Politics

Reps: We Are Still Expecting Buhari to Appear Before Us

Published

6 years ago

December 11, 2020

admin

The House of Representatives on Thursday said it was still expecting President Muhammadu Buhari to appear before it to shed light on the security situation in the country.

Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila told State House Correspondents that the lawmakers expected the president to fulfil his promise to appear before the House as a man of honour and integrity.

He said Buhari, who has not honoured the promise, was yet to communicate with the House on why he has not appeared before the lawmakers.

However, on Wednesday, Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami said the parliament lacked the power to invite the President.

Also, the Senate had dissociated itself from the invitation extended to the President by the House.

Deputy Senate President Ovie Omo-Agege said it is unconstitutional and an aberration for any arm of the national Assembly to summon the President to speak before it.

The Senate Committee Media and Public Affairs Chairman, Ajibola Bashiru, said the Senate had nothing to do with the invitation.

The House maintained that its resolution on the invitation of the President has not been withdrawn.

The Chairman of its Committee on Media and Publicity, Benjamin Kalu told reporters after plenary that since the House was yet to receive any official communication from the President, it would be wrong assume that he would not honour the invitation.

On Thursday, All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain and Director-General of the Voice of Nigeria ( VON), Osita Okechukwu, said the President’s appearance before the House would be counter-productive, adding that it would heat up the polity.

Shedding light on why Buhari was summoned to the House, Kalu clarified that the move was not to ridicule him over security matters.

He explained that the President was invited for an engagement with the House on ways to address the lingering security challenges and get a feedback from him on steps already taken on the situation.

He emphasised that the House did not act in error by inviting the president, stressing that lawmakers were exercising their constitutional rights.

Kalu said the parliament was constitutionally empowered to order the arrest of a sitting President, adding that the power was not being exercised because of the immunity clause as contained in Section 308 of the constitution.

He added that the Attorney-General of the Federation was neither a spokesman of the President nor that of the All Progressives Congress (APC), adding that he cannot be said to have spoken for the party.

Kalu acknowledged the president’s right to listen to the advice of the party in the spirit of party supremacy.

He said: “When that motion was passed last week, the House was rowdy. It was rowdy because some people wanted the President to be here and others felt otherwise. But, majority of our members, through the mandate of their constituents, moved the resolution, even against the position of the Speaker.

“If you were there, you will discover that the Speaker struggled to ensure that the House towed the line of using diplomatic approach to it. But, the position of the parliament overrides the presiding officer because to do otherwise is to be biased. At the end of the day, it is the opinion of the people that matters.

“As a mark of honour, the leadership of the House sent a delegation made up of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and the Majority Leader to engage the President beyond the resolution of the House, which was not compelling him or summoning him to come as many put it. It was an invitation.

“The House invited Mr. President. There is a difference between compelling and inviting and the ability to resolve this will enable us to know the mood of the House and the intention of the House. The President assured them and we believe in the integrity of the words of the President, having shown commitment to address Nigerians. But, the date was not specified.

“There was official communication from the President committing to the position of the Speaker that the President has accepted to come, which was a confirmation that the Speaker and his delegation were not acting on their own.

“Up to that extent, we felt very honoured by the President, having communicated his desire to engage with Nigerians, especially when his aide made it more obvious that he has shown interest to address the parliament.

“What we operate is a democracy that is hinged on party supremacy. This is not a military rule where one man takes a decision. Beyond the President lies the supremacy of the party. The President answers to the party even though he is the leader.

“He is not more powerful than the party because he is President on the card given to him by the party. So, if he took a position as President of the country and his political party which is supreme weigh on him to alter his position, if he is truly a party man, he must have obliged his party.

“We have not received any formal or official communication from the Presidency. The time now is past One o’clock, Thursday, December 10, we are yet to receive a formal communication from the office of the President stating that the appointment is cancelled or shifted. We have received any communication from the President saying ‘I am no more coming’. All you have heard are from unofficial sources

“The question then is what is the relevance of this visit and whether it is morally or legally right? Nigerians have been asking this question. The Parliament does not have a different voice from the voice of Nigerians. If you want to know what parliament feels about an issue, the easiest way is to feel the pulse of those who sent us here.”

On the position of the Minister of Justice, Kalu said: “I would have said let us leave the judicial and legal interpretation of the constitution to the judiciary.

“But, as a lawyer, I can assure you that the parliament did not act in error. I say this based on the provisions of the constitution that established us, even the smallest committee of the House has a mandate which is expressed in section 88 and 89.

