₦airaland Forum

Johnjustice:
Lagos state government is protecting lives, dilipidated buildings have killed the lives of many in Lagos, it's best the government avert it.

Johnjustice:
If you leave, believe me the state will find a better use for those space, land space is very expensive in Lagos now. Other Nigerians will easily replace you, the state will even have an opportunity to develop those markets to proper standards and make more money.

You need Lagos, Lagos don't need you. If you think am lying try and see, the state will be very happy if you leave, because you are creating space for more development, those market do not fit Lagos state mega city plan.

drlateef:
Another early morning ranting by jobless lout drinking nkpurum mirin. Why dont you wait to get sober before this rotten brain ranting? You have been told the truth. Obi is losing this case. It is a charade and a circus show of ineptitude and myopic phantom display of hopelessness.

Obi2saveNigeria:
@Penguin2, anyone who still believes that Peter Obi has no case is indeed a fool. I have followed the ongoing tribunal case and discovered that even if the judges were compromised, there is little they can do against the overwhelming evidence Obi and his legal team has presented.

At this point, the least Tinubu can hope for is a rerun, and even that will be a tough decision for the judges to make, against outright declaration of Peter Obi as the actual winner.

Tinubu's greatest undoing was underrating of Obi and Obidients. They thought it was business as usual where once a president is declared winner, regardless of the rigging, everyone else will move on. But unfortunately for him, no one moved on in his own case.

Even Mahmood will be very ashamed of how everything is being exposed. Make no mistake about it, Peter Obi is now known globally. Lots of political observers across the world are also following up on the case. INEC is increasingly appearing more like a criminal organization rather than an electoral umpire. I don't think there is any African democracy whose electoral umpire is so debased like INEC.

The judges will have no choice than to do the right thing, otherwise, our judiciary will also go down with INEC as criminal organizations.

Tommydare:
U don't need to wonder about my life cos my life is good. But ur own life is something you shouldbe concerned about. So that you won't
be getting your ideas from a mad man as well

DAVIDELUXED:
Why not stay @ Mancity. Messi spent decades at Barca to realuzess his dream . I wish him luck

Tommydare:
U mean a man that always get his idea from a mad man

monkautos:
Nairaland no go ever put this one for front page o. This site have finally become the meeting point for Anti-obi supporters.

The chairman of the Political Parties Regulations Commission (PPRC) in Sierra Leone, Abdulai Bangura has urged politicians in the country to conduct themselves peacefully by taking a cue from Nigeria’s Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi.

Bangura while addressing the Electoral Commission of Sierra Leone (ECSL), the Office of National Security (ONS) and the PPRC in Freetown Sunday afternoon, spoke of the essence of peaceful conduct among politicians as the election results are being awaited.

Speaking about the essence of peaceful conduct, Bangura urged Sierra Leone politicians to learn from Obi and conduct themselves peacefully irrespective of the results.

He explained that Obi’s choice of peaceful resolution of election concerns should be emulated by politicians in Sierra Leone.

He said: “I have always referred to Peter Obi when he lost (the) election; we all know the promise he held when the elections were being conducted.

“Almost everybody who is anything in Nigeria (threw their) support. But when the results came out otherwise, he didn’t call his supporters to the street to wreak havoc. He took the legal path and by that way, he was able to save his country from chaos.

“So we will encourage all of our politicians to learn from that example. Leadership is about self-restraint, and leadership is about selflessness. So we expect that our politicians will demonstrate this. The process has been peaceful so far so let us continue to be peaceful and promote the interest of our country.”

The Obi Example
In the 2023 presidential elections held earlier in Nigeria, Bola Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress garnered 8.79 million votes, putting him well ahead of main challenger Atiku Abubakar, who polled 6.98 million.

Peter Obi of the Labour Party recorded 6.1 million votes, even as he surprised many by winning in both Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial powerhouse, and the federal capital, Abuja.

The election results are being challenged at the election petition tribunal in Nigeria.

ZombiePUNISHER:
Tinubu supporters are mostly tribalists and religious bigots..


