₦airaland Forum

Kingspin:
Why do this government removed CRK from school calendar? And you think nothing is wrong.

IRK has also been removed, and I think that is the normal Int'l practice, and why only Islam and Christianity are thought in our schools, what up other the African religion's, those practicing such religions are they not citizens of Nigeria? We shouldn't be biased.

Wonderful, God is great this my first time of hearing this in last 16 years PDP advertising/ anouncing a vacancy at thier national Hdqts.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has declared Malam Muhammad Tasiu Minijbir of the All Progressive Congress (APC) winner of Minjibir State Constituency, re-run election held on July 30.

Tasiu scored 21,970 votes to defeat Malam Auwalu, Minjibir of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who scored 1,238 votes.

Prof. Habu, the INEC Returning Officer for State Assembly election for minjibir L.G.A of Kano State, who announced the result in the late hours of saturday, said that available data before him showed that Tasiu had majority of lawful votes cast, and therefore returned elected for the Minjibir State Constituency, re-run election held on July 30, 2016.

but, FFK!! on Channels TV, prove it beyond a reasonable doubt you are Boko haram sponsor. and you haven,t denied that.

Aufbauh:
Ipob will be disappointed with Tompolo, their reigning warlord that will make the zoo to fall has decided not to embark on mission impossible.

They built their hope on Asari, Asari ran to cotonu.
They trooped behind the deluded Nnamdi Kanu as a savior, he was cheaply arrested and taken to the dungeon.
They turned to Tompolo, lo and behold he dash their hope.

Ipob who do you turn to when the only person that will stop you from crying is exactly the same person making you to cry?

Zakzaky!!!

When did IPOB become the propaganda wing of Islamic shia. Oh!!! I see this is the Islamization agenda of Buhari at work, that we have been warned of before election. But true true I don't expect igbo conversion so easily. May God guide our faith.

