₦airaland Forum

I have been on a month‑long vacation, taking time to work on some important issues, but upon reading Babachir David Lawal’s recent attack against the former Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, His Excellency Atiku Abubakar, I could not believe how racist, sour, and provoking it was, delivered with such a dastardly tone.

Many people may see this as political, but I see far beyond that. BD Lawal went against the entire Fulani race by tagging the Waziri of Adamawa with the condescending title of Kachalla, an appellation commonly associated with bandits operating in Nigeria today.

He went further to describe Atiku’s entire team, family, and people as “Fulani hegemonists” with the sole intention of dominating the country.

BD Lawal was not attacking Atiku Abubakar on political grounds; he was attacking him for the singular reason that he is a Fulani man. That is hugely unacceptable, provoking, inciting, and dangerous.

If there is anyone who owes the Fulani race his entire life journey throughout his 71 years, it is BD Lawal.

Since he chose to use Kachalla as a prefix to condemn—albeit clandestinely— all Fulanis as bandits, then let me remind him that:

1. It was Kachalla late President Muhammadu Buhari (may Allah have mercy upon him), a Fulani man, who gave him his first major breakthrough in the PTF, where he served as a consultant under Afri‑Project Consortium.
2. It was Kachalla late Ahmed Salihijo (may Allah have mercy on him) who supported him throughout his half‑baked ICT career in the same consortium.
3. It was also Kachalla Engr. Aishatu Dahiru Binani who further backed him in that consortium.
4. It was Kachalla Amina J. Mohammed (current UN Deputy Secretary‑General) who strengthened him further in the same consortium.

When life turned sour, he clung to the same Kachalla Buhari and his team for survival.

It was the same Kachalla Buhari who provided him the opportunity of a lifetime by appointing him Secretary to the Government of the Federation.

When he left the APC after being neglected and rejected by the party due to his intransigence, it was the same Kachalla Atiku who picked him up, whitewashed him, and offered him another opportunity to shine on a national party platform.

It was the same Kachalla Atiku who supported him throughout, even against the wishes of many others, just for peace to reign.

And now, due to his high tendency for betrayal, it is the same Atiku he has chosen to condemn as Kachalla.

To be clear, I do not belong to the same political party as the Waziri of Adamawa, but he is my father, my leader, and my elder statesman—someone I respect, value, and honour deeply.

The level of democratic principles Atiku demonstrates, combined with his patience, tolerance, and gentlemanliness, often results in those he supports turning against him—just as BD Lawal has done.

I cannot insult BD Lawal because he is an elder, old enough to be my father. It is not in our culture, as Kachallas, to insult grey‑haired men. But BD Lawal should be mindful of utterances that promote division and incite racial attacks capable of harming the peaceful society of Adamawa State and Nigeria at large.

The Fulani people, whom BD Lawal now condemns wholesale while hiding behind political differences with Waziri Atiku Abubakar, have done so much for him. And for the rest of his life, he cannot repay them.

May God continue to provide peaceful solutions to all the issues affecting the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Now I can go back to my work.

Yours sincerely,
Kachalla Adamu Garba II


https://thebossnewspapers.com/2026/06/02/re-bd-lawals-racist-attack-on-atiku-abubakar/

OPINION: If Plateau’s Illegal Arms Factories Belonged to Fulani Militias, the World Would Be Burning



The discovery of another illegal arms factory in Plateau State should have shaken the conscience of the nation. But it did not. Not because the development was insignificant, but because it did not fit the preferred narrative carefully marketed for years by crisis merchants, foreign lobbyists, and politically interested actors feeding off the Plateau conflict.

Imagine for a moment if troops had uncovered three illegal arms factories operated by Fulani militias in their harmlet in Plateau within three weeks. Imagine if security forces had recovered fabricated AK-47 rifles, welding machines, recoiling springs, ammunition shells and weapon components from settlements associated with Fulani groups. By now, international media would be flooded with headlines screaming “genocide.” Foreign NGOs would issue emergency alerts. U.S. lawmakers would hold hearings. Social media activists would demand sanctions on Nigeria. Naked women and youths would occupy streets in Jos. Protesters would occupy the streets of Abuja, Washington and London. Religious organisations would organise prayer marches and global petitions. Every recovered rifle would become proof of an alleged grand conspiracy to wipe out Christians.

But reality can be inconvenient. Troops of Operation Enduring Peace (OPEP) raided illegal arms manufacturing sites in Vom, Jos South LGA, and arrested five suspects linked to Berom militia networks. Recovered from the factories were fabricated AK-47 rifles, weapon skeletons, revolver components, magazines, welding machines and industrial tools used for weapon production. This was not a rumour. This was not social media speculation. These were physical weapons recovered by troops during a live operation.

