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

Column

From Noise to Votes: Nigerian Youth Must Turn Online Fire into Electoral Power

Published

on

Young Nigerians have shown a remarkable ability to create waves in the digital space. With a single click, they can expose a politician’s corruption, rally tens of thousands of supporters behind a single hashtag, and keep every political actor on edge from dawn until dusk. However, as the 2027 general elections draw closer, it is time to face an uncomfortable truth: loud online noise isn’t the same as real power in the political sphere. If Nigerian youth wish to get the best possible leadership from their nation’s leaders, they need to take their online activity offline (i.e., to places where actual democracy occurs) and start showing up to cast votes.

There is simply too much evidence to ignore that this needs to occur. Nigeria is a young country demographically. Together, Gen Z and Millennials comprise approximately half of the total population—50.1 percent—according to IntelPoint. Gen Z makes up 25.8 percent and Millennials account for 24.3 percent. When we consider Gen Alpha, the percentage rises to 85.7% of the population under 44. According to ActionAid Nigeria, more than 60% of Nigeria’s population is under 30. According to Afrobarometer, Nigeria has a median age of 18.1 years, and 58% of its population is aged 0-29. Therefore, Nigeria isn’t merely a young country; it is a country dominated by young people.

Based on this information, this dominant demographic should wield considerable political influence. Unfortunately, there often appears to be little correlation between these statistics and political influence. The contrast is striking. While a majority of Nigeria’s population is young, there remains a significant gap between how influential young people are politically and how influential they could be. This lack of influence is not due to a lack of ability among young people; rather, it stems from many young people stopping short of completing what is often called the “civic journey,” which involves moving from awareness to action. They consume politics, engage in political debate on social media, participate in meme politics, and express frustration with politics through social media rants; however, many young people still fail to register to vote (PVCs) or participate in elections in sufficient numbers to affect the outcome.

This disparity is important because youth dissatisfaction is far from abstract. More than 23% of Nigerian youth report being unemployed or seeking employment, according to Afrobarometer. Additionally, more than two-thirds of youth aged 18 to 35 report having some form of postsecondary or secondary-level education. Despite Nigeria ranking among the lowest in providing employment and opportunities for youth, and despite identifying high costs of living, unemployment, crime and security concerns, poverty, poor economic management practices, and insufficient access to electricity as the top five issues requiring immediate attention from government officials, youth dissatisfaction cannot be considered indifferent. Rather, youth dissatisfaction reflects citizens’ grievances and legitimate reasons to be deeply interested in who governs their country.

However, mere interest alone will not suffice. Democracy does not reward passion without participation. A young person can identify every weakness inherent in a political system; however, unless that person participates by casting a vote, they will remain a spectator to their own future. If you are mature enough to understand concepts such as inflation, insecurity, broken campaign promises, unemployment rates, and poorly managed governance systems, you are mature enough to accept responsibility for your role in creating solutions to those problems. That responsibility begins with voting.

In addition to continuing to use social media to raise awareness of voter registration, election knowledge, fact-checking mechanisms used during elections, and peaceful participation methods, social media can also serve as a vehicle for facilitating the transition from social media activism to actual civic engagement. Young Nigerians should leverage their social media presence to encourage voter registration, promote election literacy programs, provide fact-checking services to counter election misinformation, and advocate for nonviolent participation throughout the electoral cycle. They should convert their social media timelines into civic classrooms. Where can I find the information I need about voter registration processes? Where is my assigned polling station located? Where do I receive my Permanent Voter Card? How do I protect myself from spreading misinformation? How do I properly monitor election results? These are not dull topics; they represent essential tools required for surviving democracy.

Youth organizations, creators, and social media entities can also help facilitate offline civic engagement. Use your WhatsApp groups to alert others as registration deadlines approach. Use X Spaces and Instagram Live to focus on discussing relevant issues rather than hurling insults. Use TikTok to simplify the voting process. Use Facebook to motivate family members and first-time voters to participate in elections. Use whatever platforms are available to make civic obligation contagious. Nigeria’s youth have shown they can create viral content. Now they must begin to generate participation on a viral scale.