The recent fracas between the Nigerian Army and members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria, as they prefer to be called, needs no introduction. It has, in the last two weeks, been one of the topics of discourse in both national and international media and forums. Many people have sought my opinion when the heat of the event was at its peak but I declined to comment because, at that time, I could not be certain of what actually transpired on that fateful day or days, rather. However, with the passage of time, things have unfolded and many people now think they know what actually happened as pieces of information are being put together. Therefore, I do not intend, in this article, to inform my audience of what happened nor am I out to indict or absolve any party. I am interested in the aftermaths of the event on Nigeria as a country in the international community and on the Nigerian society and government as a political unit.
Reactions to the event poured from different angles of society; the clerics, the general masses, some governments and traditional authorities. Some were in form of sympathy with the Shiite community while others were jubilations and, yet some took the form of condemnation of either side. Only the President has, until last Thursday’s media chat, said nothing. One of the most notable reactions worthy of my attention was that of the Emir of Kano, Muhammad Sanusi ll. The Emir, who has already earned the mark of being a radical intellectual on the far left, a bold analyst of public affairs and a human rights activist as well as, to some extent, a feminist and was assumed by many to be a Shiite before becoming an Emir ironically made the most asinine condemnation of the movement led by Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky.
My problem with the Emir’s position is that, in his characteristic inconsistency, lumped so many issues together and even pretended ignorance, perhaps, in order please the ignorant majority of his subjects. This apologetic attitude seems to define him since the day he was made Emir as if he is using it as a strategy to gain popularity among his subjects and consolidate his power and grip on the throne. The radical intellectual in him seems to have died with the former Emir, Ado Bayero.
One of the weaknesses of the Emir’s position is that he failed to distinguish Shia as sect from the Islamic Movement as a political association thereby attempting to deny some people their freedom of religion enshrined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. No one should be denied holding a religious belief or be denied the freedom to practice the rites of the religion which he or she chooses as long such a practice does not infringe on the rights of another citizen. In this sense, the Emir has violated the constitution by charging traditional rulers to restrict a certain religious belief.
However, Nigeria, like any other secular state guarantees the freedom of religion at an individual, private level. When it becomes a group, there is still freedom of association whose limits must be observed. The Islamic Movement as a religious organization must enjoy the freedom of association if it observes all the limits outlined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; but if, otherwise, it violates the limits by either carrying out illegal activities and advocacies or by constituting itself into a nuisance for society, then the authorities concerned have the right to either bring it to order or abrogate it completely as the case may be. In his case, the Emir is blaming a religious sect for an offence allegedly committed by a religious organization. Not all Shiites are members of the Islamic Movement and some of them vehemently disagree with Zakzaky in many ways. What is the fault of such Shiites in this? Therefore, for anything committed by the Zakzaky led movement, justice demands that blame should be laid and action be taken on the movement not on Shiites in general.
Another fault of the Emir’s sermon is that he, still appeasing to ignorant followers, made an inappropriate reference to Shia as the ‘sect of those who insult the Prophet’s companions and wives’. Every group, every movement, religion or organization should be defined by reference to its essence, its rason d’être. There are Shiites who engage in such practices; most of them secretly do if you are talking about the Twelvers as the only Shiites. Yet, it is not the backbone of their formal belief system. It is even a recent innovation that became widespread after the Safavi tyrannical invasion of Persia. To this day, Zaidi Shiites of Yemen, who were the majority Shiites until the Safavi conversion of Persia, consider it a blasphemy to accuse any of the three first caliphs of any wrongdoing. So also the Alawites of Syria and Turkish Alevis hold them in high esteem. In the Twelvers’ oldest records, such a practice has no basis. In fact, their greatest tafsir, an equivalent or counterpart of ibn Jarir al-Tabari’s in the Sunni world, known as ‘Tafsir al-Qummi, contains many instances where the first three caliphs were highly praised. Al-Qummi was a disciple of the eleventh Shia Imam. The practice of demeaning and insulting the first three caliphs and their daughters who happened to be wives of the Prophet and, therefore, part of Ahl al-Bayt from the Sunni perspective was instituted by a Safavi court cleric, Mullah Muhsin al-Rafidhy. Today, Iran, which is the de facto leader of Shiites in the world despite the fact their highest spiritual authority in Iraq in person of Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has issued a formal verdict against such practices so that any Shiite who engages in them is on his own and is disobeying his masters. Someone may argue that it is hypocrisy but such an argument is not allowed in Islam; unless you hear it from one of their authorities, the position that they have officially prohibited it remains. Therefore, the Emir’s reference to them as ‘aqidar masu zagin sahabbai’ is mischievously unjust.
For the Nigerian government on the other hand, the situation is more complex and difficult than it is perceived by the Shiites and their sympathizers, their antagonists and by foreign governments and human rights’ organizations crying out loud about human rights violation. It is true that the army has violated the rule of law in handling the situation from beginning to the end. For instance, someone rightly opined that the Shiites, being Nigerian citizens, having blocked the road against anybody, should have been reported to the police. But the situation is far beyond mere blocking of the road for any sincere observer. The events that transpired later that led to the arrest of the movement’s leader indicate something more like a premeditated clampdown on a dissident organization. And, still truth is that not what was done but how it was done that was completely wrong.
To be fair to the Nigerian government, it has tolerated for too long what no other government in the world can tolerate; the existence of a politically minded association that advocates the illegitimacy of the government and seeks to evolve every instrument of a government from security and defense to judiciary and intelligence on its own so that it, as a body, or its members pay allegiance only to its own institutions. A moderate member of the movement admitted to me that their movement is a caricature of Hezbollah in Lebanon; and we know that Lebanon has two parallel governments today such that a certain group of people pay allegiance to only Hezbollah which possesses all institutions including a formidable army and does whatever government can do.
Indications that the Islamic Movement of Nigeria wants to evolve into a parallel government are diverse. A prominent example is the suicide bomb attack carried out on the group’s trekking mission from Kano to Zaria last year. Their leader claimed that he had prior intelligence that they would be attacked but decided to take action on that sensitive intelligence on his own without reporting it to the appropriate security institution. Any organization that receives information about a threat to the lives of so many citizens without reporting it to government agencies must harbor the feeling of being a government by itself. He could have been charged with the crime of endangering the lives of citizens who died as a result of the attack. After the attack, one suicide bomber was caught alive by the group; still they refused to hand him over to government security agencies and claimed to have interrogated him themselves. Worse still, they ended up accusing the Nigerian army of having sent the suicide bombers in a bit to brainwash their followers into believing that the government is primarily set against them. No government can tolerate these things; not even Iran.
Therefore, what followed after the roadblock incidence that culminated in the arrest of Zakzaky and razing down his residence and spiritual headquarters was an indication that the government had endured more than enough. While I understand and even agree with why the government has to check the activities of the movement and even outlaw it if necessary, I completely disagree with the way it was done. The army could have arrested Zakzaky under two circumstances only; either if he was a foreigner who attacked the Nigerian territory or a separatist citizen who held a territory with arms. In both cases, the army could have legitimately taken him into its custody as a prisoner of war but following an official declaration of war which is the prerogative of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. There was no declaration of war on the Islamic Movement, so, the entire the action taken by army was completely illegal and an outright breach of law no matter what was the provocation. The proper channel was for the army to report him to the appropriate security agency; Police or the DSS. If all the channels have been exploited without the success of bringing him before the law; the police could apply force to arrest him and if that fails then President may declare him a danger to national security and order the army to get him.
On the diplomatic table, the Nigerian government’s patience has severely been tried by Iran which has finally, somehow, proven the allegations that it is bolstering the Islamic Movement to promote its interests in the country. Members of the movement are all Nigerians, the event took place on Nigerian soil but Iran reacted as if members of the movement were its citizens who came to Nigeria for a legitimate mission. If there was any consideration for leniency from any part of the government, Iran’s reaction has ruined it. No country can tolerate its envoy in another country being summoned to explain a security incidence involving its citizens on its own soil especially if the other country is known to have propped up a parallel government in Lebanon and the incidence in question involves an organization that allegedly growing into a government of its own within the boundaries of the state.

