Connect with us

News

No Cause For Alarm Over S’Court Decision -PDP, Atiku

Published

on

The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in the February 23 election, Atiku Abubakar, yesterday, said there was no cause for any alarm on the verdict of the Supreme Court to strike out his appeal to inspect the central server of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The apex court had in a judgment held that Atiku’s request could not be granted because it was brought after parties have joined issues on the existence or otherwise of the server.
In the unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Chima Nweze, it said the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal was in order in refusing to grant Atiku’s request at the time it was made so as not to prejudice other parties in the matter.
In addition, the apex court held that the appeal lacked merit because the appellants failed to prove how the decision of the tribunal was unfair to them.
Justice Nweze said a party can only complain of the lack of fair hearing when discretion of court was wrongly or arbitrarily used by the court, adding that in this instant case, the tribunal used its discretion judicially and judiciously.
“I see no reason to depart from the decision of the lower court, the appeal is lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed”, Justice Nweze said.
Reacting, Atiku, who spoke through his lead counsel at yesterday’s proceedings, Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, said that the decision was anticipated and that proactive action had been taken during the hearing of the petition.
Jegede said that the issue of server which was aimed at establishing that the election was rigged during collation of results was thoroughly addressed through witnesses and documents tendered and admitted during the presentation of the petition.
He expressed optimism that the tribunal would do justice at the end of the day.
Atiku had approached the Supreme Court praying for an order to set aside the decision of the tribunal which refused to compel INEC to allow him access to the central server alleged used in the conduct of the presidential poll.
The senior lawyer told the five man panel of the apex court led by Justice Mohammed Datijo, that access to the INEC’s central server is germane to the joint petition of Atiku and PDP and urged the court to grant the request of the appellants by ordering the electoral body to allow access to its database.
However, President Muhammadu Buhari, represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, asked the court to turn down the request and to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appeal has become academic.
Olanipekun drew the attention of the court to the fact that the life of the appeal will expire tomorrow and even if the request is granted it will serve no purpose to the two petitioners since they have long close their case.
Olanipekun further told the court that parties will on Wednesday adopt their final written addresses at the tribunal after which a judgment date will be fixed.
The position of Olanipekun was, however, adopted by counsel to INEC, Yunus Usman SAN and that of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Charles Edosamwam.
Recall that the tribunal in a ruling on June 24 refused to grant the request of the petitioners on the grounds that doing so would amount to admitting the existence of the ‘controversial INEC central server’.
The tribunal in its ruling delivered by its Chairman, Justice Mohammed Garba further held that granting the application would be prejudice to the respondents in the petition.
Dissatisfied, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court to upturn the decision.
However, in a related development, the apex court struck out another appeal by Atiku and the PDP following the withdrawal of same by the two appellants.
At the resumed hearing of the appeal, counsel to the appellants, Eyitayo Jegede, informed the court that the appeal having not been argued within 21 days allowed by law has become statute barred.
The appeal SC/738/2019 was seeking to upturn the decision of the tribunal which held that the petitioners lost their right of objection to the APC’s application seeking the dismissal of their petition or expunge some parts of the petition having not filed a reply within the time prescribed by the law.
The withdrawal was not opposed by the respondents; INEC, Buhari and the APC.
Accordingly, presiding Justice of the five man panel, Justice Mohammed Datijo struck out the appeal.
The parties in the petition will tomorrow adopt their final written addresses to state their respective positions in the petition challenging the declaration of Buhari as winner of the February 23 presidential election.
The tribunal had adjourned till August 21 for adoption of final written addresses after the parties in the petition had argued and close their cases for and against the petition.
But the tribunal is expected to announce a date for its decision after parties have adopted their final addresses tomorrow.
Meanwhile, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has reacted to Supreme Court ruling against appeal filed by its Presidential Candidate, Atiku Abubakar at the ongoing Election Tribunal.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the last presidential election had approached the apex court seeking permission to be allowed access to a supposed server.
The Justice Datijo Mohammed-led panel of the Supreme Court struck out the interlocutory appeal.
But this development came after the appeal was withdrawn by Mr Abubakar’s counsel.
Reacting, PDP, in a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Kola Ologbondiyan, yesterday, noted that the main petition was still before presidential tribunal and has not been decided on.
The statement read: “The case that was determined today by the Justice Dattijio Mohammed led five-man panel of the Supreme Court, was an appeal filed by the PDP and Atiku/Obi on a ruling of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal concerning an application made by the APC to withdraw one of the replies made to the petitioners’ petition.
“The APC had erroneously made two replies to one of PDP and Atiku/Obi’s petitions but later came to the courtroom and apply to withdraw the very reply the PDP and Atiku/Obi had replied to, thereby adopting the one not replied to.
“This request was later granted by the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal and the PDP and Atiku/Obi had gone to the Supreme Court, seeking the leave of court to grant the party fair hearing.
“Please, note that the main petition is still before the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal and the adoption of the final written addresses by various parties will take place on Wednesday, August 21, 2019, at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, venue of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal.
“Important Information: It is also important for the general public to note that the PDP and Atiku/Obi have already done justice to ‘ALL’ the replies made to their Petitions by the 1st Respondent, (INEC), 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari) and the 3rd Respondent (The All Progressives Congress), in their final written address.
“The Issues for determination: Whether the 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari) was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election; whether the 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari) submitted to the 1st Respondent (INEC) affidavits containing false information of a fundamental nature in aid of his qualification for the said election; whether from the pleadings and evidence led it was established that the 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari) was elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election; whether the Presidential election conducted by the 1st Respondent (INEC) on the 23rd February 2019 was invalid by reasons of corrupt practices; and whether the presidential election conducted by the 1st Respondent (INEC) on the 23rd February 2019 was invalid by reasons of non-compliance with the electoral act 2010 (as amended) and the electoral guidelines 2019 and the manuals issued for the conduct of the elections.

