Headlines
NASS Has No Power to Summon Buhari, Says Malami
Abubakar Malami, attorney-general of the federation (AGF), says the national assembly has no constitutional power to summon President Muhammadu Buhari.
Last week, the house of representatives passed a resolution summoning the president over the rising insecurity in the country.
The president is scheduled to appear before the national assembly on Thursday but it is now uncertain if he will honour the request.
In a statement on Wednesday, Malami said it was outside the constitutional powers of the national assembly to summon the president over his “operational use of the armed forces”.
“President Muhamamdu Buhari of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has recorded tremendous success in containing the hitherto incessant bombing, colossal killings, wanton destruction of lives and property that bedeviled the country before attaining the helm of affairs of the country in 2015,” the statement read.
“The confidentiality of strategies employed by the President as the commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not open for public exposore in view of security implications in probable undermining of the war against terror.
“The fact that President Muhammadu Buhari was instrumental to the reclaiming of over 14 Local Governments previously controlled by the Boko Haram in North East is an open secret, the strategies for such achievement are not open for public expose.
“While condoling the bereaved and sympathising with the victims of the associated insecurity in the country, Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN maintained that national security is not about publicity and the nation’s security architecture cannot be exposed for the sake of getting publicity.”
According to the statement, the president’s efforts on security matters are exclusive and confidential, and as such, “the National Assembly has no Constitutional Power to envisage or contemplate a situation where the President would be summoned by the National Assembly on operational use of the Armed Forces.”
Malami added that the decision to appear before the national assembly should be at the president’s discretion and not subject to summons by the lawmakers.
“The right of the President to engage the National Assembly and appear before it is inherently discretionary in the President and not at the behest of the National Assembly,” the attorney-general said.
“The management and control of the security sector is exclusively vested in the President by Section 218 (1) of the Constitution as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces including the power to determine the operational use of the Armed Forces. An invitation that seeks to put the operational use of the Armed Forces to a public interrogation is indeed taking the constitutional rights of law making beyond bounds.
“As the Commander in Chief, the President has exclusivity on security and has confidentiality over security. These powers and rights he does not share. So, by summoning the President on National Security operational Matters, the House of Representative operated outside constitutional bounds.
“President’s exclusivity of constitutional confidentiality investiture within the context of the constitution remains sacrosanct.”
TheCable
Immediate past Governor of Kaduna State, Malam Nasir el-Rufai, has stated that the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu is planning to tarnish his reputation because of his 2031 Presidential ambition.
Speaking in an interview with Arise TV on Monday, el-Rufai alleged that Ribadu is collaborating with Governor Uba Sani of Kaduna, and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to destroy his image
“This project of destroying Nasir el-Rufai is Nuhu Ribadu’s conception. He is the architect and builder of that project. He is the one working with Uba Sani to implement it. So far, it has been frustrating for them,” el-Rufai said.
“Somebody wants to destroy my reputation. Why? Nuhu Ribadu wants to be president in 2031. He has to eliminate every northerner that he thinks is on the radar.”
Following the revelation by former Military President, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida in his book, “A Journey in Service” that the 1966 coup was not an Igbo coup as alleged, Igbo apex group, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, on Sunday, February 23, has demanded an apology and N10 trillion as compensation from President Bola Tinubu to the Igbos.
In his book, Babangida revealed that the primary objective of the coup plotters was to release Chief Obafemi Awolowo from prison and install him as Prime Minister. He emphasized that the involvement of officers from different ethnic backgrounds, including non-Igbo officers such as Major Adewale Ademoyega, Captain Ganiyu Adeleke, and Lieutenants Fola Oyewole and Olafimihan, further invalidates the claim that it was an Igbo-driven coup.
Additionally, some senior Igbo officers were also victims of the coup, such as Lt-Col. Arthur Chinyelu Unegbe, who was executed by fellow officer Major Chris Anuforo. This further weakens the argument that the coup was designed to serve Igbo interests.
Furthermore, Babangida pointed out that the coup was ultimately crushed by Major John Obienu, an officer of Igbo extraction, reinforcing the argument that it was not an ethnic uprising but rather a failed military intervention with specific political objectives.
Reacting, Ohanaeze noted that the story surrounding the coup at the time, unleashed disastrous repercussions on the Igbo people, which ultimately led to the cataclysmic horrors of the Biafra War.
In a statement by the Deputy National President of the Ohanaeze faction, Okechukwu Isiguzoro, the group noted that the apology and compensation had become necessary due to the ”staggering loss of life, with approximately three million Igbo—predominantly innocent women and children—slaughtered during the war.”
It stated that the revelations by IBB would compel Nigerians to confront the alleged ‘’stark injustices perpetrated against the Igbo people.”
The statement added that the demand for ten trillion naira in reparations remained steadfast, stressing that the figure was not arbitrary but a symbolic recognition of the ‘’huge losses the Igbo people had endured since the creation of Nigeria.”
The statement read:
“The apex Igbo socio-cultural organization, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, extends its profound appreciation to General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB) for his remarkable courage in officially declaring that the January 1966 coup was unequivocally not an Igbo coup.