https://pullo4mbina./2016/01/07/el-zakzaky-and-the-nigerian-government-a-focus-on-zaria-incidence

And some people are claiming this idiots are peaceful. Pls NA continued dealing with this undesirables elements.

So what? Let them obey the law of the land, if not they should be deal with!

O my God!!! Some are praying for child while some are dumping.

Junk news which cable? non-sense!

His obeying the nature call.

He was already confirmed. Let the wailers keep wailing.

All the movement is just a hoax.

That impressive!!!

!!! Great!

Waw

Eyah!!!

Who be that person? N falana is not a coward he could make public since.

OP, this popular hausa actress Ummi Nuhu. Though she is off the camera nowadays.

Aside top UN and EU officials, as well as heads of international nongovernmental organisations who participated, the meeting was also attended by the Prime Minister of Niger, Brigi Rafini and Chad’s Foreign Minister, Moussa Faki Mahamat.

A brochure of the meeting listed “High level representation from the government of Nigeria” among the panelists expected to speak at the meeting.
Can't you notice the nations attending the meeting, how can UN meeting be only attended by Niger and Chad, and u call it an official UN meeting? And Nigeria is expected to speak not scheduled to speak this finally confirmed it as unofficial.

Pls lacasera give it a dawn!

May Allah continue to bless Nigeria and Nigerians. Thank GOD for PMB/OSB

that is a good move,
May Allah Continue to Bless nigeria and nigerians

Gusau is not sokoto now, the above mentioned candidate Ibrahim shehu his contesting for the central senatorial seat in zamfara not in sokoto, how comes they burned his campaign office in sokoto again. This just PDP propaganda.
Op take note.