Yet the silence has been deafening. No outrage from the usual activists. No emergency press conferences. No sermons condemning the proliferation of illegal arms within Plateau communities. No viral hashtags. No candlelight protests. No foreign NGO reports warning about ethnic militias manufacturing weapons. The same voices that quickly amplify every allegation against Fulani groups suddenly developed selective blindness.

This is the uncomfortable truth many do not want discussed openly: Plateau’s crisis is no longer a simplistic black-and-white story of innocent victims versus faceless attackers. Armed militias exist on multiple sides of the conflict. Weapons are being manufactured locally. Revenge attacks are organised. Narratives are weaponised. Communities arm themselves while simultaneously presenting themselves exclusively as helpless victims before the national and international audience.

And that is exactly why the crisis has persisted for decades. The dangerous part is not merely the weapons themselves. The dangerous part is the ecosystem protecting the narrative. An ecosystem where facts are filtered through ethnicity and religion before they are accepted. An ecosystem where the deaths of some victims generate global outrage while the deaths of others barely earn a mention. An ecosystem where propaganda travels faster than truth.

Over the past months, security operations in Plateau have exposed repeated evidence of armed local militias, reprisal cells, illegal weapon possession, and coordinated attacks hidden beneath carefully crafted emotional narratives. Troops have recovered weapons from local youths. Active shooters were seen in viral videos previously circulated as evidence of “attacks.” Security personnel have repeatedly intervened to stop reprisals between communities. Yet these realities rarely make international reports because they complicate the preferred storyline.

Even more troubling is the growing industry around Plateau’s conflict. Some foreign advocacy groups and political actors appear more interested in preserving the image of endless persecution than supporting genuine reconciliation. Fear sells. Victimhood attracts funding. Outrage generates influence. Nuanced truth does not.

This does not excuse criminality from any group. Fulani militias have carried out deadly attacks. Civilians across ethnic and religious lines have suffered enormously. But honesty demands acknowledging that armed violence in Plateau has evolved into a multidimensional conflict involving reprisals, militia mobilisation, illegal arms proliferation, criminal opportunism and deep-rooted communal distrust.

Peace cannot emerge where truth is rationed.

The discovery of three illegal arms factories in three weeks should force difficult conversations. Who is funding these operations? Who supplies the materials? Who protects the operators? How many more exist across the state? And why do some community leaders remain silent whenever these discoveries contradict the narrative they have spent years exporting abroad?

Until Plateau confronts all armed actors equally without ethnic favoritism, religious sentiment, or propaganda, the killings will continue, the reprisals will continue, and the ordinary people caught in the middle will continue paying the price.


https://emergencydigest.com/2026/05/08/opinion-plateau-illegal-arms/

franchasofficia:
That is what happened, I have also heard from a very legit source privy to this.



I still blame the guy because he ought to have accepted that deputy treasurer position and pray they win and that position will become a gold mine for him.


He is a broke young man and there is no way he would meet the obligations required of that position he wanted being a party working hard to dislodge the ruling party, he ought to have known this.



ADC need seasoned politicians with strong background, deep pocket and experience to come close to winning APC, can Nafiu Bala do the financial work required if he is made the Deputy Chairman Northeast.

Firstly, how many DEPUTY treasurers of parties at regional level do you know that made it to the national level after the emergence of the party? If gold mine and national relevance is the target, this action of his yields both more than he would have ever achieved even in DREAM LAND as DEPUTY treasurer - North East

Secondly, was there anywhere Babachir was quoted to have said the guy doesn't have the intellectual acumen, social clout and financial warchest required for the role?

Moreover, party officials HARDLY spend their personal money, it's always what comes out from the Commonwealth or party cofer that they ALL depend on. So, why isn't he fit for the role?

Again, agreement is agreement, it should be respected by all means possible. If there is need to act contrary to what was collectively agreed upon, you call another round table meeting and try to persuade him to take another role and not try to shove it down his throat. That's what they did to him from what you just confirmed to us here and I stand with him.

They taught he was a push over, so, they didn't bother to invite him for a round table discussion when he initially initiated the court case against the party last year, now, look at what it has cost them.



He has a case and he should pursue it to a logical end

franchasofficia:
It is very clear to the blind that it's Tinubu and his henchmen that are setting fire on all these parties to disenfranchise opposition politicians come 2027.


But then, David Mark and co didn't try, they ought to have closed all loopholes serpent of Bourdillion could have used to creep in to destroy the party by allowing the yeye Nafiu Bala to continue as Deputy Chairman Northeast and during convention they throw him out

Bro, put yourself in the guy's shoes, what would you have done?
An agreement was reached, the decampees reneged on it because of the desperation and greed of Babachir Lawal, what do you have him do?
Remember, " at the root of all crises is INJUSTICE and the solution to all crises is JUSTICE "


If this is the true picture of what transpired between them, I withdraw everything negative I said about Nafiu Bala in the past.