One of the most damaging myths in Nigerian politics is that “your vote doesn’t matter.” It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that only serves the interests of cynics, crooks, and machines whose success depends solely on low turnout. Yes, Nigeria’s electoral process has flaws. Yes, there have been numerous disappointments. However, the response to a flawed democracy is not abandonment; it is increased participation. By staying home on Election Day, youth essentially give their votes — and therefore control — directly to the very same groups they loathe.

Another mythological excuse for the youth’s failure to vote in Nigeria is the claim that “all politicians are alike.” No — they’re not all the same. While some politicians are inept, others are corrupt, and others exhibit both characteristics, democracy is not about seeking holy men or women; it is about making selections and enforcing accountability. An individual who refuses to make a selection for office because none of the options appear acceptable is ultimately selecting the candidate most likely to emerge victorious by default.

Nigeria’s youth already constitute the country’s largest demographic group. It is time for them to become its strongest democratic force as well. However, that will not be achieved by trending hashtags alone. Instead, it will be achieved when online energy is harnessed and directed toward political organization, civic education, voter registration, increasing voter turnout, and holding elected representatives accountable after elections.

The 2023 election saw remarkable youth participation but lacked follow-up. Therefore, the 2027 election should not produce another generation of disillusioned observers; instead, it should yield a new generation of participatory citizens. Let online flames ignite electoral power. Let debates become ballots. Let criticism evolve into participation. If Nigerian youth can dominate social media, they can also dominate democracy. The future will not be handed to them in a retweet. They must elect it into existence.

_________

♦ Chris Ulasi is on the Editorial Board of The West African Pilot News. He contributes stories about culture and tradition, elite politics, ethnicity and national integration, civil society, and social movement. He is a university professor, community builder, poet, film producer, recording the emergent Nollywood cultural history through film.

Texas Guardian News
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Between Silence and Sabotage: Jonathan’s Return to Political Manipulation

Published

on

“Jonathan’s calculated and weaponized ambiguity breeds deception and weakens emerging political alliances.” —Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo

Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has once again found himself at the center of presidential speculation, floating silently above the country’s political waters while supporters aggressively market him as a possible candidate ahead of another critical election cycle. And once again, Jonathan is doing what he has mastered throughout his political career: saying nothing clearly while allowing political confusion to grow around him.

This pattern is not new. It is the same indecisive political behavior that defined some of the most consequential moments of his rise and fall. Jonathan became president in 2010 following the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. At the time, many northern political stakeholders within the then-ruling PDP believed there was an informal understanding that Jonathan would complete Yar’Adua’s term but not seek another full term in 2011, thereby preserving the party’s zoning arrangement between North and South. Instead of taking a clear and immediate position, Jonathan spent months dribbling the nation politically. He neither fully denied nor openly confirmed his intentions until the political tension had already escalated nationwide.

By the time he eventually declared his candidacy, the damage had been done. Many northern allies who initially supported him felt betrayed, politically cornered, or deceived. The PDP fractured internally, regional distrust deepened, and Jonathan’s relationship with major northern power blocs deteriorated permanently. Though he won the 2011 election, the cracks created by that indecision followed him into 2015, contributing significantly to the coalition that eventually removed him from power.

Yet Jonathan learned little from that experience. Since losing reelection in 2015, his name has repeatedly surfaced during every major electoral cycle as a potential presidential contender. Each time, his supporters strategically floated his candidacy across media platforms and political circles. Each time, Jonathan refused to decisively shut the door. Silence became his political instrument, whereas ambiguity became his strategy.