The Enugu State Command of the Department of State Security Services, DSSS, on Thursday paraded a 35-year-old man who has been allegedly defrauding churches in the country under the pretense that he is a repented Boko Haram member.

Director of the DSSS in Enugu State, Mr. Victor Duru, who paraded the suspect identified as Daniel Danboyi, said that the suspect had been allegedly collecting money from people after claiming that he was also a Muslim converted to Christianity.

According to him, “He has been going about with false testimony, deceiving people and duping/exploiting them in the name religion. He claims that he is a renounced Boko Haram member who has converted to Christianity.

“Upon his arrest on 23/8/13, the suspect claimed he was invited by a church in Awka Anambra State (Spoken Word Church), for a youth programme, as a guest speaker.

“On his way back to Yola Adamawa State on 21st August 2013, the commercial bus he boarded broke down at 9th Mile, Enugu State. The driver refused to refund their fares and he was stranded. He called his host, who could not come to his aid, hence he had to proceed to Mountain of Fire and Miracle Church at Zik Avenue Enugu to solicit for money/help.


“The suspect has been a serial liar and deceiver. He is a Christian and not a Muslim. He confessed he has never been a Boko Haram member. His real name is Daniel Danboyi and not Shuaibu Shehu Rabiu”.

Duru called on Nigerians “to be wary of people going about sharing bogus testimonies, especially if the intention is to seek help or get money/favour or attract sympathy”.

However, when interviewed by journalists, the suspect, who looked healthy, stated that he lied that he was a repented Boko Haram member to enable him collect money for transportation to the North.

The suspect insisted that he only wanted to collect transportation, adding that the vehicle convening them to the north broke down at Ninth Mile, Enugu.

Danboyi, who claimed to be a missionary, disclosed that before his arrest, he went for a youth programme at Spoken Word Church, Awka to deliver a lecture.

He claimed that when the vehicle conveying them to the North broke down, he contacted a cleric in Spoken Word Church for money but the pastor failed to grant his request.

According to the suspect he lied at the church in order to attract pity and favour from the members.

He admitted to claiming that he was a repented Boko Haram member who is now a Christian, and changed his name as well to suit the lies.

Read this piece written by Prof. Ette

A few years ago, I served as a pastor of a Methodist Church in a sub-urban neighbourhood in Portland Oregon, in the United States. I was young and just graduated from seminary.

I was then the first black pastor of what was then an all-white church. The church had historical significance in the region for it was said to be the first church built by the pioneers as they moved west in what was then called the Oregon territory. It was the beginning of fall season and the women were getting ready for the annual church bazaar. I had settled in that fall morning and was going over the day’s expectations with my secretary when the chair of the women fellowship came in. She did not look happy and it was apparent that something was wrong. I told Estelle, the secretary, to leave us for a moment and closed the door behind her.

“Pastor”, Mrs. Smith began, “someone is bringing filth into the church and you must do something to stop this”. I was at a loss with what she was referring to and after calming her down I asked what the matter was.

“Come, let me show you”, she said and stood up and stomped towards the door. I stood up and followed her and stopped briefly at Estelle’s office to ask her to hold all my telephone calls. As we made our way to the storage area where the women were sorting out the donations for the bazaar, Mrs. Smith rushed to the area where books were stored and held out a book with the title: The Gift of Sex. I was familiar with this text having studied sex and sexuality as part of my graduate training in family social work.


“This is what I’m talking about”, she exclaimed with all the righteousness of someone whose faith has been wounded. “Someone brought this filth into the church, what is this world coming to?”, she asked with an air of begging me to join in the condescension. “I want all this bad books thrown out of here for we will not accept books like this” she concluded.

I told her that there was nothing wrong with the book as it was written for Christian couples. Looking back at this incident now with the benefit of time, I must have shocked Mrs. Smith because I told her that if we were to throw out all the books that mention sex from the church building and church library, then we also would throw away the Bible because it has stories with sex in it.

