news
Oyetola, APC, INEC urge Appeal Court to uphold Osun election
….Court reserves judgments on four appeals
The Osun State Governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to uphold the victory of Oyetola and APC in the governorship election held in the state on September 22 and 27, 2018.
Their request is contained in three separate appeals they filed against the majority judgment given by the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal on March 22, 2019.
The tribunal had, in the majority judgment, given by two of its three members upheld the petition by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Senator Ademola Adeleke and voided Oyetola and APC’s victory.
In their appeals, argued on Wednesday, Oyetola, the APC and INEC prayed the five-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Jummai Sankey, to set aside the majority decision of the tribunal, uphold their appeals and dismiss the October 16, 2018 petition by Adeleke and the PDP.
They equally urged the court to dismiss the cross-appeal filed by Adeleke, on the grounds that it is unmeritorious.
In the appeal by Oyetola, his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) faulted the reasons given by the tribunal in reaching the judgment appealed against, arguing that the decision was not supported by the evidence led by the petitioners.
He urged the court to void the judgment because the judge, Justice Peter Obiorah who wrote and delivered it, did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal.
Olanipekun noted that “the judge, who did not sit, came to write the leading judgment and reviewed the evidence of the February 6, 2019 proceedings where he was absent.
“Adjudication is like video watching. It cannot be done by proxy. The judge cannot analyse the evidence of a witness, whose demeanor he did not observe. The judgement should be declared a nullity on this ground alone”
Olanipekun, who said he and some named senior lawyers were at the tribunal on February 6, 2019, faulted the argument by lawyer to Adeleke and the PDP that it was not clear from the record of proceedings, whether or not Justice Obiorah was absent on the particular day.
He argued that the judge’s failure to sigh at the end of the proceedings on February 6, 2019 was enough evidence to justify the appellant’s claim that Justice Obiorah was absent on the day in question.
Olanipekun also faulted the tribunal’s cancellation of results in 17 polling units in the state, and noted that the petitioners did not tender any result of the election before the tribunal.
“If there was no result before the tribunal, the tribunal could not have cancelled what was not before it. Since no single result was submitted and could not have been cancelled,” he said.
He argued that the tribunal went beyond its powers by annulling results in the 17 polling units in order to justify its the judgement it gave in favour of the petitioners.
Read Also: Easter: Oyetola okays free train transport for Osun citizens
Lawyer to the APC, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), while arguing the party’s appeal, contended that the tribunal was wrong to have allowed the petition, which was incurably incompetent.
“The 1st and 2nd respondents sought to be declared winner of the election, held on September 22, 2018, which was declared inconclusive. They also asked the tribunal to void the rerun election held on September 27, 2018, because they believed it was unlawful.
“You cannot say you should be declared a winner on the election that you said was unlawful and void,” he said.
Olujinmi accused the tribunal of exceeding its jurisdiction when it engaged in amending the petitioners’ reliefs to make them grantable.
“No tribunal has the jurisdiction to reframe, amend or formulate reliefs for the petitioners.
“On realising that the reliefs could not be granted, they (members of the tribunal) amended the reliefs and granted it by themselves.
“We are saying the tribunal has no power to amend a petitioner’s reliefs. The much they ought to do, on realising that the reliefs could not be granted, was to have dismissed the petition.”
He further faulted the tribunal for holding that the petitioners proved its case of non-compliance in respect of the polling units where it voided results.
Olujinmi added: “The tribunal was wrong. They cannot use the allegation of non-compliance directed at the election of September 27 against the election of September 22.
“The tribunal relied on certified true copy of Form EC8A, which they said were dumped on the tribunal. This was what they still relied on to nullify results in the polling units in which they said malpractices were proved. The so called non-complaince did not affect the result of the election,” Olujinmi said.
He argued that the tribunal went outside its powers and contravened Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act when it engaged in the deduction of votes from the outcome of the election to arrive at the decision it gave.
Lawyer to INEC, Yusuf Ali (SAN) who argued in similar manner, contended that the tribunal erred in its majority judgment, particularly as regards the issue of non-compliance.