It's a tactics that has worked for them for so long..

They know their supporters well and poke them like clowns they are.

talented321:
Why are muslims always behaving like animals.
Nigeria need to wipe all this religions Muslims away, if not this nonsense will escalate to big war in this country just that christians are quiet.

Didijiji:
100% Legit

Someone i know enrolled for the program and is doing very well now

Throwback:
But Obi is already ruled out being stuck with only 15 states and FCT as the only federation units he scored up to 25%.

He already knows Atiku is stuck on 21 states.

While Tinubu was able to secure a whooping 30 states.

orisa37:
IT IS NOT IN THE CHARACTER OF EMILOKAN OGBOJU ODE NINU IGBO OLODUMARE TO TALK FOR NOTHING.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023, Nigeria conducted an election for the position of president, which was widely regarded as the most fiercely contested in the country since 1999.

On March 1, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Bola Ahmed Tinubu, candidate of the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC), as the winner and president-elect. On May 29, the Chief Justice of Nigeria swore him in as the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces and 16th President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

While the international community's reaction was mixed, the two major opposition parties, the Peoples Democratic Party and the Labor Party of Nigeria, took their dissatisfaction to the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal in Abuja to challenge the announced outcome of the presidential election.

Their core argument revolves around the president-elect's alleged failure to secure “not less than 25% of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of the States of the Federation, AND the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja,” as mandated by the Constitution [emphasis added]. They contend that this constitutional requirement was not met in the elections.

The challenge to February 25, 2023, presidential election results has revived a well-known constitutional dilemma around the intended meaning of the phrase “and FCT” in the aforementioned constitutional clause as distinct from “including FCT” or “plus FCT.” While there may be disagreement on the precise interpretation, it seems generally agreed that the intention was not to exclude the FCT from the constitutional requirement.

If indeed the framers of the Constitution intended “and FCT” to mean “plus FCT” or “FCT specifically,” the opposition would be justified in challenging INEC's declaration of an APC victory. If the interpretation leans towards “including FCT,” then INEC's result would fulfil the specific constitutional requirement, especially considering that the 1999 Constitution also acknowledges that the FCT can be treated as a state.

If the former, then this raises the fundamental question of why the framers of the 1999 Constitution would grant such a special right or privileged status to citizens of Abuja and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) that voters in other administrative units in the country do not enjoy.

To unravel the ‘and FCT' conundrum, it is important to examine what the founding fathers of the 1999 Constitution, all military personnel, had in mind when they decided earlier, in 1976, to build a new capital city on virgin land and set it up as a special federal capital territory.

This article analyses the historical context and the public policy considerations that drove the establishment of Abuja as FCT in order to inform the ongoing national debate and decision-making concerning the 2023 presidential election petition process.

The founding fathers of the FCT-Abuja

Among the various reasons identified for the decision to construct Abuja, two factors stand out prominently. Firstly, there was the notion of “national pride.” As Africa's most populous country and one of the wealthiest due to its abundant natural resources (further bolstered by the oil boom and petrodollars of the 1970s), Nigeria was seen by both its citizens and the international community as the “black giant” of Africa and potentially a global leader.

As the founding fathers of Abuja in the mid-1970s, the military believed that Nigeria was destined for greatness. They aspired to build an ultramodern city that would rival Western capitals and serve as a source of national pride and a symbol of modernity for black people worldwide.

A new capital city in Abuja, deliberately located inland and distinct from the congested and traffic-heavy urban landscape of Lagos, the military believed, would establish a modern and prestigious metropolis, simultaneously banishing the conspicuous remnants of British colonial influence in Nigeria. This reinforced the notion of a new, independent Nigeria that had firmly arrived as a legitimate member of the “Newer World.”

The second significant motivation behind the military's choice of Abuja was the concept of an administrative framework known as the FCT. Beyond the evident fact that the FCT does not possess the typical characteristics of a Nigerian state, lacking an elected governor but instead having an appointed minister of the FCT, there is a less known yet crucial aspect of “national unity and ethnic neutrality“.