As I read the reactions of Nigerians and the outrage following the bombing of the church on Christmas Day by the radical Islamic sect, Boko Haram, I am reminded of the encounter I had with my parishioner. We tend to want everyone to believe the way we do and when others see the world differently, we fume. My fellow Christians have tended to see the bombing as an act of Muslim conspiracy against Christians rather than an action of a radical murderous sect that is not speaking for all Muslims. One writer on the Internet even went as far as quoting the Quran pointing out that Islam sanctions the killing of Christians. This murderous group, it should be recalled also unleashed its mayhem during the Muslim celebration of Eid el Kabir a month earlier in Jos. Religious fundamentalism is found in all religions, and is not peculiar to Islam.

Are you ready for stories of violence in the Bible? The fact is that all revealed religions are just that “revealed” and therefore, open to interpretations by the adherents. It is the reason we have so many denominations in Christianity because we do not all agree on the meaning of a particular passage of our scripture. Yes, Islam has a history of violence and so does Christianity. Do the crusades come to mind? How about wars and killings in Ireland and Uganda? I am not defending Islam nor do I advocate for Christianity to be seen as the religion of the “civilised”. The fact remains that religion remains a source of conflict in the modern world because of ethnocentrism. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu eloquently stated in his new book, “God is not a Christian”, we belong and practise a particular religion because of the accident of our birth.


If our parents were born in Saudi Arabia instead of southern Nigeria, chances are that you and I will be Muslims today and how we practise that religion would depend on our level of education and socio-economic status. We have this tendency to evangelise and see our culture and religion as “the way” and all others as savages. No one religion has a monopoly on fundamentalism; it is a function of how we see the world. To many, religion may be the only way of making sense of the world and so everything else is filtered through such lenses. The French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, had taught the world that the primitive form of the religious life forces those who know nothing else to see the world exclusively through the workings of the supernatural. It is when we defy the gods and ask questions that we can escape the grip of the primitive as the British writer, Salman Rushdie, noted. Rather than blame Islam as a religion, religious fundamentalism should be seen as a symptom of what is wrong in the society and our educational system. As a social scientist, I do not like simple answers because the world is too complex for finger pointing. The Boko Haram menace and religious fundamentalism in Nigeria depend on the ability to recruit the poor and those who are not educated. Religious violence depends on the ability to convince those who cannot read and write that one interpretation of an ancient text holds the key to liberation from poverty and suffering. Ability to convince people to look past human emotions and the sacredness of human life depends on that ancient and primitive reasoning that the individual is serving a higher purpose by being non-human. In the end, it is the human being who thinks that he or she is serving the divine by killing others that is evil. Religion in itself is not bad, it is we who are bad; it is what we make of it that is bad.

Professor Ette teaches social work and community development at the Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa Idaho, USA.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMERICAN BOKO HARAM SPOKES LADY
GOVERNMENTS and newspapers around the world attributed the horrific Christmas Day bombings of churches in Nigeria to “Boko Haram” — a shadowy group that is routinely described as an extremist Islamist organization based in the northeast corner of Nigeria. Indeed, since the May inauguration of President Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian from the Niger Delta in the country’s south, Boko Haram has been blamed for virtually every outbreak of violence in Nigeria.

But the news media and American policy makers are chasing an elusive and ill-defined threat; there is no proof that a well-organized, ideologically coherent terrorist group called Boko Haram even exists today. Evidence suggests instead that, while the original core of the group remains active, criminal gangs have adopted the name Boko Haram to claim responsibility for attacks when it suits them.

The United States must not be drawn into a Nigerian “war on terror” — rhetorical or real — that would make us appear biased toward a Christian president. Getting involved in an escalating sectarian conflict that threatens the country’s unity could turn Nigerian Muslims against America without addressing any of the underlying problems that are fueling instability and sectarian strife in Nigeria.