Continue Reading

City Crime

Ministry Raises Concern Over Rising Teenage Pregnancies, Begins Adolescent Sensitisation Campaign

Published

on

The Department of Public Health in the Rivers State Ministry of Health has raised concern over the increasing cases of teenage pregnancies in society as it intensifies efforts to educate adolescents across the state.
Programme Manager for Adolescent Health and Development in the department, Mrs. Tammy Briggs, expressed the concern during a sensitisation programme held at Government Girls Secondary School Rumueme in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State.
Briggs explained that the campaign was designed to educate adolescents on the dangers of teenage pregnancy and other health-related issues affecting young people.
According to her, teenage pregnancy is currently on the rise, making it necessary for the ministry to step up awareness programmes among students.
“This is something that is on the rise for now. We have observed that there are many cases of teenage pregnancies, so we are here to sensitise them on ways to prevent it entirely,” she said.
She disclosed that the sensitisation campaign is being carried out in selected schools across four local government areas of the state, namely Obio/Akpor Local Government Area, Port Harcourt City Local Government Area, Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Area and Eleme Local Government Area.
Briggs noted that the programme focuses on several key issues affecting adolescents, including sexual and reproductive health, gender-based violence, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, emotional health and proper nutrition.
She added that the outreach programme also featured tuberculosis screening for students as well as the distribution of sanitary pads and mathematical sets to support their health and academic development.
The programme manager commended the management of Government Girls Secondary School Rumueme for their cooperation and support in hosting the sensitisation exercise. She also advised the students to avoid behaviours that could jeopardise their future.
Speaking during the session, Dr. Nwadike Chinonso urged the students to make informed decisions about their lives and remain focused on their education.
He cautioned them against engaging in early sexual activities, stressing that abstinence remains one of the most effective ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies.
Some of the students who participated in the programme expressed appreciation to the team for the awareness campaign and pledged to apply the knowledge gained to make responsible life choices.

Continue Reading

City Crime

Extortion, Contraband Scandal Erupts At Kwale Custodial Centre

Published

on

Disturbing allegations of extortion, intimidation and the smuggling of prohibited items have unsettled the Kwale Medium Security Custodial Centre (MSCC) in Delta State, prompting calls for urgent intervention by the national authorities of the Nigeria Correctional Service amid fears of potential security breaches within the facility.
The development was disclosed by a senior officer at the Delta State custodial facility, who expressed concern over what was described as entrenched irregularities capable of undermining discipline and operational standards at the centre.
According to the source, detailed findings compiled between December 2025 and January 2026 highlighted patterns of misconduct and warned of possible security consequences should the allegations remain unchecked.
At the centre of the claims is a powerful corrections official serving as Officer in Charge of the Kwale facility, accused of presiding over persistent financial extortion, high-handedness and the victimisation of inmates under his supervision.
The document further indicated that the alleged practices may have originated during the tenure of a former General Provost, reportedly with the collaboration of another senior custodial official within the system.
Intelligence details suggested that inmates were allegedly compelled to contribute funds for projects and items considered outside the statutory framework of inmate welfare, raising questions about compliance with established correctional guidelines.
Among the financial demands reportedly imposed were ¦ 300,000 for the repair of a Hilux vehicle, ¦ 600,000 for the purchase of a freezer and ¦ 750,000 for a generator allegedly designated for the Officer in Charge’s residence.
The report also alleged that inmates were required to make payments before being conveyed to court, while Awaiting Trial Persons in Cells One to Nine were directed to raise ¦ 30,000 per cell, with Convict Cells One to Three, including a designated VIP cell, similarly mandated to pay ¦ 30,000 monthly.
Observers noted that if substantiated, such practices would amount to grave breaches of professional ethics and custodial administration standards, eroding principles of fairness, transparency and inmate welfare within correctional institutions.
Beyond the financial allegations, the intelligence brief raised concerns over the purported possession of unauthorised communication devices, alleging that a serving General Provost had two Android phones while another influential inmate was also reportedly found with a mobile device.
The document further alleged that prohibited items, including alcoholic beverages, Indian hemp and other hard substances, may have been smuggled into the custodial yard under the guise of routine supervision duties, with security sources warning that the cumulative effect of extortion, intimidation and contraband trafficking has heightened tension within the facility.
In view of the gravity of the allegations, they called for an immediate and discreet investigation by the minister of Interior for immediate action to safe the life of inmates.
The administrative review of implicated officers, even as officials of the Nigeria Correctional Service had yet to issue an official statement, with stakeholders insisting that a transparent probe and decisive action are essential to restoring confidence and safeguarding institutional integrity at the Kwale Medium Security Custodial Centre.