Wow! I find this insight truly enlightening, offering a fresh perspective on the crisis. If the initial agreement was indeed for Nafiu Bala to assume the role of National Deputy Chairman-North East, it's imperative that this arrangement be respected, considering their past sacrifices in making the party welcoming to newcomers.

Moreover, if a group of decampees failed to honour the initial agreement they signed before joining the party, it raises concerns about their ability to uphold broader agreements reached with the party should they ascend to leadership positions.

Additionally, Babachir Lawal's actions suggest he's driven by greed and a hunger for power, evident from the grass-cutting incident that cost him his role as SGF to his failed bid to deputise Tinubu in 2023 and current attempts to usurp power from others. His inability to contain his ambition has consistently yielded negative consequences for himself and those around him.

Other party leaders who failed to address Lawal's greed initially must now share the blame for the consequences. If Nafiu Bala was indeed disrespected and disgraced in this manner by the decampees, his subsequent actions are understandable, and he has a legitimate case.

Iran’s parliament speaker says ‘no negotiations held’ with the US
Iranian parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has denied talks have taken place between Iran and the US, echoing the Foreign Ministry’s statement.

“No negotiations have been held with the US, and fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped,” he wrote on X.

Iran demands “complete and remorseful punishment of the aggressors”, the speaker said in a second post.

Iranian officials “stand firmly behind their supreme leader and people until this goal is achieved”


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/3/23/iran-war-live-tehran-vows-to-completely-close-hormuz-if-power-plants-hit?update=4428052

Iran has denied US President Donald Trump's claim of "positive talks" between the two countries, stating that there are no direct or indirect communications with the US. The Iranian foreign ministry called Trump's claims a "time-buying tactic" aimed at influencing energy markets and preparing for further military action.

Trump had announced a five-day pause on military strikes against Iranian power plants, citing "very good and productive conversations" with Tehran. However, Iran's Fars news agency reported that there were no talks underway, and Trump's decision was likely a result of Iran's firm warning to retaliate if attacked.

According to Press TV

US President Donald Trump has backed away from his 48-hour ultimatum to strike Iran’s power plants after the Islamic Republic warned that all energy and power installations in the region would be targeted in retaliation, a report said.

Trump claimed in a post on his Truth Social media platform that the US and Iran have had “very good and constructive conversations over the past two days regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East.”

The US president also said that he had ordered the Pentagon to postpone all plans for military strikes on Iran’s electricity generation infrastructure for five days subject to the outcome of the negotiations.

“I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions,” he said, claiming that conversations with Iran will continue throughout the week.

He had previously threatened to attack Iran’s power plants within 48 hours if Iran did not fully open the Strait of Hormuz.


A source familiar with internal discussions in Tehran told Tasnim news agency on Monday that there has been no official contact between Tehran and Washington.

“From the beginning of the war until today, messages have been sent to Tehran by some mediators, and the clear response has been that we will continue to defend ourselves until we achieve the necessary deterrence.”

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Trump’s claim was aimed at stabilizing the markets and buying time to implement his military plans. “With this kind of psychological warfare, neither the Strait of Hormuz will return to pre-war conditions nor will calm return to energy markets.”

Trump retreated from attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure when he realized that its threats of military action were legitimate, the source said.

Trump’s remarks came as the deadline he had given Iran was nearing its end.

According to the source, Trump’s new five‑day ultimatum reflects his administration’s intention to continue to commit crimes against the Iranian nation, “and we will continue to respond and defend the country extensively.”

The US and Israel started a fresh round of aerial aggression on Iran on February 28, some eight months after they carried out unprovoked attacks on the country.

Iran began to swiftly retaliate against the strikes by launching barrages of missile and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories as well as on US bases and interests in regional countries.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/03/23/765740/Trump-backed-down-after-Iran-threatened-to-retaliate-no-talks-underway-Report

Iran has denied US President Donald Trump's claim of "positive talks" between the two countries, stating that there are no direct or indirect communications with the US. The Iranian foreign ministry called Trump's claims a "time-buying tactic" aimed at influencing energy markets and preparing for further military action.

Trump had announced a five-day pause on military strikes against Iranian power plants, citing "very good and productive conversations" with Tehran. However, Iran's Fars news agency reported that there were no talks underway, and Trump's decision was likely a result of Iran's firm warning to retaliate if attacked.

According to Press TV

US President Donald Trump has backed away from his 48-hour ultimatum to strike Iran’s power plants after the Islamic Republic warned that all energy and power installations in the region would be targeted in retaliation, a report said.

Trump claimed in a post on his Truth Social media platform that the US and Iran have had “very good and constructive conversations over the past two days regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East.”