Now the country is witnessing the same playbook again. As coalition politics intensify and opposition forces attempt to consolidate around alternative political movements, Jonathan’s name has resurfaced aggressively. Reports and speculations about his presidential ambition continue to dominate political discussions, especially within camps seeking to disrupt the growing momentum surrounding Peter Obi and emerging opposition realignments.

The troubling part is not merely that Jonathan’s supporters are campaigning. The troubling part is that Jonathan fully understands the implications of his silence. He knows that his political stature carries enough weight to destabilize fragile coalition negotiations. He knows his name alone can divide campaign structures, weaken consensus-building, and inject uncertainty into opposition calculations. Yet he refuses to publicly and definitively state where he stands.

That is not statesmanship. That is calculated political ambiguity. Jonathan’s political history is filled with similarly contradictory choices. After losing power in 2015, he received widespread praise for conceding defeat peacefully. He initially framed that decision as a sacrifice made to preserve Nigerian lives and prevent violence. Later, however, different narratives emerged suggesting international pressure, particularly from the United States under President Obama. The shifting explanations weakened what could have remained one of his strongest democratic legacies.

Then came another contradiction. Despite emerging politically from the PDP, Jonathan gradually aligned himself closely with the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, serving in diplomatic and goodwill capacities that many PDP loyalists considered politically inappropriate. This unusual closeness fueled longstanding allegations that elements within the APC establishment viewed Jonathan as a useful political instrument capable of destabilizing opposition coalitions from within. Whether those allegations are true or not, Jonathan’s conduct has consistently created room for suspicion.

His political base remains uncertain. His campaign structure is invisible.

Today, his undeclared ambition is already generating confusion among supporters, coalition organizers, and opposition strategists. His political base remains uncertain. His campaign structure is invisible. His intentions are unclear. Yet his loyalists continue mobilizing aggressively in his name while he watches silently from the shadows.

Nigeria is too politically fragile for this kind of elite gamesmanship. At critical national moments, leadership demands clarity, courage, and accountability. Jonathan cannot continue operating as a permanent “maybe” in Nigeria’s political future, thoughtlessly hovering around every election season like an unanswered question designed to manipulate negotiations and weaken emerging alliances.

At this time, Jonathan should sit in or sit out! If he wants to run, he should declare openly, defend his record, and face the democratic process directly. If he does not intend to run, he should immediately and publicly withdraw his name from the political marketplace. Anything short of that increasingly looks less like political strategy and more like calculated deception. Nigeria deserves leaders who make difficult choices openly—not politicians who weaponize silence while others gamble with national uncertainty in their name.

♦ 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

Texas Guardian News
Continue Reading

Nigeria

The Devastation of Insurgency: Nigeria Cannot Kill Its Way Out of Insecurity

Published

on

“Insecurity persists not only because armed groups are present but also because the state is often absent” —Dr. Declan Onwudiwe

Nigeria cannot kill its way out of insecurity. While military victories may win battles, only legitimacy, governance, and economic opportunity can secure lasting peace. Across the country, persistent violence, characterized by impunity and a tragic disregard for human life, has exposed the limits of a force-only approach. The time has come for a more sweeping and planned security response.

What is most troubling is the continuing victimization of innocent citizens, especially women and children. Reports of attacks on farmers, worshippers in churches and mosques, and travelers have become disturbingly routine. Kidnappings, sexual violence, and the killing of schoolchildren have weakened public confidence in the state’s ability to protect its people. These are not individual events but symptoms of a deeper structural crisis. Yet, Nigeria is not without options. A strategic and sustained plan can alter this trajectory.

Cooperation between Nigeria’s security forces and international partners is praiseworthy and necessary. However, a recurring weakness undermines these gains: areas cleared by the military are often left insufficiently secured, allowing insurgents and bandits to return. A viable strategy must go beyond clearing territory to consolidating control. Insurgent groups adapt rapidly; after defeat, they disperse, regroup, and re-emerge in areas where governance is weak. Every community reclaimed by force but left without sustained state presence risks becoming tomorrow’s battleground.