Since August, when Gen. Carter F. Ham, the commander of the United States Africa Command, warned that Boko Haram had links to Al Qaeda affiliates, the perceived threat has grown. Shortly after General Ham’s warning, the United Nations’ headquarters in Abuja was bombed, and simplistic explanations blaming Boko Haram for Nigeria’s mounting security crisis became routine. Someone who claims to be a spokesman for Boko Haram — with a name no one recognizes and whom no one has been able to identify or meet with — has issued threats and statements claiming responsibility for attacks. Remarkably, the Nigerian government and the international news media have simply accepted what he says.

In late November, a subcommittee of the [US] House Committee on Homeland Security issued a report with the provocative title: “Boko Haram: Emerging Threat to the U.S. Homeland.” The report makes no such case, but nevertheless proposes that the organization be added to America’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. The State Department’s Africa bureau disagrees, but pressure from Congress and several government agencies is mounting.

Boko Haram began in 2002 as a peaceful Islamic splinter group. Then politicians began exploiting it for electoral purposes. But it was not until 2009 that Boko Haram turned to violence, especially after its leader, a young Muslim cleric named Mohammed Yusuf, was killed while in police custody. Video footage of Mr. Yusuf’s interrogation soon went viral, but no one was tried and punished for the crime. Seeking revenge, Boko Haram targeted the police, the military and local politicians — all of them Muslims.

It was clear in 2009, as it is now, that the root cause of violence and anger in both the north and south of Nigeria is endemic poverty and hopelessness. Influential Nigerians from Maiduguri, where Boko Haram is centered, pleaded with Mr. Jonathan’s government in June and July not to respond to Boko Haram with force alone. Likewise, the American ambassador, Terence P. McCulley, has emphasized, both privately and publicly, that the government must address socio-economic deprivation, which is most severe in the north. No one seems to be listening.

Instead, approximately 25 percent of Nigeria’s budget for 2012 is allocated for security, even though the military and police routinely respond to attacks with indiscriminate force and killing. Indeed, according to many Nigerians I’ve talked to from the northeast, the army is more feared than Boko Haram.

Meanwhile, Boko Haram has evolved into a franchise that includes criminal groups claiming its identity. Revealingly, Nigeria’s State Security Services issued a statement on Nov. 30, identifying members of four “criminal syndicates” that send threatening text messages in the name of Boko Haram. Southern Nigerians — not northern Muslims — ran three of these four syndicates, including the one that led the American Embassy and other foreign missions to issue warnings that emptied Abuja’s high-end hotels. And last week, the security services arrested a Christian southerner wearing northern Muslim garb as he set fire to a church in the Niger Delta. In Nigeria, religious terrorism is not always what it seems.

None of this excuses Boko Haram’s killing of innocents. But it does raise questions about a rush to judgment that obscures Nigeria’s complex reality.

Many Nigerians already believe that the United States unconditionally supports Mr. Jonathan’s government, despite its failings. They believe this because Washington praised the April elections that international observers found credible, but that many Nigerians, especially in the north, did not. Likewise, Washington’s financial support for Nigeria’s security forces, despite their documented human rights abuses, further inflames Muslim Nigerians in the north.

Mr. Jonathan’s recent actions have not helped matters. He told Nigerians last week, “The issue of bombing is one of the burdens we must live with.” On New Year’s Eve, he declared a state of emergency in parts of four northern states, leading to increased military activity there. And on New Year’s Day, he removed a subsidy on petroleum products, more than doubling the price of fuel. In a country where 90 percent of the population lives on $2 or less a day, anger is rising nationwide as the costs of transport and food increase dramatically.

Since Nigeria’s return to civilian rule in 1999, many politicians have used ethnic and regional differences and, most disastrously, religion for their own purposes. Northern Muslims — indeed, all Nigerians — are desperate for a government that responds to their most basic needs: personal security and hope for improvement in their lives. They are outraged over government policies and expenditures that undermine both.