“If you want to address the question on whether the House as a committee of the whole is investigating insecurity, money appropriated for security, inefficiency in security or any petition around insecurity, if the House has the power to look into that, the answer is yes. The position of the law as contained in Section 4 of the Armed Forces Act, the President is Chairman of the Security Council.

“The Armed Forces Act is a legislation made by the parliament. It is the provision of Section 89 that we have the right to investigate issues bothering on any issue that we have power to legislate on. It is called legislative competence.

“We have the competence to legislate on all these. Therefore, if there are things that we need to find out in those areas, the power empowers us to invite any person for the purpose of obtaining any evidence or information.

“There is also a section in the constitution which is the power to arrest or command presence of the President. But, because of Section 308 which guarantees immunity, we cannot exercise that. The power of discretion (section 218) is there. The power of discretion as found in section 67 (1) which says the President may visit the National Assembly to address certain issues is discretional.

“But, if the House is investigating any issue that bother on all the places that we make laws, the position of section 88 and 89 is there that we have power to invite people to give us evidence. But, the question is, is the President under investigation? Or did we invite the President for investigation? The answer is no.

“We invited him to have an engagement that will help us review few things and to know whether the strategies we are using now is in order or not and get feedback. We cannot command the President to attend, but we can invite him.”

However, Okechukwu maintained that Buhari should not honour the invitation.

He said: “My take is that it is better for Mr President to stay away in the midst of the storm. I support APC governors, Attorney-General of Federation and all those who advised Mr President to hold on.

“The heat his appearance will generate will be too much. Those who are condemning his non-appearance today should be mindful of the anger in the land.

“The management and control of the security sector is exclusively vested on the President by Section 218 (1) of the Constitution as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, including the power to determine the operational use of the armed forces. An invitation that seeks to put the operational use of the armed forces to a public interrogation is indeed taking the constitutional rights of law making beyond bounds.”

Asked for his take on the disagreement of some prominent senior advocates to the Minister on the points of law?

“In fact, from the musings and comments from some members of the NASS, your imagination is better than mine on the vile embarrassment and darts which seem targeted at Mr President. Indeed, only God knows the huge embarrassment packaged for him.”

“No one will deny the hovering political land mines and propaganda grenades packaged for Mr President.

“For me these propaganda grenades are neither solution nor security plan. We share the same anguish over the insecurity in the land, but let’s not forget the mileages covered since 2015 by Buhari’s regime.

“Mr President can attend when the storm is over or as President Franklin D. Roosevelt did on 6 January, 1941 when the World War II was raging to address the nation.”

Politics

2027: Peter Obi not a threat to Tinubu, says Sunday Dare

Published

2 weeks ago

June 28, 2026

admin

Sunday Dare, special adviser to President Bola Tinubu on media and public communications, has dismissed talks that the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), Peter Obi, poses a political threat to the Tinubu administration, insisting that the government remains focused on delivering on its mandate.

Dare, while speaking during an interview on the Mic On Podcast, said the administration was confident in its achievements and ongoing reforms, arguing that its performance had strengthened its political standing ahead of the 2027 general elections.

According to him, the government has carefully assessed the country’s challenges and is implementing policies aimed at addressing them.

“This government is not afraid of Peter Obi. He is not a nightmare to our government. Maybe before, Peter Obi was a threat, but right now, he is no threat because we stand on the solid ground of performance,” Dare said.

He added, “We have been able to interrogate the problems of this country. Decisions are being taken, policies are being unfolded across the country, and we have a scorecard to show.”

Dare also criticised Obi’s public comments and media appearances, describing some of his responses to questions as lacking clarity.

“Peter Obi is not a nightmare. Maybe you replace nightmare with nuisance because if you see some of his reactions, they are very pedantic. Sometimes you wonder. You listen to some of his interviews, ask him a question, and he goes in a roundabout direction that does not make sense,” he said.

Commenting on the 2027 presidential election, Dare expressed confidence that Obi would not replicate his performance in Lagos, where the former Labour Party presidential candidate defeated Tinubu during the 2023 presidential election.

“Peter Obi defeated President Tinubu in Lagos in 2023. This is 2027; he can’t defeat Tinubu again in Lagos,” he said.

Dare’s remarks come amid increasing political positioning by major parties and key opposition figures ahead of the 2027 general elections, with both the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and opposition leaders intensifying public engagements over their records and electoral prospects.

