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.
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.
……..APM Terminals pledges $600m
Speaking during a panel session at the ongoing Africa CEO Forum, President Tinubu attributed the inflow to reforms aimed at improving transparency, efficiency, and investor confidence in the country.
He said his administration’s policies were positioning Nigeria as an open and competitive destination for investment.
“In Nigeria, we’ve attracted nearly $20 billion in direct investment this year because we are efficient, transparent, and open for business,” President Tinubu said.
He said that Nigeria would no longer permit the export of raw minerals without local value addition, noting that the country possesses the capacity to manufacture products such as electric vehicle batteries from its mineral resources.
He said: “With our metals, we can produce batteries for cars. The private sector brings capital and expertise, but government must de-risk and create the enabling environment. That partnership is how Africa moves forward”.
He also canvassed for stronger economic integration across the continent, urging African countries to move beyond rhetoric and fully activate the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
According to him, Africa needs to put its money where its mouth is and build a new relationship with its own resources.
“We have the African Continental Free Trade Area—it must not sit on the shelf. It needs to be activated properly through collaboration and effective use of resources, not by working in silos,” President Tinubu said.
He advocated an “Africa First” approach to development, insisting that African resources should primarily benefit the continent through local processing and manufacturing.
“We don’t want scavengers and extractors. We want partners who process and manufacture locally,” President Tinubu said.
Speaking on industrialisation, President Tinubu cited the success of the Dangote Refinery as proof that Africa could undertake large-scale projects with the right support framework.
According to him, Nigeria overcame years of dependence on imported petroleum products after supporting the establishment of the refinery through policy backing, credit support, and licensing approvals.
He said: “Today Nigeria is a net exporter of PMS, aviation fuel, and other products. Dangote is supplying aviation fuel across Africa and to European airlines”.
He also called for reforms to intra-African trade and financial systems, questioning the continent’s reliance on foreign currencies for trade transactions.
In Rwanda, Tinubu pitches Nigerian business case to Africa
Tinubu appoints Laniyi DG of Women Development Centre
“If you produce in Nigeria, you can trade in naira. Why should African trade depend on dollars? That adds cost and instability,” President Tinubu said.
He proposed the establishment of an African commodity exchange platform that would enable direct trade among the continent’s 54 countries.
On the issue of mobilising African capital for development, President Tinubu said governments must create stable legal and policy environments capable of attracting long-term investment.
He said: “Capital is cowardly. It needs transparency, accountability, and stability”.
He also advocated the creation of an African credit rating agency, arguing that existing global rating institutions do not adequately understand African markets and risks.
“The big American agencies dominate 95 per cent of the market, but they don’t understand our risks and opportunities,” President Tinubu said.
He noted that in addressing Africa’s digital infrastructure deficit, Nigeria is laying 19,000 kilometres of fibre optic cables nationwide to expand connectivity and support the digital economy.
“That’s how we bring lessons to children, connect families, and enable traders,” President Tinubu said.
He added that Africa must invest beyond basic telecommunications and build full digital infrastructure systems, including data processing, storage, artificial intelligence, and e-commerce capabilities.
He said: “We need to fund Africa’s shift from basic telecoms to AI and e-commerce”.
He further expressed optimism that the AfCFTA would eventually boost intra-African trade, despite political and structural barriers currently slowing integration efforts.
He said: “Pan-Africanism can’t remain a slogan. It has to be lived”.
He also urged African leaders to strengthen regional alliances and economic cooperation in response to global economic shocks and geopolitical uncertainties.
“If Europe can build alliances and move forward, so can we. Africa has everything we need here. What we require is good policy and the will to act.
“We don’t want our children dying at sea trying to reach elsewhere. We have the resources. We just need to help each other and push together. That is the only way to build an inclusive and prosperous Africa,” President Tinubu said
Femi Gbajabiamila, Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, has disclosed that he almost lost his position last year due to the alleged involvement of actor-turned-politician Desmond Elliot in the political crisis that rocked the Lagos State House of Assembly during the speakership tussle involving Mudashiru Obasa.
Speaking in a video widely circulating on social media on Thursday, Gbajabiamila narrated how Tinubu summoned him to his residence in Abuja at the height of the Obasa impeachment saga.
According to the CoS, the president confronted him over intelligence reports linking Elliot, who represents Surulere Constituency I in the Lagos State House of Assembly, to efforts to destabilise the state legislature.
“I almost lost my job as Chief of Staff last year because of Desmond Elliot. Mr. President called me to his house in Abuja during the Lagos Speaker Obasa saga. He said, ‘I hear this Desmond is your boy, the one we gave you,’ and I said, ‘Yes, sir.’ He is one of the people causing problems in the Lagos House of Assembly,” Gbajabiamila stated.
Gbajabiamila further revealed that he had to defend Elliot against the allegations.
“Immediately I said to Mr. President, no, no, no. Desmond is not part of them.
“I haven’t even spoken to him. I didn’t know whether he was part of that. I said, no, he’s not part of them.”
According to him, Tinubu said, “I’m telling you from intelligence that he is part of them. Go and tell him to retrace his steps. This is what Mr. President told me. I said, yes, sir.”
He said he called the lawmaker to inform him of the development.
“I called him. That’s what I told him. Just like the President, this is what he said.
“If you are one of these people, if you are part of them, get out of there.”
He added that the Director-General of the Department of State Services also contacted him regarding his and Elliot’s alleged involvement.
“Three days later, the Director General of DSS called me and said there’s a problem. Your name is being mentioned all over the place.
“That you are the one behind, you are supporting Desmond in this event. Of course, the President will not believe that Desmond would do such a thing and I will not know what it sounds like.
“I told the DSS, I’m going to have to talk to Desmond.”
“I told him, I’m going to have to talk to Desmond. He has not done anything. I called him again.”
The Chief of Staff said he asked Elliot to issue a statement vindicating himself of the allegation, which he allegedly did not till date.
The Obasa impeachment saga erupted on January 13, 2025, when a majority of the Lagos State House of Assembly impeached the long-serving Speaker while he was vacationing in the United States.
Lawmakers accused him of gross misconduct, abuse of office, high-handedness, poor leadership, persistent lateness to sessions, and alleged financial impropriety/mismanagement of Assembly funds.
His deputy, Mojisola Meranda, was immediately elected as the new Speaker, becoming the first female to occupy the position.
Obasa rejected the impeachment as illegal and unconstitutional, insisting due process was not followed.
The crisis triggered weeks of tension, court cases, parallel claims to leadership, and interventions by APC national leaders and Tinubu.
It was eventually resolved when Meranda resigned, paving the way for Obasa’s reinstatement as Speaker.
The incident comes amid growing resistance to the lawmaker’s bid for a fourth term in the Lagos State House of Assembly.
-
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