As I wrote years ago, “It is common knowledge that Nigeria is a multi-ethnic country …and that the country has been riffed by ethnic rivalry from its inception. Lagos, obviously, is a Yoruba land, and with such a lop-sided ethnic mix (Yoruba, 72.2% Igbo,15.4% Edo, 3.17% and Hausa, 2.05% in 1963), it was felt that the city, as capital, is inimical to the spirit of national unity, as it could never be a place where all Nigerians could lay claim to every available right, privilege and resource on an equal footing. This could only be achieved in a sort of no-man's land where no one ethnic group predominated.”

The just concluded May 2023 gubernatorial elections in Lagos confirmed this fundamental truth about the Nigerian polity. In the weeks and months leading up to that election, the prevailing discourse revolved around the question of who are the “real owners” or “indigenes” of Lagos and which individuals or groups possessed a more legitimate right to influence and shape the city-state's future political trajectory.

The strategic location of Abuja

Thus, the founding fathers of Abuja in the 1970s and 1980s embarked on a social re-engineering endeavour with the goal of achieving three objectives related to national unity and cohesion. Firstly, they aimed to strategically locate Abuja as the geographical heartland of the country. By doing so, they hoped that both government and development would be brought closer to the governed. This approach aimed to ensure that citizens from all parts of the country had relatively equal access to the capital city in terms of physical distance.

Additionally, it is worth noting that one of the underlying motivations for the establishment of Abuja was a desire to address the concerns of the northern elite for conducting the nation's affairs from a capital that was not located so far away in the perceived hostile southern region. (See Figure 1)

Figure 1. The centrality of FCT in terms of physical distance

The question of who owns Abuja

Secondly, another key objective pursued by the military proponents of Abuja was to establish a territory that would provide equal rights and opportunities to all Nigerians, devoid of any specific regional or ethnic affiliations. To achieve this strategic objective, the military regime made a series of ‘deliberate and courageous decisions' regarding the FCT.

They carefully selected a central area in Nigeria that had relatively low population density and limited development. This selection was crucial in creating a neutral ground where every Nigerian would be treated equally and have the same rights. In response to this, the military government claimed full ownership of the entire FCT area, granting the federal government complete control over the land. Unlike in any of the other 36 states of Nigeria, the federal government possesses 100 per cent monopoly control over the land in the FCT.

Thirdly, and significantly, the military decided to compensate and physically relocate all indigenous populations from within the FCT. Approximately 600 villages predominantly inhabited by farmers and potters belonging to the Gbagyi or Gwari ethnic groups had to be swiftly resettled between 1976 and 1991. Where the relocation of the indigenes proved costly, the military government simply decided to excise those parts from the FCT, as can be observed by examining the map of the FCT (Figure 2), where one can notice a distinct “V” shape at the top. This cutout represents the removal of the present-day Suleja town and its sizable indigenous population from the FCT.

Fig. 2: Map of FCT with a “V” shape to the top, showing an excision of the town of Suleja.

These rationales influenced the territory's design and also played a pivotal role in its development as a distinct administrative unit.

Situating FCT-Abuja within the political and democratic framework of the new Nigeria

During the civilian administration of Shehu Shagari (1979-1983), significant construction work began in Abuja. However, the bold and visionary decisions to build Abuja, along with meticulous planning and the allocation of substantial resources for its groundbreaking and full-scale implementation, were made under Generals Murtala Mohammed and Olusegun Obasanjo (1975-1979). It can be argued that Abuja represents one of the most remarkable and ambitious endeavours in political and social re-engineering for nation-building undertaken by the Nigerian military. Subsequent Military rulers — Muhammadu Buhari (1983-1985), Ibrahim Babangida (1985-1993), Sani Abacha (1993-1998), Abdulsalami Abubakar (1998-1999), and Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2007) — demonstrated increased commitment in terms of political support and financial resources allocated to the project.