The US president also said that he had ordered the Pentagon to postpone all plans for military strikes on Iran’s electricity generation infrastructure for five days subject to the outcome of the negotiations.

“I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions,” he said, claiming that conversations with Iran will continue throughout the week.

He had previously threatened to attack Iran’s power plants within 48 hours if Iran did not fully open the Strait of Hormuz.


A source familiar with internal discussions in Tehran told Tasnim news agency on Monday that there has been no official contact between Tehran and Washington.

“From the beginning of the war until today, messages have been sent to Tehran by some mediators, and the clear response has been that we will continue to defend ourselves until we achieve the necessary deterrence.”

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Trump’s claim was aimed at stabilizing the markets and buying time to implement his military plans. “With this kind of psychological warfare, neither the Strait of Hormuz will return to pre-war conditions nor will calm return to energy markets.”

Trump retreated from attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure when he realized that its threats of military action were legitimate, the source said.

Trump’s remarks came as the deadline he had given Iran was nearing its end.

According to the source, Trump’s new five‑day ultimatum reflects his administration’s intention to continue to commit crimes against the Iranian nation, “and we will continue to respond and defend the country extensively.”

The US and Israel started a fresh round of aerial aggression on Iran on February 28, some eight months after they carried out unprovoked attacks on the country.

Iran began to swiftly retaliate against the strikes by launching barrages of missile and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories as well as on US bases and interests in regional countries.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/03/23/765740/Trump-backed-down-after-Iran-threatened-to-retaliate-no-talks-underway-Report

Farouk's survival seems a task beyond human hope, unless, perchance, he is shielded by some divine or providential hand, one that perhaps only a select few, dear to the heart of Tinubu, might enjoy.

He is a "goner"

Farouk's survival seems a task beyond human hope, unless, perchance, he is shielded by some divine or providential hand, one that perhaps only a select few, dear to the heart of Tinubu, might enjoy.

He is a "goner"

OmoOdua3:
Oga, your English Level is still not there. Spend more time to improve yourself. Sometimes, it is better not to comment than contributing to something you don't understand well.

In English, an Hyphen (a Dash) is what should be used where he used them. A Comma cannot be used there.

(*** Between, this is my first Comment here in more than 3 months, as I seldom do so because of many People like you here. I am mostly a Reader here).

There was no need for this most invaluable lesson on English grammar which you so graciously afford him. Let him, by his very words and grammar, continue to display—openly and unmistakably—the deficit of his education and the poverty of his knowledge of the English tongue.

Let him remain unaware that a higher level of mastery is attained only through the constant soaking and tanning of one’s mind in the rich vats of literature.

Pray, let him be.

MorolayoVictor:
Oga, na ChatGPT u dey, na dis 'dash' inside your Write up instead of 'comma' dey cast you.


Stop struggling with this your defense, it's terrible.

I understand that you suffer from a most incurable affliction—one that has spread wide among our so-called Nigerian stdents: they have been to school, yet never truly educated. They sat through years of English instruction, yet remain strangers to its simplest rules of grammar and mechanics.

Once more, I dare you—if you can—to produce an equivalent of my writing through that same ChatGPT you so cheaply invoke.

As for me, I shall not descend further; this shall be my last word to you.

MorolayoVictor:
When next you use AI especially ChatGPT to write, always remember to change the "dashes" in your writeup to "commas".

I do not blame you. The real illness of our age is laziness of mind — people so fond of shortcuts they call every fine piece of writing “AI work.” I dare you to produce something similar using AI let's see the results.


And if you really wish to improve, read Keats, Byron, Cicero, Louis Stevenson and the study of rhetorics. In a short while, you’ll find your words and your thoughts gaining new wings.

If ever there was a theatre where politics masquerades as virtue, it is here. We jest too much in this country, for even deceit has learned to smile.
The Speaker, after the uproar of the crowd, feigned retreat—only to enthrone his own son in a well scripted manner.
As if by divine choreography, the same son ascends as acting chairman while the substantive holder conveniently departs on “medical leave.” A few hours later, resignation follows.
Who, seeing this, would still call it coincidence?

This was no accident of fortune, but a script rehearsed and performed with studied precision. If such artifice is what we call democracy, then indeed we are spectators in a tragic comedy. I tremble to imagine what manner of ruler Obasa might become were he ever to hold the full reins of executive power.

Yet, let us offer our applause: to father and son, for a drama well written and masterfully performed — our own native edition of democracy on stage

I think this building is just ok as INEC HQ. I personally feel that we have more pressing issues that should be higher on our table of preference than a new HQ.

What use will this one now serve?

Alamkiir:
Oh wow! Which state is he from or his tribe?

He is from the Yoruba speaking axis of Kogi state

I think that powerful message Sen. Natasha sent to INEC chair on redeeming his image before the completion of his tenure really worked.

