Headlines
Forget Your Ambitions, Support Southern Aspirants, Edwin Clark Tells Atiku, Saraki, Tambuwal
Ijaw national leader, Edwin Clark, has asked presidential aspirants from the north to reconsider their ambition.
In a statement issued on Monday, Clark asked northern aspirants — including former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, Aminu Tambuwal, Sokoto governor, and Bukola Saraki, former senate president — to reconsider their stand on contesting the presidency in the interest of avoiding “chaos”.
Neither the former vice-president nor Saraki have officially declared their intention to contest the presidency, but there have been calls for both politicians to run for the position.
But Tambuwal had, on Monday, said he would soon begin consultations on whether to contest the presidency.
According to Clark, though the concept of zoning is not written in the constitution, “rotation of power” is in the interest of the country’s unity.
“Firstly, I wish to use this medium to advise my most respected Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftains in the persons of former vice president, Atiku Abubakar, former president of the senate, Bukola Saraki, Aminu Tambuwal, governor of Sokoto state, and other PDP aspirants from the north, that in the interest of maintaining the unity of this country to which they have contributed so much, to re-consider their desire of wanting to contest for the presidential election in 2023, because both by the PDP constitution and by convention, it is now the turn of Southern Nigeria to produce the president of Nigeria in 2023, after President Muhammadu Buhari’s 8 years,” the statement reads.
“To do otherwise is to invite chaos, which will lead to the disintegration of our dear country.
“Zoning has been practised in the nation’s polity even before Independence, when Tafawa Balewa, in 1954, was the prime minister, Nnamdi Azikiwe was the governor-general.
“Zoning of political offices, particularly the presidency of the country, is the best antidote to breakup of Nigeria, and the panacea for peace and unity of the country.
“One of the reasons why the north opposed Chief Anthony Enahoro’s motion for independence in 1953, was that they felt they were not equal to the south in education; that they were not in a position to produce proportional candidates who will run an independent government with the south because at that time, they had only about 4 graduates.
“They subsequently walked out of the Parliament, went back to the north, and swore never to return to Lagos again.
“That was what led to the constitutional conferences held both at the Lancaster House in London and at Ibadan, Nigeria, purposely to keep Nigeria one.
“The impression was that no one group or section of the country, should dominate the government of Nigeria at the expense of other parts of the country.
“It is instructive that the nation’s two main parties, the APC and the PDP, have been religiously following the zoning and rotation system between the north and the south.
“By 2023, the north would have ruled for another 8 years. It is, therefore, rational and right, to insist that the presidency should rotate to the south. It does not matter whether the presidency has been produced from the APC or the PDP since 2015.”
He added that the south should also be left to decide which sub-region will produce the right candidate for the presidency.
“To which sub-region the presidency should be further zoned to in the south, is a different matter entirely. At the appropriate time, we will decide as to which area, section or region of the three regions of south east, south-south and south west, should have it,” he said.
“They are already campaigning through the length and breadth of the country, even after a northerner will be having a straight 8 years, come May 2023.
“Is it no longer not a negation of the ‘zoning agreement,’ for which former President Goodluck Jonathan was castigated? Is it no longer threatening the unity and survival of the country?
“As the intention of these and others who may follow will be going against the zoning system of the PDP, it may even be the deciding factor for the PDP, whether to be or not to be.”
TheCable
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, gave the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, until November 5 to defend the terrorism charges filed against him or risk waiving his right to do so.
The trial judge, Justice James Omotoso, advised Kanu to consult legal practitioners experienced in criminal law to assist with his defence or to formally appoint a lawyer to represent him in court.
Justice Omotosho’s decision followed Kanu’s continued refusal to open his defence, insisting that there was no valid charge pending against him.
Kanu, who represented himself during Tuesday’s proceedings, told the court that he would not return to detention unless the charges against him were properly presented.
He argued that his continued detention by the Department of State Services was unlawful, maintaining that he had not breached any known law.
He also accused the court of disregarding the Supreme Court’s judgment which, according to him, condemned his extraordinary rendition from Kenya.
He demanded that the trial judge immediately discharge him from custody.
When reminded that the Supreme Court had ordered a fresh trial, Kanu maintained his position that the terrorism charge was invalid and incompetent.
Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, he argued that there was no existing law creating a terrorism offence in Nigeria.
“In Nigeria today, the Constitution is the supreme law. There is no valid charge against me. I will not go back to detention today. The Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act has been repealed. I cannot defend myself under a repealed law,” Kanu said.
He further challenged any lawyer to show him a valid charge, urging the court to “take judicial notice” of what he claimed was the repeal of the terrorism law.
“I cannot be tried under a law that has been repealed. Prosecuting me under such a law is a violation of my fundamental rights,” he insisted.
After several attempts to persuade him to enter his defence, Justice Omotosho adjourned proceedings until November 5, 2025, giving Kanu the final opportunity to either defend the charge or forfeit his right to do so.