Considering the foregoing historical context of the capital relocation, it is reasonable to assume that the military, while formulating the Nigerian Constitution of 1999, deemed it appropriate to uphold the same principles and institutionalise in the political fabric of the country the “broad official aims for the new capital,” including among others:

“To provide for a physical symbol of national unity, and of Nigeria as a symbol of Pan Africa unity; and

To provide a physical expression of the ideal constitutional democratic government.”

They had envisioned FCT/Abuja as a place where ethnic considerations would not dictate political power and where the genuine essence of Nigerian polity could emerge unhindered.

Conclusion — FCT-Abuja as electorate — a barometer of the nation's true pulse and spirit

It is hoped that this article has provided some insight into the history of the FCT-Abuja that many Nigerians may not know, along with how this relates to the constitutional issue about the 25 per cent threshold of voters in the FCT-Abuja. To understand this debate, one must decode the reasons behind its establishment and the great lengths to which successive Nigerian military rulers (1975-2007) went to create a special identity for the territory and enshrine it in the 1999 Constitution.

It is this article's thesis that the outcome of the February 2023 presidential election in FCT-Abuja validates the foresight of the generals who envisioned and implemented the FCT project as a deliberately designed “neutral microcosm” of Nigeria, where ethnicity did not trump all else — a kind of legitimising “litmus test” of the ability of an aspiring candidate for the highest office in the land to appeal to and garner threshold support from diverse segments of the population.

Until such a time that Nigerian political leaders can harness our rich multi-ethnic and cultural heritage into the positive force for change that it is, an emphasis on obtaining at least 25 per cent of the votes in FCT-Abuja as a constitutional requirement may serve as a necessary barometer for both measuring and safeguarding the nation's true political pulse in ideals of national unity and democracy.

As the only “ethnically neutral zone” of the country, with above-average income, voter education and awareness, and a security atmosphere relatively free from voter intimidation and vote suppression, it logically follows that the legitimacy of any individual aspiring to lead a diverse and significant country like Nigeria should be questioned if they fail to garner at least 25 per cent of the electoral votes from this special territory.

The voice of people in the FCT must not be taken lightly (i.e., not among the 24 ‘states' mandated by the Constitution) or without factoring in its historical context and raison d'etre.

For the generals and civilians alike, FCT symbolises true unity, representing a shared national identity about the progressive Nigeria everyone wants.

drlateef:
This author is mischievous. Any agent that decides to sign results should not have a copy. That’s very logical and sound. If you object to the result, you sign and raise objections with your party. Signing the results does not mean confirmation of the results. It only means you witnessed what happened, including any infractions etc.

amusaaj33:
He said, “From mere allegations, a staff of INEC, Abedemi Joseph told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that they were instructed by the commission under Prof. Yakubu, their employer, not to give copies of election results to political party agents, who declined to sign the results.[b][/b]


Why will you want to collect a copy for a result you refused to sign.

The Secretary General of the Conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP), Chief Willy Ezugwu has disclosed that a staff of the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that they were instructed not to give results to party agents.

According to the report from Sun Newspaper, Chief Willy Ezugwu said this while reacting to the question asked about on what ground is their group insisting on the resignation of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mahmood Yakubu.

He said, “From mere allegations, a staff of INEC, Abedemi Joseph told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that they were instructed by the commission under Prof. Yakubu, their employer, not to give copies of election results to political party agents, who declined to sign the results.

These make it obvious that until the INEC chairman exists the commission, rebuilding confidence in the electoral body will be impossible due to the now battered image of the commission in the eyes of the electorate.

Christistruth03:
What of those who never collected any passport na dem plenty pass this must be fake News

Likoya:
Bro stop posting nonsense

SalamRushdie:
Enemies of Putin in sifia pain 😅😅😅

CIA scammed of 6.2 billion dollars by Wagner

SalamRushdie:
CIA lies ..the coup is over, Wagner are heading back to Ukraine

Stoplying:
I'm a scientist, not a soldier.
Russia is fighting the war my ancestors fought.
This is s prolongation of our war against colonisation.
I know your ancestors were the backstabbers of Africa, that is if you are even an African.

Muh247:
Whatever you feel like claiming it's your right paddy mi