Moreover, INEC is not financially buoyant to embark on such futile exercise at the moment.

When they saw how people defied the kangaroo orders from Benghazi, the State police commissioner and the LG Chair to welcome home their BELOVED SENATOR, they concluded rightly that "these can't be the same people who signed to have this woman recalled".

Please, someone should update the scoreline between Natasha and Akpabio

I think that powerful message Sen. Natasha sent to INEC chair on redeeming his image before the completion of his tenure really worked.

Moreover, INEC is not financially buoyant to embark on such futile exercise at the moment.

When they saw how people defied the kangaroo orders from Benghazi, the State police commissioner and the LG Chair to welcome home their BELOVED SENATOR, they concluded rightly that "these can't be the same people who signed to have this woman recalled".

Please, someone should update the scoreline between Natasha and Akpabio

Oluboh or whatever your name is, every discerning audience here know the "master" you serve and can see through your tissue of lies or deception.

Why not channel this energy into projecting the image of your paymaster and see how far he will go in 2027 against Sen. Natasha

The lady in question is an Ododo appointee, so, who are the "Concerned Kogi Youths and Women" she was talking about?

richiemcgold:
Yea. He feared the north like hell

I don't see it like that, I think he only tried to uphold rule of law.

helinues:
Legally impeached? Why are some of you just lopsided with una reasonings self

This is on record, why not tell us what was illegal about it, and also get the president to at least get the RSHoA to follow the same path

helinues:
Why did Murtala Nyako flee the country.

Hahaha, make una no dey feed us with bullshit half story

Murtala Nyako was legally impeached by the Adamawa House of Assembly.

Let's appreciate the good man Jonathan was and apologize to him for how we treated him

President Goodluck Jonathan did not suspend governors when he declared a state of emergency in three north-eastern states in 2013 because it was unconstitutional, according to Mohammed Bello Adoke, the former attorney-general of the federation.

Adoke dedicated a whole chapter to the issue in his memoir, ‘Burden of Service: The Reminiscences of Nigeria’s Former Attorney-General’, published in 2019 by Clink Street (London & New York).

He said the 1960 constitution empowered the federal government to make its own laws on emergency rule and that allowed the Tafawa Balewa administration to suspend the premier of the Western region in 1962.

“While the 1961 State of Emergency Act allowed for the removal of Premiers,” Adoke wrote, “the 1979 Constitution and, subsequently, the 1999 Constitution, spelt out how to declare a State of Emergency. The removal of a Governor is definitely not included in the provisions.”


On Tuesday, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers state and suspended Governor Simi Fubura as well as the state house of assembly.

Below are excerpts from the book.

STATE OF EMERGENCY

On 13 May 2013, the President declared a State of Emergency in three of the North Eastern states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe owing to the Boko Haram insurgency that was ravaging those areas. The security situation was getting out of hand in those states, despite the efforts of the Armed Forces to contain the terrorist group. There was already political tension in Northern Nigeria arising from the 2011 presidential election. Some politicians had been credited with inciting statements, including that they would make the country “ungovernable” if Jonathan won. They claimed that he had “stolen” the turn of the North. With the unrelenting insecurity and violent situation, which, in fact, worsened two years after the 2011 elections, Nigeria found itself in disequilibrium. The President needed the declaration of State of Emergency in the troubled states in order to deal with the insurgency.

When the issue came up, there were discussions as to the extent the President could go. However, since the insurgency was not spread all over those states, the local government areas most affected were identified. Rather than declare total emergency in the states, the President limited it to those local government areas so that security manpower could be concentrated there to contain the situation. He also did not remove or suspend any Local Government Chairman or Governor. For the first time in Nigeria’s history, an emergency was declared with the political leadership in place.

I had advised the President that he was free to declare a full or partial State of Emergency as provided in Section 305 of the Constitution which states that the President may, by an instrument published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, issue a proclamation of a State of Emergency in the Federation or any part thereof. Subsection 2 states that the President shall, after the publication, transmit the Gazette containing the proclamation, including the details of the emergency, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of whom “shall forthwith convene a meeting of the House to consider and decide whether to pass a resolution approving the proclamation.”
The Constitution specifically stipulates that the President shall have powers to declare a State of Emergency only when the Federation is at war, is in imminent danger of invasion or is involved in a state of war, and there is an actual breakdown of public order in the Federation or any part, to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security. That is, the occurrence of imminent danger or disaster, or natural calamity affecting a community, or a section of the community in the Federation, qualifies as emergency warranting such a proclamation. Under Subsection 4, the Governor of a state may, with the support of two-thirds majority of the state House of Assembly, request the President to issue a proclamation of emergency in the state, when there is in existence any of the listed situations.