During the session, counsel for the Federal Government, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), informed the court that some documents served on him by Kanu were unsigned and not endorsed by the court, arguing that they held no evidential value.
There was drama in the Senate on Tuesday following the recent threat by Donald Trump, the President of the United States to take military action against Nigeria over alleged persecution of Christians.
It started when Godswill Akpabio, the Senate President, was addressing reports by an online platform alleging that he had publicly rebuffed Trump over his recent comments and had said Nigerians were “not complaining” about their condition.
The visibly displeased Senate President denied ever making such statements, describing them as “false and malicious.”
He condemned the publication, saying it was an attempt to create diplomatic tension and discredit the National Assembly.
“The fake report claimed I said Nigerians are not complaining that we like the way we are living. That is completely false. I have petitioned the police and the DSS,” he said.
Akpabio said, “Somebody will sit in the comfort of his room and fabricate a report, attaching fake pictures from 2023 when I visited Port Harcourt with senators for a completely different event, and then claim that the Senate President replied President Trump.
“Who am I to answer Trump?” Akpabio asked jokingly.
The issue, however, sparked heated reactions on the floor of the Senate as Akpabio, and his deputy, Barau Jibrin, openly differed on how the Nigerian legislature should respond.
While Akpabio dismissed reports that he had already reacted to Trump’s comments, declaring, “Who am I to answer Trump?”, Barau quickly interjected, insisting that he was not afraid of the American leader.
“I’m not scared of Trump. I will say my mind. I’m a Nigerian. Nigeria is a sovereign nation,” Barau said passionately.
The Deputy Senate President added, “I’m a parliamentarian, the Deputy Senate President, I can speak. Don’t be scared of Trump. You can say your mind about Trump. We are a sovereign nation.”
The exchange, which briefly lightened the mood in the chamber, underscored a divide in tone between both presiding officers on how Nigeria’s parliament should handle the diplomatic row.
“It is the Presidency that will respond to President Trump, not the Senate President. But who is that person that would ascribe a comment to me when I was never contacted?”
Akpabio urged security agencies to investigate and prosecute those behind the viral story, describing it as an effort to “cause friction and bring the Nigerian Senate into disrepute.”
“I believe the Cybercrimes Unit of the police, the DSS, and others should find that character out. This is meant to sow division. Social media should not be allowed to break Nigeria,” he added.
The Senate President, however, noted that the Red chamber would take an official position on Trump’s remarks once the federal government had clarified its stance.
He said, “When the executive responds, we will take a position as a Senate. Until then, no one should speak for this institution.”
Over the weekend, Trump declared via social-media that Nigeria faces “an existential threat” to its Christian population and warned that the U.S. may deploy troops or conduct air-strikes if the Nigerian government fails to halt the killings.
He instructed the Pentagon to prepare for possible action and threatened to cut all U.S. aid to Nigeria.
In tandem, the U.S. re-added Nigeria to its “Country of Particular Concern” list for religious freedom violations.
The Nigerian government rejected the designation and the characterisation of persecuting Christians, insisting that Nigeria protects religious freedom for all.
Source: businessday.ng
China, on Tuesday, opposed US President Donald Trump’s threat to carry out military action against Nigeria over the alleged persecution of Christians, as it backed the Nigerian government in leading its people to follow a development path in line with its national conditions.
Trump Saturday said if the Nigerian government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the US will immediately stop all aid and assistance to the West African country, and may go for military action to wipe out the Islamic terrorists.
Asked for her comments on Trump’s threat, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told the media that the Nigerian Foreign Ministry issued a statement, stating that the US’s claims did not reflect the current realities in Nigeria, and the government had remained committed to fighting terrorism, strengthening interfaith harmony, and protecting the lives and rights of all its people.
As a comprehensive strategic partner, China firmly supports the Nigerian government in leading its people to follow a development path in line with its national conditions, Mao said.
“China opposes interference by any country in the internal affairs of other nations under the pretext of religion or human rights and opposes the arbitrary use of sanctions and threats of force,” she said.
On the reports that Venezuela is seeking missiles and drones following a dozen US strikes on the boats in the region on the suspicion that they carried drugs, Mao said China is opposed to the use of force in the name of fighting drug cartels.
China supports enhanced international cooperation in combating transnational crimes, but opposes the use of threats of using force in international relations, and actions that undermine peace and stability in Latin America and the Caribbean, she said.
China is against unilateral so-called law enforcement operations against vessels of other countries that exceed reasonable and necessary limits, she added.
“We hope the US will carry out normal law enforcement and judicial activities within bilateral and multilateral legal frameworks,” Mao said, without mentioning whether China will support military equipment to Venezuela.
“China’s normal exchanges and cooperation with Venezuela are conducted between sovereign states, without targeting any third party, nor are they subject to interference or influence by any third party,” she said.
Source: orissapost