He noted that the tribunal, having found that accreditation was properly done and that all witnesses agreed that the votes scored were not affected by the omissions noted in some result sheets, ought not to have voided any results.
Citing Section 134 (b) of the Electoral Act, Ali argued that non-compliance means not compliance with the provision of the Act, not an act of omission on the part of INEC officials, which are not contrary to the provision of the Act.
Ali also argued that since the tribunal held that the petitioners did not prove over-voting and non-compliance, it ought not to have turned around to void votes in some polling units.
On the question of why INEC did not call it witnesses at the tribunal, Ali said it was unnecessary because the petitioners did not discharge the burden of prove placed on them by the law to warrant INEC to call fresh witnesses.
Ali added: “There is no law that said INEC most call witnesses, since the petitioners could not discharge the responsibility of proving their declarative reliefs, there was no need for INEC to have called its own witnesses.”
Lawyer to Adeleke and the PDP, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) faulted the three appeals and the arguments proffered by Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ali.
Ikpeazu argued that the tribunal was right in its decision to have declared Adeleke and his party as the winner of the election.
He faulted the argument that Justice Obiorah did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal, arguing that there was no sufficient evidence to that effect.
Ikpeazu urged the court to dismiss the three appeals and uphold the judgment of the tribunal.
Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who argued Adeleke’s cross-appeal, urged the court to allow his client’s appeal and reverse the portion of the judgment, where the tribunal rejected the evidence the petitioners lead in relation to six polling units.
Ogunwumiju argued that the tribunal wrongly excluded some of its evidence, because while it called 23 witnesses to prove it’s allegation of non-compliance in 23 polling units, the tribunal only upheld 17 where it voided elections.
Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ali argued that the cross appeal was incompetent on several grounds and urged the tribunal to reject it.
At the conclusion of proceedings that lasted over eight hours, the presiding judge, Justice Sankey said judgments would be reserved till a later date.
She told parties that the date of the judgment would be communicated to them by the court’s Registry.
Other members of the court’s five-man panel are: Justices Abubakar Datti Yahaya, Ita George Mbaba, Isaiah Olufemi Akeju and Bitrus Sanga.
Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, has announced his withdrawal from the All Progressives Congress governorship primary election in the state.
Fubara made this known in a statement personally signed on Wednesday, saying he would support whoever emerges as the party’s candidate, The Nations reported.
The governor said his decision followed extensive consultations with his family, friends, and political associates.
“After deep reflection and extensive consultations with my family, friends, and associates, I have taken the difficult but necessary decision to withdraw from the APC governorship primaries. I do so with a full heart and with a firm commitment to support whoever emerges as the candidate of our great party,” Fubara said.
The development comes amid ongoing political realignments ahead of the 2027 general elections in Rivers State.
Fubara said although the decision was difficult, he remained committed to supporting whoever would emerge as the APC governorship candidate.
According to him, leadership demands sacrifice and personal ambition must sometimes give way to the collective interest of the people.
“Rivers State is bigger than any individual, and at this critical moment, the peace, stability, and unity of our dear state must take precedence over every personal interest,” he said.
Meanwhile, the embattled governor expressed appreciation to his supporters for their loyalty, prayers and sacrifices throughout the political process, acknowledging that many would feel disappointed by his withdrawal.
He said his silence in recent weeks was “deliberate and strategic,” adding that it was guided by the higher interest of the state.
Newsthumb had earlier reported that APC chieftain and 2027 governorship aspirant in Rivers State, Tonye Cole, also announced his withdrawal from the race, saying his decision was, among other reasons, in the interest of the party’s unity.
Fubara thanks Tinubu, dismisses cowardice
The governor hinted at undisclosed pressures surrounding the political process, saying: “As our elders say, not everything a hunter sees in the forest is spoken of in the marketplace.”
He added that some truths were best kept quietly “not out of fear, but out of wisdom and restraint for the sake of peace and a greater purpose.”
Fubara thanked the APC leadership for the opportunity given to him during the process and also expressed gratitude to President Bola Tinubu for his support and encouragement.