PUBLIC CRITICISM

President Jonathan, predictably, came under criticism from commentators who felt he should have removed the Local Government Chairmen as well as Governors in the affected states. Why declare a State of Emergency and retain the Governors? That was what many commentators said. The opportunity for Jonathan’s foes to describe him as a weak leader emerged yet again! Historically, State of Emergency was employed more as a political weapon to settle scores with opposing forces, not necessarily to address issues of actual or imminent threat to security. Nigerians were more familiar with that nefarious employment of the provision. The fact that Governors in Nigeria cannot be held responsible for any breakdown of law and order is lost on these critics. Governors are the Chief Security Officers of their states only in name; they do not have the requisite constitutional power of control over the security agencies. Removing them during emergency, to my mind, was simply illogical.

The mentality that a Governor must be removed was most likely derived from what happened in 1962 when, owing to a crisis in the Western Region, government structures broke down. The Premier, Chief S. L. Akintola, had refused to vacate office for his replacement, Alhaji Dawodu Soroye Adegbenro, after being removed by the Regional House of Assembly. The Federal Government had stepped in and appointed Dr Moses Majekodunmi as the Administrator of Western Region, rather than allow Adegbenro to take over as Premier. It was a highly tense political situation. Although Akintola was still a member of the Action Group (AG), his sympathy for the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC), which controlled the Federal Government, earned him a restoration to office.

EXAMPLE FROM FIRST REPUBLIC
Another situation was when President Obasanjo removed Chief Joshua Dariye as Governor of Plateau State in 2004 after declaring a State of Emergency in that state. Chief Akin Olujinmi, then AGF, sought to justify the removal by referring to the Emergency Powers Act of 1961, which provided for the removal of a Premier, the equivalent of a Governor. On 25 May 2004, he was reported to have stated: “Well… you are looking at the Constitution. There are other laws that you have to read along with the Constitution. We have what you call the Emergency Powers Act of 1961. That power was evoked in 1962 in the old Western region, when we had a similar declaration made, and we had Dr Majekodunmi appointed as administrator of the Western Region at that time, so that law is still in existence today. Under that law when you declare a state of emergency, you can appoint an administrator to run the affairs of the state.” (THISDAY newspaper, 25/05/2005, page 40).

I respectfully disagree with that contention. The Emergency Powers Act of 1961 was derived from the 1960 Constitution. They did have an enabling law that gave the Prime Minister the power to declare a State of Emergency and, in the process, remove the Premier and appoint an Administrator to superintend the management of the Region’s affairs. By the time Chief Olujinmi was invoking the Act in 2004, it had become spent.

Because declaration of State of Emergency had been wrongly used by Obasanjo to remove Governors whom he had political differences with, those who thought they loved Jonathan more than he loved himself kept clamouring for it to be used to checkmate Governors. But when I came into office, I took cognisance of the fact that I swore to an oath to abide by the Constitution. I also vowed that as the custodian of the Nigerian Constitution, who must be the legal adviser to all arms of government, I must do what was right.

Irrespective of the pressure, I refused to allow the political persuasion of the government of the day to colour my judgment. I advised the President that while he could declare a State of Emergency, that did not warrant the removal of a Governor. The Governor is the Chief Security Officer of the state, but the Police is centralised under the leadership of the Inspector General. That means Chief Security Officer is nothing but a ceremonial description.

Also, to remove a Governor could bring the President into conflict with the National Assembly. It is not in the interest of the President to take a decision that would not be approved by the National Assembly. That would tend to diminish his executive powers. He must jealously guard his turf and ensure that whatever he does is constitutionally justified. There was no way we would have been able to constitutionally justify the suspension or removal of a Governor through the instrumentality of the proclamation of a State of Emergency, having regard to the provision of Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution.

OBASANJO WANTED EMERGENCY RULE IN OGUN

The issue of the State of Emergency has always been hugely controversial. The essence of declaring an emergency, as we know it, is that there is an extraordinary situation that has defied the standard laws, processes and procedures for restoring order. And to restore order, one is forced to resort to exceptional measures. It was never meant to be used as a political instrument to punish and remove recalcitrant or ‘disloyal’ Governors. The issue ought to have been settled by Attorneys-General over the decades, but probably because of the many years Nigeria was under military rule, no one has paid any serious attention to it.

While the 1961 State of Emergency Act allowed for the removal of Premiers, as Chief Olujinmi alluded to, the 1979 Constitution and, subsequently, the 1999 Constitution, spelt out how to declare a State of Emergency. The removal of a Governor is definitely not included in the provisions. Obasanjo, still thinking State of Emergency could rightfully be used politically and illegally the way he had applied it during his tenure, tried to mount some pressure on President Jonathan in his early days in office in 2010 to apply it to the crisis in Ogun, his home state.


