability through deterrence and cooperation, Burkina Faso seeks survival amid constant internal pressure. That difference explains why a technical landing could be perceived as a “serious security breach” rather than a routine aviation incident.

The incident also illuminates why Burkina Faso continues to struggle to regain political balance. Repeated coups have eroded civilian institutions, fractured command structures, and blurred the line between governance and militarization. The armed forces are not just security actors; they are political stakeholders. This creates a cycle where insecurity justifies military rule, and military rule deepens insecurity by weakening democratic legitimacy and regional trust.

Nigeria, despite its own security challenges, has managed to avoid this spiral. Civilian control of the military remains intact, democratic transitions—however imperfect—continue, and its armed forces operate within a clearer constitutional framework. This stability enhances Nigeria’s regional credibility and amplifies its military superiority beyond hardware alone.

The C-130 episode did not escalate into confrontation precisely because of this asymmetry. Burkina Faso could assert sovereignty, but not sustain defiance. Nigeria could have asserted its capability, but chose restraint. In the end, professionalism prevailed.

Still, the rift lingers. It is not about one aircraft or one landing, but about two countries moving in different strategic directions. Nigeria stands as a regional anchor with superior military power and institutional depth. Burkina Faso remains a state searching for equilibrium—politically fragile, militarily constrained, and acutely sensitive to every perceived threat from the skies above.

Texas Guardian News
Continue Reading

Trending