“This pivotal acknowledgement is not merely a correction of historical nomenclature but a significant moment in our collective pursuit of justice and reconciliation, signalling a potential end to the historical vindictiveness and cruelty that have been pervasive in Federal Government policies towards the Igbo Nation.
“His forthright exemption of the Igbo from the egregious classification as enemies of the Northern region in the aftermath of the coup is both timely and necessary, even if it arrives decades later.
“The mislabeling of the January 1966 coup has unleashed disastrous repercussions upon the Igbo people, most tragically culminating in the July 1966 counter-coup, which decimated a military Head of State of Igbo descent.
“The staggering loss of life, with approximately three million Igbos—predominantly innocent women and children—slaughtered during this conflict, continues to reverberate through our collective consciousness.
“Furthermore, even in the post-Biafra era, the Igbo Nation continues to grapple with systemic injustices, evidenced by acute marginalisation that leaves us with the smallest representation of states within the Nigerian federation.
“The political conspiracies designed to deny the Igbo the rights to ascend to the highest office in the land—Nigeria’s Presidency—the chronic economic neglect symbolised by the closure of the Calabar seaport, the inoperative state of several ports in Igbo land, the implementation of a discriminatory quota system, and the conspicuous absence of functional international airports in the Southeast starkly illustrate the Federal Government’s long-standing policy of exclusion.
“In light of these egregious injustices and the deliberate neglect exhibited by successive administrations, Ohanaeze Ndigbo hereby restates its demands, as articulated previously during the Justice Oputa-led Judicial Commission for the Investigation of Human Rights Violations Panel in 1999.
“We assert that the Nigerian Federal Government, under General Yakubu Gowon, conducted indiscriminate and unjustified bombardments in Igbo territory during the Nigeria-Biafra War, resulting in overwhelming loss of life. These historical realities establish an irrefutable case for the reparations we seek.
“The present Federal Government, led by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, must recognise this moment as an opportunity to extend a public and unequivocal apology on behalf of previous military regimes. Our demand for ten trillion naira in reparations remains steadfast.
“This figure is not arbitrary but a symbolic recognition of the indelible losses the Igbo people have endured. The time has come for true acknowledgement of these historical wrongs, which can only be rectified through both reparations and sincere apologies.”
Source: LIB
The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, ICPC, has discovered N1.37 billion allegedly diverted from funds allocated for Kaduna State’s now-abandoned light rail project.
The money, it was learned, was siphoned into a private account during the administration of former Governor Nasir El-Rufai, who led the state from 2015 to 2023.
The ICPC detailed its findings in an application filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking the forfeiture of the funds. The commission argued that the alleged diversion deprived Kaduna residents of a vital rail transport system.
According to the ICPC, the fraud stemmed from a purported joint venture agreement signed in October 2016 between the El-Rufai-led administration and Indo Kaduna Mrts JV Nigeria Limited. Payments to the entity began in December 2016, even though the company was not officially incorporated until May 10, 2017.
Between December 2016 and January 2017, the El-Rufai administration approved the payment of N11.1 billion to Mrts JV Nigeria’s account with Sterling Bank. Out of this amount, N1.37 billion was traced to a private account.
On February 14, 2024, the ICPC sought an interim forfeiture order and requested that notices be published in national newspapers, inviting any claimants to show cause why the funds should not be permanently forfeited.
The investigation began after the ICPC received a petition in June 2024 from a lawyer, M. Yahaya, alleging financial misappropriation by officials of the El-Rufai administration. The commission’s probe found that the Kaduna State Government had transferred N11.1 billion in multiple tranches to the joint venture’s account before it was officially registered.
Payments included N890.3 million from the state treasury on December 23, 2016, N2.3 billion on January 10, 2017, and two more tranches of N3 billion and N4.9 billion on January 17, 2017.
On the same day that the final payments were made, Skipper Nigeria Limited, linked to the joint venture, directed Sterling Bank to place the funds in a fixed deposit account. By July 2019, Indo Kaduna Mrts JV Nigeria Limited refunded N10 billion to the Kaduna State Government, leaving a balance of N1.046 billion.
The fixed deposit had also accrued N326.8 million in interest, both of which were allegedly diverted to accounts belonging to GTA Engineering Nigeria Limited, a subsidiary of Skipper Nigeria Limited.
The ICPC claims that the N1.046 billion was labeled as payment for feasibility study, but no such study was conducted. The commission has since recovered both the diverted sum and the accrued interest, totaling N1.37 billion, and is now seeking a court order for its forfeiture.
Former appointees of El-Rufai have denied any wrongdoing, calling the ICPC’s move an abuse of power. They argue that the project was part of a Build, Own, Operate, and Transfer agreement requiring Kaduna State to contribute 15 percent equity, with the rest funded by an Indian loan.
However, the project stalled due to the federal government’s failure to provide a sovereign guarantee. The former officials insist that the joint venture was legally established and challenge critics to present evidence of misconduct.