Obasanjo declared emergency and removed governors when he was president
In that case, the Governor of Ogun State, Otunba Gbenga Daniel, had fallen out with Obasanjo over who would control the state executive of the PDP ahead of the 2011 elections. The House of Assembly had also been divided, so Otunba Daniel could not function effectively, especially regarding getting the approval necessary for the N100 billion bond he wanted to get from the capital market. All the intrigues raging through Ogun State had led to a shutdown of the House of Assembly Complex. Government practically ground to a halt.

Obasanjo tried to exert a lot of pressure on Jonathan, urging him to declare a State of Emergency. He wanted Jonathan to suspend Daniel and appoint an Administrator to return things to normalcy. When the President asked for my view, I felt the crisis had not reached a boiling point where he would need to declare a State of Emergency. I further pointed out that there were enough provisions under Section 11 of the Constitution to deal with situa- tions where a House of Assembly of a state is unable to sit. The Constitution provides for the functions of such a State Assembly to be taken over by the National Assembly.

Also, even if there were a need to declare a State of Emergency, it would have been to give some extraordinary powers to the Governor and suspend parts of Chapter 4 of the Constitution which relate to fundamental human rights, as opposed to the removal of the Governor. As I pointed out earlier, the removal of a Governor is nowhere provided for in the mechanism for implementing a State of Emergency. It would have amounted to employing extra-constitutional means to remove a Governor.

One of the arguments I used in convincing the President was to draw his attention to the fact that he also had the power to declare a State of Emergency all over the Federation. I then asked that: “For instance, Mr President, if the country is at war, and you have to declare a State of Emergency, would you remove yourself from office and appoint an Administrator to oversee the affairs of the country?” He agreed with me. He could see that it was illogical to remove a Governor on account of a State of Emergency being declared.

Since we had successfully warded off the use of State of Emergency as a political tool in the Ogun case, it was not too difficult applying the same principles to other suggestions from the marauding hawks. There was still a big battle ahead, nevertheless. As the Boko Haram insurgency continued unabated in the North-East, the hawks told President Jonathan that the State of Emergency, declared by him in May 2013 and renewed in November of the same year, was not effective because the Governors of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe were not removed. Ironically, the three Governors were all of the APC, the leading opposition party.

The potential political gain was glaring. The hawks piled pressure on the President to extend the State of Emergency by another six months and remove the three Governors. This would take us into 2014, when the politicking for the 2015 general election would be in top gear. Two Ministers even drafted a Declaration of Emergency speech and took it to the President. They named three retired Generals to be appointed as Administrators of the affected states. President Jonathan then decided to ask me to make a presentation to the FEC on my position, apparently because he did not want to do anything illegal.

When I got to Council, I marshalled my argument that removing a Governor was not part of the constitutional provisions in declaring a State of Emergency. I told them I do not play politics with matters of law. I also said declaring an emergency was, constitutionally, a shared responsibility between the President and the National Assembly, with the legislature having a superior dominion. While the President can trigger the process, it must be approved by the National Assembly within two days if they are in session and a maximum of ten days if they are not, in which case the President would request that they reconvene to approve his declaration. If the lawmakers refused to approve it, I warned, that would be the end and it would appear to diminish the powers of the President.

A heated debate broke out. Two Ministers, one of them a lawyer that never practised and the other a full-time politician, stood up to me and started an unnecessary argument, insisting that the President could do and undo. The President had to call the house to order as emotions ran high. In the end, President Jonathan decided that he would not violate the Constitution. He did not extend the emergency, much less remove the Governors. In any case, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, he could deploy troops without the approval of the National Assembly.

‘I BECAME AN ENEMY’

I became an enemy of many people in government who accused me of misleading the President. After the FEC meeting, some ministers began instigating the Ijaw leader, Chief Edwin Clark, against me. They said it was “one man” with a “bogus title” of “Attorney-General of the Federation” who prevented the President from removing the Governors and replacing them with Administrators. From what filtered to me, Clark was very angry with me and even suggested that the President “should remove that Attorney- General.” But the President always had my back.

With such a President as your boss, you would always be confident to tell him the truth. If he had resorted to using State of Emergency as a politi- cal bazooka, he probably would have had his way as a bully, but he could never have written his name in the hearts of millions who still adore him especially when they compare him with other Nigerian leaders who used their powers to terrorise and subjugate their perceived political It must be a compliment to President Jonathan that President Buhari has also avoided deploying the State of Emergency as a tool in Rivers, Kwara and Akwa Ibom States, despite the political benefits. It is a worthy legacy.

https://www.thecable.ng/adoke-why-jonathan-didnt-remove-governors-when-he-declared-emergency-in-three-states/

Ebonyibrown1:
Am supporting akpabio
There is no way u will just tell a woman to come an have some time with u an she will just assume that u want to sleep with her
Is that how they do in there village

I hope when your sister or daughter tells you that her lecturer invites her to spend some time with her in a hotel, you will say the same.