He urged party faithful to remain united and committed to the APC, describing the party as their “collective home.”
The governor, however, insisted that his withdrawal should not be interpreted as an act of weakness or surrender.
“I stepped aside not out of weakness, fear, or surrender, but out of conviction and sacrifice so that Rivers State may move forward in peace and unity,” he said.
Fubara also pledged to continue serving the people of Rivers State until the end of his tenure.
He further stated, “Leadership is ultimately about sacrifice. There comes a time when personal ambition must yield to the greater good of the people. Rivers State is bigger than any individual, and at this critical moment, the peace, stability, and unity of our dear state must take precedence over every personal interest.
“To my supporters who stood firmly with me throughout this journey who gave their time, resources, prayers, and unwavering hope, I offer my deepest gratitude. I understand the disappointment, the anger, and the pain many of you may feel.
“Much has indeed been invested and much sacrificed along the way. But please know that your loyalty and trust were never in vain. My silence over this period was deliberate and strategic, guided always by the higher interest of our state and our people.”
Our correspondence earlier reported that Fubara rose politically under the administration of his predecessor and political godfather, Nyesom Wike, serving as Accountant-General of Rivers State before emerging as the PDP governorship candidate and winning the 2023 election with Wike’s backing.
Shortly after assuming office, however, the relationship between both men collapsed over control of the state’s political structure, appointments and finances, leading to a bitter power struggle involving the Rivers State House of Assembly led by Speaker Martin Amaewhule, who remained loyal to Wike.
The crisis escalated when 27 lawmakers attempted moves seen as targeting Fubara, while the governor’s camp questioned their legitimacy after alleged defections.
The Assembly complex was later demolished and governance became paralysed as both camps traded court actions and political attacks.
In March 2025, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Fubara, his deputy and all lawmakers for six months, citing political instability and threats to governance and oil infrastructure.
During the suspension, retired naval chief Ibok-Ete Ibas was appointed sole administrator.
Fubara was later reinstated after political negotiations reportedly brokered by Tinubu, with conditions said to include working with the Amaewhule-led Assembly, maintaining peace with Wike’s camp and shelving immediate political confrontation ahead of 2027, although some reported terms — including speculation about reelection concessions — remained unofficial.
The House of Assembly saga remained central to the crisis, with repeated disputes over budget presentation, impeachment threats and Supreme Court rulings affirming the Amaewhule faction as the recognised Assembly leadership.
news
APC Primary Crisis Deepens in Osun as Aspirants Accuse Party Leadership of Imposition, Manipulation, and Delegate Exclusion
The All Progressives Congress (APC) primary election held on Saturday, May 16, 2026, in Ife Federal Constituency has sparked widespread controversy, with aggrieved aspirants and party stakeholders alleging massive irregularities and manipulation during the exercise.
The aspirants accused certain party leaders of compromising the credibility of the primary process, alleging that the exercise was hijacked by desperate political actors allegedly working under the influence of the Osun State APC Chairman, Hon. Tajudeen Lawal, popularly known as “Sooko.”
According to reports gathered from several wards and local government areas within the constituency, many party members and stakeholders were allegedly denied the opportunity to participate in what was expected to be a transparent, free, and fair election. The aggrieved members described the exercise as a deliberate attempt to impose a preferred candidate against the collective will of delegates and party faithful.
Several stakeholders further alleged widespread intimidation, manipulation, and exclusion of recognized party members during the exercise, a development they said has generated tension and dissatisfaction within the party.
The aggrieved aspirants reportedly described the primary as a “scam,” alleging that results and figures were arbitrarily allocated to candidates by the party leadership.
They also alleged that incidents of violence and thuggery characterized parts of the exercise across Ife Federal Constituency, claiming that such developments have raised concerns over fairness, transparency, and internal democracy within the Osun APC.
Some party members further recalled a similar controversy during the May 27, 2022, APC primary election in the constituency, alleging that the same pattern of irregularities occurred during that exercise.