Continue Reading

News

SERAP Sues FG Over Phone-Tapping Rules

Published

on

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit against the government of President Bola Tinubu at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice over the government’s alleged failure to withdraw “unlawful mass phone-tapping rules” known as the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019.

LICR 2019 is a regulation that authorises telecom licensees to install technology for security agencies to monitor communications, including voice, data, text, email, and browsing, for national security and to combat crime.

SERAP, in a statement signed by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, yesterday, said the suit followed allegations by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, that the phone conversation of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, was intercepted.

El-Rufai reportedly claimed, “The NSA’s call was tapped. They do that to our calls too, and we heard him saying they should arrest me.”

In the suit numbered ECW/CCJ/APP/11/26, filed last Friday at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja, SERAP is seeking “a declaration that the failure of the government to withdraw the Interception of Communications Regulations is unlawful and a violation of Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”

The organisation is also asking the court to declare that the government’s failure to withdraw the regulations “constitutes an official endorsement of unlawful mass phone-tapping rules, as the Regulations are patently unlawful, and violate the rule of law, democratic principles, and the right to privacy.”

It is further seeking “an order directing and compelling the Nigerian government to immediately withdraw the Interception of Communications Regulations, and to commence a legislative process to ensure that any interception regulations are in conformity with Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”

The suit, filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare, Oluwakemi Oni, Valentina Adegoke and Maryam Mumuni, argued that “the Regulations establish a sweeping mass phone-tapping regime that violates Nigerians’ constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights, including to privacy and freedom of expression.”

“Where powers affecting fundamental human rights are exercised in secrecy and concentrated in political authorities without independent supervision, the risks of arbitrariness are substantial.

“Surveillance measures that lack strict necessity, proportionality and independent judicial oversight can easily be weaponised against political opponents, journalists, civil society actors and election observers,” it added.

SERAP also warned that the regulations raise concerns as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, noting that broad interception powers could be abused during politically sensitive periods.

“In an electoral climate, even the perception that private communications are being monitored can chill political organising, investigative reporting and voter mobilisation.

“Free and fair elections depend on confidential communications, protected journalistic sources and open democratic debate. Any misuse of intercepted data for intimidation, political advantage or disinformation would fundamentally undermine Nigerians’ right to political participation and electoral integrity.

“As 2027 approaches, interception powers must be narrowly defined, subject to prior independent judicial authorisation and backed by effective remedies. Without robust safeguards, these Regulations risk threatening privacy rights, freedom of expression and the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic process,” the suit stated.

SERAP maintained that any restriction on the right to privacy must comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, arguing that the regulations fail to meet these requirements.

SERAP also cited the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as stating that mass surveillance programmes based on indiscriminate and blanket collection of personal data are arbitrary and cannot satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality.

The group said the Nigerian government has a duty to adopt clear laws, safeguards, independent oversight mechanisms and accessible remedies to prevent abuse by state agencies and private actors, including telecommunications providers and technology companies.

According to SERAP, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) adopted the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019 while exercising its powers under Section 70 of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003.

The organisation argued that Regulation 4 grants broad discretionary interception powers to the National Security Adviser and the State Security Services, with little clarity on the scope or limits of such authority.

SERAP also pointed to inconsistencies within the regulations, noting that while Regulation 4 and Regulation 12 restrict interception powers to the NSA and SSS, Regulation 23 expands the category of authorised agencies to include bodies such as the Nigeria Police Force, National Intelligence Agency, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, and any other agency the commission may designate.

The organisation said this ambiguity undermines legal certainty and creates the risk of arbitrary application and abuse.

It also criticised provisions allowing interception without a warrant in certain circumstances, arguing that such powers are overly broad and susceptible to misuse.

SERAP further expressed concern that the regulations do not require authorities to notify individuals who have been subjected to surveillance, which it said weakens the ability of citizens to challenge unlawful monitoring.

The organisation warned that requirements compelling telecommunications licensees to install interception equipment and disclose encryption keys could undermine cybersecurity and discourage privacy-enhancing technologies.

SERAP acknowledged the government’s responsibility to address national security and organised crime but argued that such measures must remain within constitutional and international human rights limits.

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.

 

Continue Reading

Trending