Best of luck

Image123:
Arthur Nzeribe was suspended indefinitely and i suggest same for Natasha whose constituency have not felt her impact asides 'charity' and this news.

He was suspended pending when he writes a written apology, he chose not to do that till the expiration of that senate session two years later.
Was his security details withdrawn? was hes banned from the complex of the N. A? Was he banned from identifying himself as a senator of the FRN at home and abroad? Was his aide denied payment of salary during the duration of his suspension?


Again, I reiterate my point that "no senator has ever been as harshly purnished as Natasha". It tells us that there was more to the punishment that the alleged unruly behavior.


As for her constituents, I boldly declare that no senator from Kogi central has ever attracted a project worth $20 million home, Natasha has attracted a project worth $500 million home. By this alone, she has outperformed all senators from Kogi Central put together. You can argue that she wasn't the one who attracted the CNG project to Ajaokuta, then I will ask you, why was Mele Kyari and another top management staff of NNPC crediting Natasha for the decision to situate the project in Ajaokuta during their speeches in the ground opening ceremony?

Probably, you know more than them the power play that characterized the situation of the company in Ajaokuta.

Interact with her constituents and hear their views; she is right on course to become the first senator to be reelected twice in the history of Kogi central.

"As most people have already observed, had El-Rufai secured the minister of power position he was promised, his current antagonism toward the government would be as unimaginable as a cat lobbying for the rights of rats.
Not only would he have been a staunch defender of every government action, but he would have also directed his trademark vitriol at ordinary Nigerians suffocating under economic hardship. He would dismiss their grievances with characteristic scorn and cruelty."


Indeed, these words are worth reflecting on because they are as true as day and night.
No political orphan turned activist is worth sympathizing with. We must ask how they used power when they had the opportunity.

Fiscus105:
Is this one fair hearing? When they already assumed she is guilty even before sitting? Can't you read what the foolish man saying thr? ......she wants to divert attention,.... I will come and testify bec we were all thr blablabla( I guess he-goat would also call you thr, if he wants to sleep with her).


Harrasment(s) took place between two people mostly in private, yet, foolish SURPORTERS singing not happen. Instead to call for open, live and transparent investigation/interogation

It's obvious that the acclaimed appearance is merely for formality to exonerate the SP. You can't be inviting two warring parties and you are already declaring the guilt of one and the innocence of the other, who does that?
Since you all already know who was guilty and who was innocent, just go ahead and pass your verdict.


If I were in Natasha's shoes, there will be three conditions to appear before the panel:
1) It must be TELEVISED live
2) Akpabio must step aside temporarily pending the conclusion of the investigation
3) my suspension must be lifted or nothing.


I am quite sure they will never consent to the number 1 condition, that should be enough to shun the panel

I have read many comments above on Natasha vs Akpabio's suit in court. It is important to clarify that Natasha didn't sue Akpabio for sexual harassment rather she sued Akpabio and his aide for defamation; character assassination. The aide posted something like ' the only thing Natasha knows how to do is to pancakes her face and wear transparent outfits to the National Assembly". This is what Natasha is suing for.

The onus lies on Akpabio to sue Natasha on the allegations of sexual harassment if he is certain it's not true not his wife. The wife has no "locus standi" in this case.

On her suspension for unruly behavior in the red chambers, the severity of Natasha's sanctions show clearly that there was more to her punishment than her perceived "unruly" behavior in the house.
Please, who can remember any Senator that was suspended with the same level of severity as Natasha? Is her perceived unruly behavior against the SP weightier than Omoagege who stole Mace from the house? than Ningi who accused the entire Senate of passing two different budgets? was it any different from Akpabio confronting Saraki over change of seat? Let's be rational for once.

Remember, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

AdeYORUFAFO:
The PM meant what he said, and everyone in that house including her own party members share the PM’s sentiments.

Every right thinking Being can see through Kemi's tissue of pretense. It's quite obvious that she is a desperado who is willing to go to any length to be relevant

Get the full details right before attacking anyone, what akpabio's aide said was a direct attack on Natasha's person.

A DECLARATION that the words, ‘It is bottled anger by the Kogi lawmaker, who knows nothing about legislative rules. She thinks being a lawmaker is all about pancaking her face and wearing transparent outfits to the chambers,’ used and written by the third defendant at the prompting of the first and second defendants, is defamatory and intended to cause public opprobrium and disaffection toward the claimant.”

In addition to seeking a perpetual injunction to prevent the defendants and their associates from making further defamatory statements about her, she also demanded N100 billion in general damages and N300 million for litigation costs.

“An order for the payment of the sum of N100,000,000,000 as general damages. An order for the payment of the sum of N300,000,000 as the cost of action,” her lawsuit stated.