Headlines
Again, El-Rufai Attacks Tinubu over Chicago Varsity Certificate Scandal, Calls President Ungrateful
A former Governor of Kaduna State Nasir El-Rufai, said he and his allies had hoped that President Bola Tinubu would replicate his achievements in Lagos at the national level but failed woefully.
El-Rufai explained that despite concerns about Tinubu’s alleged certificate forgery from Chicago State University during the 2023 presidential election they backed him, believing he could transform Nigeria as he did Lagos.
“What pains me is that the government we supported and had confidence in would do well, because we saw what Tinubu did in Lagos despite his challenges,” El-Rufai told BBC Hausa in an interview on Saturday.
“We all know about his issues in Chicago, but we thought if he could replicate his work in Lagos for Nigeria, let’s support him. However, he failed,”
El-Rufai called on opposition figures, including Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, Rotimi Amaechi, and Rauf Aregbesola, to unite under the Social Democratic Party (SDP) to salvage the country.
“What I want and pray for is for all opposition leaders—Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, Rotimi Amaechi, and Rauf Aregbesola—to join the SDP,” he added.
El-Rufai also dismissed accusations that he betrayed former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, stating that his past disagreements with Atiku during the Obasanjo administration were based on principle, not personal animosity.
“I never betrayed Atiku Abubakar because we didn’t meet in politics; we met at work. In work, if I see that he didn’t do well, whoever he is, I will tell him. I told Buhari, and I even took Buhari to court on the new naira issue,” he said.
“When Obasanjo and Atiku were having issues, those of us working with Obasanjo looked at the issues between them and said Obasanjo was more right. It was not about north and south; Obasanjo was right. Atiku and I are now together, and if I betrayed him, why are we together now.”
The Rivers State House of Assembly has accused Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy Ngozi Odu of gross misconduct.
Twenty-six members of the Assembly raised the allegation in a notice sent to the speaker Martin Amaewhule and obtained by Channels Television.
They said the action was “in compliance with Section 188 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and other extant laws”.
The lawmakers accused Fubara among other things of reckless and unconstitutional expenditure of public funds, hindering or obstructing the Rivers State House of Assembly which is another arm of the government, and the appointment of persons to occupy offices/positions in the Rivers State Government without allowing for the requirement of screening and confirmation.
Other accusations against the Rivers governor include the seizure of salaries, allowances, and funds standing to the credit of the legitimate Rivers State House of Assembly and the seizure of the salary of the Clerk of the Rivers State House of Assembly Emeka Amadi.
They also accused Odu of “conniving and supporting the illegal appointment of persons to occupy offices/positions in the Rivers State Government without allowing for the requirement of screening and confirmation”.
Upon receipt of the notice, Amaewhule forwarded the same to Governor Fubara and said the allegation was raised by “not less than one-third (1/3) of the membership of the Rivers State House of Assembly”.
Speaker Amaewhule asked Fubara to “reply to the allegations made against you in the said ‘Notice of Allegations of Gross Misconduct’ accordingly”.
“In doing this, your attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 188(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which provides thus: ‘Within 14 days of the presentation of the notice to the Speaker of the House of Assembly (whether or not any statement made by holder of the office in reply to the allegation contained in the notice) the House of Assembly shall resolve by motion, without any debate whether or not the allegation shall be investigated’,” the speaker said in a letter sent to Fubara.
United States Secretary of State, Marco Rubio has announced that President Donald Trump’s administration is expelling South Africa’s ambassador to Washington.
Rubio announced this on Friday, accusing the envoy of hating the country and President Trump.
“South Africa’s Ambassador to the United States is no longer welcome in our great country,” Rubio posted on X.
“Ebrahim Rasool is “a race-baiting politician who hates America and hates @POTUS,” he said, referring to Trump by his White House X account handle.
“We have nothing to discuss with him and so he is considered PERSONA NON GRATA.”
The expulsion of the ambassador comes amid rising tensions between Washington and Pretoria.
Trump in February this year froze US aid to South Africa, citing a law in the country that he alleges allows land to be seized from white farmers.
Trump further fueled tensions last week, when he said that South Africa’s farmers were welcome to settle in the United States after repeating his allegation that the government was “confiscating” land from white people.
Kano State Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General, Haruna Isa Dederi, has insisted that the ruling of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on the lingering emirship tussle has not invalidated the reinstatement of Muhammadu Sanusi II as the 16th Emir.
Besides, Dederi declared that having passed a landmark verdict on January 10, 2025, reaffirming the power of the Kano State Government to reappoint Sanusi, it is impossible for the Court of Appeal to set aside or quash its own decision on the same matter.
The Attorney General made this position known to journalists while reacting to Friday’s ruling of the Appellate Court on the application for a stay of execution filed by Alh. Aminu Baba DanAgundi, one of the kingmakers loyal to the 15th Emir of Kano, Alh. Aminu Ado Bayero, pending the determination of the appeal at the Supreme Court.
According to Dederi, the matter is functus officio, adding that only the Supreme Court has the power to set aside the decision of the Appeal Court handed down by Justice Mohammad Mustapha on January 10, 2025.
“The Appeal Court today, after hearing their application for a stay of execution, ruled that the status quo should rather be maintained as it is now until after the judgment of the Supreme Court. They have filed an appeal at the Supreme Court.
“It doesn’t mean that the judgment delivered on January 10, 2025, has been quashed. That judgment is still standing, still in place, and subsisting. The Court of Appeal cannot reverse its own decision. It is not possible. Only the Supreme Court has the power to set aside the judgment given by a lower court.
“So, the Court of Appeal, Abuja, today has just said that execution of the judgment has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal, which has been filed at the Supreme Court by Aminu Baba DanAgundi on behalf of Bayero,” Dederi noted.
It would be recalled that on January 10, 2025, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, led by Justice Mustapha, set aside the judgment of Justice A. Liman of the Federal High Court, Kano, which nullified the steps and actions taken by the Kano State Government pursuant to the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law 2024, including the appointment of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as the 16th Emir of Kano.
The Appellate Court also dismissed the decision of the Federal High Court judge to hear the matter relating to the emirate council, ruling that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to do so. This decision upheld the removal of Bayero as the 15th Emir.
Dissatisfied with the verdict of Justice Mustapha’s panel, DanAgundi proceeded to the Supreme Court to seek the overturning of the lower court’s verdict. He also filed a motion for a stay of execution of Justice Mustapha’s judgment pending the hearing and determination of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter.
The application was also moved on the grounds that the applicant initially instituted the suit in Kano to protect his fundamental rights and argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.
In a unanimous ruling, the three-member panel of Justices led by Justice Abang on Friday held that the application was meritorious and deserving of the court’s discretion in the interest of justice.
“The law is settled. The court is enjoined to exercise its discretion judiciously and in the interest of justice,” Justice Abang said
Justice Abang held that the mandatory injunction ordered that the status quo ante bellum be maintained by the sheriff of this court and the trial court as it was before the trial court’s decision on 13/6/2024 in Suit No. FHC/KN/CS/182/2024.
In granting the injunction, Justice Abang emphasised that the applicant’s process was competent and had met all the necessary legal conditions required to obtain the relief sought.
He noted that a valid appeal was already pending before the Supreme Court, reinforcing the need to preserve the subject matter of the litigation.