Meanwhile, the aspirants maintained that the outcome of the disputed primary election has yet to receive official recognition from the National Secretariat of the APC, as several petitions and complaints have reportedly been submitted over the conduct of the exercise.
They also noted that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has not officially validated the disputed process, thereby raising further questions regarding the legitimacy and credibility of the primary election.
news
Taiwan in the Crossfire of History, Law, and Power: A Feature Analysis of Competing Claims and the One-China Question
By Michael Olukayode
The status of Taiwan remains one of the most enduring and strategically sensitive disputes in modern international relations — a question where history, law, identity, and geopolitics collide without easy resolution. It is not merely a territorial disagreement between Beijing and Taipei; it is a layered contest over legitimacy, sovereignty, and the meaning of statehood in a shifting global order.
Across recent scholarly salons and policy interventions in Africa and beyond — particularly the Abuja media salon hosted by the China General Chamber of Commerce in Nigeria — a striking convergence has emerged around the One-China Principle, even as interpretations of its implications remain sharply contested.
The Historical Fault Line: 1949 and the Birth of Two Political Realities
The modern Taiwan question originates in the Chinese Civil War, which ended in 1949 with the Communist Party of China establishing the People’s Republic of China on the mainland while the defeated Kuomintang (KMT) government retreated to Taiwan.
As Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim forcefully stated at the Abuja salon:
“Taiwan is not a sovereign entity, it has no independence and it is not a member of the United Nations.”
From Beijing’s perspective, this was not the creation of two states but the continuation of one China under different administrations.
This position aligns with the broader Chinese narrative repeatedly emphasized in diplomatic discourse, including the categorical assertion that:
“Taiwan has never been a country, was never one in the past, and will never be one in the future.”
Taiwan, however, evolved in a very different direction. Over decades, it developed into a functioning democratic polity with its own political institutions, elections, military structure, and constitutional governance.
This divergence produces what scholars describe as a central paradox: a de facto state operating with constrained de jure recognition, facing a sovereign claim from a rising global power.
The Legal Architecture: UN Resolution 2758 and Competing Interpretations
A cornerstone of Beijing’s argument is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, which restored China’s seat at the United Nations in 1971.
At the Abuja salon, Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim insisted:
“This resolution has explicitly established… that there is only one seat for China in the United Nations, leaving no room for ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’.”
From this perspective, Taiwan is not a separate subject of international law but part of China whose representation is subsumed under Beijing.
Taiwan and its supporters contest this interpretation, arguing that Resolution 2758 addresses representation — not sovereignty — leaving Taiwan’s political status deliberately unresolved.
This legal ambiguity has become what many scholars now describe as structured uncertainty, sustaining diplomatic flexibility while preventing formal resolution.
Beijing’s Position: Sovereignty, Reunification, and Historical Mission
China’s position is rooted in sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national rejuvenation.
As reiterated by President Xi Jinping:
“The great tide of compatriots on both sides of the strait becoming closer, more connected and coming together will not change. This is the verdict of history.”
In Chinese official discourse, reunification is not framed as a negotiable issue but as a historical inevitability tied to national revival.
This perspective was reinforced in Abuja by African analysts who align with Beijing’s framing of sovereignty as non-negotiable, with Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim emphasizing that Africa’s diplomatic alignment reflects a global consensus increasingly anchored in the One-China Principle.
Taiwan’s Position: Democracy, Identity, and De Facto Sovereignty
Taiwan’s position rests on lived political reality and democratic self-governance.
While officially still called the Republic of China, Taiwan functions as an independent political system with its own elections, judiciary, military, and constitution.
Its leadership under President Lai Ching-te emphasizes Taiwan’s distinct political identity and rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims.
From Beijing’s perspective, this is framed as separatism. From Taiwan’s perspective, it is democratic self-determination.
The result is a deeply entrenched ideological divide: territorial integrity versus political identity.
Strategic Ambiguity and Global Power Politics
A critical dimension of the Taiwan issue is the role of external powers, particularly the United States.
Washington’s policy of strategic ambiguity — recognizing the One-China framework while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan — is widely seen as both stabilizing and contradictory.