Experience from other regions underscores this point. Countries such as Colombia and Iraq that have made substantial progress against insurgency have done so by maintaining a firm and continuous government presence in liberated areas. Where state authority is visible through security, justice, and basic services, insurgents find it much harder to re-establish control. Where it is absent, violence returns. Nigeria must learn from this reality and prioritize holding territory as much as reclaiming it.

At the heart of the problem is a governance deficit. Insecurity persists not only because armed groups are present but also because the state is often absent. Recovered areas commonly lack functioning institutions, effective policing, and access to justice. Without these, citizens remain vulnerable, and security gains become temporary. A credible strategy must ensure that communities reclaimed by security forces are immediately supported with police presence, local administration, and basic services, including healthcare, education, and dispute resolution.

Equally important is the recognition that the population, not the battlefield, is the true center of gravity in counterinsurgency. Intelligence from local communities is indispensable, but it depends on trust. Where citizens feel protected and respected, they are more willing to share information. Where they feel neglected or abused, they withdraw. Strengthening this relationship between citizens and the state is essential.

Intelligence-led security operations are far more effective than broad, reactive force. Targeted precision, based on reliable information, disrupts insurgent leadership, logistics, and financing networks. But this requires the population’s cooperation. When criminals operate with impunity, and accountability is weak, citizens lose confidence and hesitate to engage. Restoring trust, therefore, requires both professionalism within the security forces and a justice system that swiftly and fairly punishes wrongdoing.

Beyond security operations, Nigeria must address the economic drivers of instability. Youth unemployment and underemployment remain major concerns. Many young people struggle to find meaningful livelihoods, keeping them vulnerable to exploitation by criminal and extremist networks. Security cannot be sustained without opportunity. Investments in agriculture, education, infrastructure, electricity, and small-scale industry are not just economic policies; they are security measures. A population rich in hope and opportunity is less susceptible to recruitment and radicalization by violent groups.

The question of self-defense has also entered public debate. While communities have a natural right to protect themselves and arm themselves, widespread and unregulated access to weapons carries serious risks. Criminological literature shows that the proliferation of arms without accountability can fuel cycles of violence and create new security challenges. The solution is not to transform communities into rival armed camps but to build structured partnerships between citizens and the state.

Community-based security initiatives can play a valuable role when properly organized, regulated, and integrated into the wider security framework. Groups such as local defense volunteers should operate under unambiguous legal authority, receive appropriate training, and remain accountable to state institutions. When managed effectively, such partnerships can enhance intelligence gathering, strengthen local resilience, and complement formal security forces.

Nigeria now remains at a crossroads. It can continue to approach insecurity primarily as a military problem and remain trapped in a cycle of temporary victories followed by renewed violence. Or it can adopt a more extensive, more strategic approach, one that acknowledges that sustainable security depends on governance, legitimacy, and opportunity as much as on force.

The way forward is clear. Nigeria must hold every liberated area through sustained security and governance. It must prioritize intelligence by building trust with local communities. It must deliver a visible and tangible state presence through schools, healthcare, and justice systems. It must formalize and regulate community-based security initiatives. And it must expand economic opportunities to reduce the appeal of violence and criminality.

Countries that have turned the tide against insurgency did so not through force alone, but by rebuilding the bond between the state and its people. Nigeria must do the same. Until that bond is strengthened, insecurity will remain not just a threat at the margins, but a challenge rooted at the core of the nation’s stability.

Only through a coordinated, long-term strategy can Nigeria move from managing insecurity to truly controlling it.

____

■ Ihekwoaba Declan Onwudiwe, Ph.D., of the School of Public Affairs, Texas Southern University, is a Professor and Director, Africa Institute for Strategic Security Studies (AISSS). He is also on the EDITORIAL BOARD of  the WAP

Texas Guardian News
Continue Reading

Trending