News

Court orders INEC to deregister ADC, four other political parties

Published

4 weeks ago

June 15, 2026

admin

A federal high court in Abuja, the federal capital territory (FCT) has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties.

The other political parties are the Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

The plaintiff had asked the court to determine whether INEC is constitutionally required to deregister political parties that fail to satisfy the performance thresholds stipulated in section 225A of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The group argued that the five parties had consistently failed to meet the conditions for retaining their registration, including securing at least 25 percent of votes in a state during a presidential election or winning elective positions at the national, state, or local government levels.

According to the plaintiff, the parties failed to achieve the required electoral performance in the 2023 general election and subsequent by-elections conducted by INEC.

The former lawmakers contended that allowing the parties to remain registered despite their poor electoral showing was contrary to constitutional provisions and detrimental to the integrity of the electoral process.

They prayed the court to compel INEC to deregister the parties before preparations for the 2027 general election gather momentum.

The plaintiffs also sought orders restraining the affected parties from participating in elections, conducting primaries, organising rallies, or carrying out other political activities pending compliance with constitutional requirements.

In his judgment, Peter Lifu, the presiding judge, upheld the arguments of the plaintiff and ordered INEC to deregister the five political parties.

Politics

‘Learn from LP crisis’ — Abure warns Seriake Dickson to beware of Obi and his supporters

Published

1 month ago

June 9, 2026

admin

The factional national chairman of the Labour Party (LP), Julius Abure, has warned Seriake Dickson, national leader of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), to be cautious in his alliance with Peter Obi and his supporters.

Obi, the presidential candidate of the labour party in the 2023 general election, is the presidential candidate of the NDC. He secured the party’s ticket on May 30 after he was ratified at its national convention held in Abuja.

Speaking in a statement he personally signed, Abure said Dickson appeared to have learnt from the recent crisis in the LP, describing the NDC leader’s alleged refusal to concede all elective positions in the party to Obi’s supporters as commendable.

The LP factional chairman, alleged that Obi and Alex Otti, governor of Abia, and many of their supporters who won elections on the platform of the LP in 2023 have since turned against the party’s leadership.

He stated: “They say, history usually repeats itself. Senator Dickson and Co have seen their trajectory and learnt from what happened to us, that a lot of them after they have won and now in government turned round and were struggling with the leadership of the party,” the statement reads.

“I want to say that Obi and his followers are ingrates who will never remember the sacrifices you made for them. It is even dangerous for the leadership of the NDC to wholly hand over the elective positions to Obi and his followers.

“We did it in 2022/23, immediately they saw that Obi was interested in the leadership of the party, all those elected under the platform of the party simply followed Obi, forgetting all the sacrifices and suffering we made for them.”

Abure claimed that the crisis in the LP worsened when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) obeyed a court ruling which said the tenure of the party’s leadership had lapsed, giving rise to the Nenadi Usman-led interim national committee.

“They fell into the trap of INEC, when the commission deceived them to say that the tenure of the executive has expired. We had expected them to reject that position,” Abure said.

He noted in the light of what transpired in the LP, “it is strategically” important for Dickson to retain some control within the NDC by ensuring that his own supporters occupied positions in the party.

“He needed to bring his own people so that when the chips are down, he will also have people that will speak and defend him,” Abure said.

Abure further claimed that Obi’s supporters joined the NDC to dominate the party’s structure as they allegedly did in the LP.

“They trooped into NDC with Obi hoping to occupy every space like they did in the Labour Party. No leader of any political party seeing what Obi did to the Labour Party, along with his followers will make that mistake again,” he said.

He noted that his comments were prompted by questions about how the LP managed Obi and his supporters during the 2022/2023 election cycle.

According to him, the party made significant sacrifices to accommodate Obi’s interests, including granting many tickets to his supporters free of charge.

“We ensured that Obi’s interests were adequately taken care of. We only looked at his body language, and we obliged most of his supporters’ tickets,” he said.

“Most of the tickets were for free believing that we were investing in those persons in line with the philosophy of the party, expecting that when they win, they will bring along necessary support that will help in the growth of the party.

“But ironically, when they came into power, they went after the leadership of the party.”

Abure also accused Obi and Otti of attempting to take over the party’s leadership following disputes over the tenure of its executives.

“The leaders, particularly, Peter Obi and Alex Otti decided to take over the leadership of the party,” he said.

He added that elected officials who emerged on the party’s platform failed to support it financially, urging the NDC to learn from the LP’s experience.