At the Abuja salon, Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim and other speakers framed external engagement with Taiwan as part of what they described as “separatist encouragement,” while emphasizing African alignment with Beijing’s position.
Africa’s Diplomatic Alignment and the One-China Consensus
A recurring theme in Abuja was overwhelming African diplomatic alignment with Beijing.
As multiple presenters emphasized:
“As of May 2026, 53 out of 54 African nations adhere to the One-China policy.”
The only exception remains Eswatini.
At the salon, Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim argued that this position reflects historical continuity in African diplomacy:
“African nations have consistently stood with China on issues concerning its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Dr. Segun Showunmi, who is an Ace Public affairs analyst and social impact expert, with experience in governance, policy and civic engagement added that this alignment is not merely political but developmental:
“That consistency created trust and in international politics, trust often translates into investment, infrastructure, and strategic cooperation.”
The Abuja Diplomatic Intervention: China’s Official Position
A defining moment of the salon came from the representative of the Chinese state — the Counsellor of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Nigeria, Ms.Dong Hairong— who reiterated Beijing’s formal position in unambiguous terms:
“There is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.”
This intervention anchored the entire discussion within the framework of Chinese sovereignty doctrine and reinforced that diplomatic relations with China are premised on acceptance of the One-China Principle.
⸻
Prof. Sam Amadi: Strategic Ambiguity as Diplomatic Reality
Professor Sam Amadi, a policy strategist and law and governance expert, Director, Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts,
introduced a more analytical framing, arguing that global practice is defined not by clarity but by managed contradiction.
He stated:
“The One-China principle and One-China policy are clear, but difficult to operationalise.”
He further explained:
“What we have today is strategic ambiguity… meaning they acknowledge, but at the same time, they engage.”
For Amadi, the central question for Africa is not ideological but practical:
“Should we foreclose ambiguity and advance a straight One-China principle, which will exclude all kinds of trade and engagement with Taiwan?”
His conclusion favored diplomatic exclusivity with calibrated economic engagement.
Strategic Realism: Why the Status Quo Persists
Despite rhetorical intensity, the Taiwan issue persists in its unresolved form due to structural constraints:
* China cannot accept formal separation without undermining sovereignty doctrine
* Taiwan cannot accept reunification without losing political autonomy
* The United States benefits strategically from ambiguity
* African states largely align diplomatically with Beijing while prioritizing development ties
As Professor Amadi summarized:
“We acknowledge these principles, but we go back there and also deal with Taiwan in trade… using strategic ambiguity.”
Conclusion: History as Contest, Diplomacy as Equilibrium
The Abuja salon underscored a broader truth about the Taiwan question: it is not merely a territorial dispute but a global governance dilemma.
On one side stands China’s categorical assertion, echoed in Abuja:
“There is only one China.”
On the other stands Taiwan’s democratic identity and de facto autonomy.
Between them lies a global system that simultaneously enforces principle and tolerates ambiguity.
As reflected across the Abuja interventions, including those of Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, Dr. Segun Showunmi, Prof. Sam Amadi, and the Chinese diplomatic Counsellor, the Taiwan question endures not because it lacks answers — but because every available answer carries strategic consequences the world is unwilling to fully accept.
And so Taiwan remains what it has become in the 21st century: not only a territorial dispute, but a permanent stress test of international order itself.
-
news6 years agoUPDATE: #ENDSARS: CCTV footage of Lekki shootings intact – Says Sanwo – Olu
-
lifestyle6 years agoFormer Miss World: Mixed reactions trail Agbani Darego’s looks
-
health5 years agoChairman Agege LG, Ganiyu Egunjobi Receives Covid-19 Vaccines
-
lifestyle5 years agoObateru: Celebrating a Quintessential PR Man at 60
-
health6 years agoUPDATE : Nigeria Records 790 new cases of COVID-19
-
health6 years agoBREAKING: Nigeria confirms 663 new cases of COVID-19
-
entertainment1 year agoAshny Set for Valentine Special and new Album ‘ Femme Fatale’
-
news12 months agoBREAKING: Tinubu swears in new NNPCL Board