The United States should not allow itself to be drawn into this quicksand by focusing on Boko Haram alone. Washington is already seen by many northern Muslims — including a large number of longtime admirers of America — as biased toward a Christian president from the south. The United States must work to avoid a self-fulfilling prophecy that makes us into their enemy. Placing Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would cement such views and make more Nigerians fear and distrust America.
Thanks Alhaja professor jean Herskovits, when do you turn to be norther muslims spokes woman for god sake.

Former head of state and presidential candidate General Muhammadu Buhari yesterday stated that the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), General Ibrahim Babangida and Alhaji Adamu Ciroma lacks the moral rights to challenge usage of public funds in furthering the chances of Presidential Goodluck Jonathan in the impending presidential election.
He also tackled Babangida on his purported commitment to Igbo presidency in 2015.





Buhari, who spoke through his spokesperson Ya'u Shehu Darazo in an exclusive interview with LEADERSHIP, argued: "First of all, we want to be understood that I am not condoning the use of public funds to finance party activities. Two, I am also not defending Jonathan; he is in a position to defend himself and has handlers.What I am saying is ACF lacks the moral right now to speak against President Jonathan or anybody in government using or misusing public funds to finance political campaign because this did not start today. It started with Obasanjo and all of us know it. We knew, for instance, when we were in court in 2003, that for the 30 months lawyers of Obasanjo were coming to court in government vehicles. They were accommodated in government VIP guest houses, they were financed from government coffers, they were provided with the State Security Services (SSS) personnel as bodyguards. Where was ACF then? We also saw in 2007 when we were in court that the lawyers of the late Yar'Adua were driven to court in government vehicles supported by machinery of government. Where was ACF then? And we also saw all over the country where governors who rigged elections were taken to courts, the entire government machinery wase in courts in respect of all the governors whether in the North or South. Where was ACF? So this is the moral question and that is why some of us are opposed to the partisan position of the ACF in respect of the so- called zoning, because it is entirely a PDP affair and ACF today has turned itself into an organ of the PDP.

"There are, over 50 political parties. If anybody felt cheated in his party he or she has option to move to another party and aspire to be whatever he wants to be. The essential thing is to mobilize Northerners and by extension Nigerians to make the right choice and defend their votes. And I would give you an example: the spokesperson of ACF is from Nasarawa State. We saw then how Abdullahi Adamu as the governor was running the state like Hitler. He conducted the worst election ever in Nigeria and, in Akwanga where the spokesman comes from, he did the worst because that was the enclave of the ANPP. Where was the ACF then? So this is what we are saying: when an honourable organisation goes into partisan politics it loses its bearing, and that is what it is today, a PDP wing. A lot of people have lost confidence,  and thank God for the chairman who has maintained a dignified position. We challenge them to focus on Northern governors seeking re-election, and those who may want to force the anointed ones on the people. What are they doing in this regard?

Commenting on the recent letter written to the leadership of the PDP by a group led by Alhaji Adamu Ciroma, Buhari said: "I read very interesting interview in which Edwin Clark said he attended more ACF meetings than Adamu Ciroma, and he was right because I, for example was part of ACF from March 8, 2000 – that was when it started – and I have never seen Adamu Ciroma; in any case he was one of those opposing ACF because he saw ACF as an organ that was challenging the brutality of Obasanjo on the people of the North, and Adamu Ciroma was opposed to that and he made all efforts to destroy the organisation along with the rest.

And so when Edwin Clark said so, he is right because there was fraternity between the ACF and the South-South. What I am saying is: I am surprised that, suddenly, Adamu Ciroma has regained his voice. Because I remember in the first post-PDP convention in Abuja in 1999 the Northern candidate for the chairmanship of the party was the late Chief Sunday Awoniyi. Everybody knew that in that election that was the burial of internal party democracy in Nigeria and Obasanjo was responsible for that.”