Television Nigerian

The costs of the National Identity Management Commission’s (NIMC) goods and services have been examined. It stated that the review was carried out following ten years of sticking to the same price plan.

According to a statement issued by Dr. Kayode Adegoke, Head of Corporate Communications at NIMC, the Commission “conducted a comprehensive review to ensure alignment with current operational costs and industry standards.”

According to him, the updated pricing plan attempts to keep NIMC’s services affordable and accessible for Nigerians while preserving their quality and integrity. The new rates are going to be in effect right now.

Read Also: Sen. Jibrin Explains What Made 4th NASS Members Stand Out

“NIMC cautions all Front-End Partners (FEPs) to follow the new pricing structure to the letter.

A FEP’s license may be revoked if they are shown to be charging higher than the authorized rates.

The protection of Nigerians’ interests and the provision of our services at reasonable and open rates are priorities for NIMC. All Nigerians and pertinent stakeholders will be able to access the new price structure from the NIMC website, www.nimc.gov.ng.

Adegoke stated that NIMC is dedicated to giving Nigerians safe and dependable identity services.

“We encourage the public to report any FEP charging that exceeds the authorized rates to our inspectorate and enforcement unit by calling 08155015388 or sending an email to ieu@nimc.gov.ng,” he stated.

In the interim, NIMC DG/CEO Engr. Abisoye Coker-Odusote would like to express gratitude to Nigerians, sister agencies, and all of its partners for their unwavering support.

She does, however, convey her sincere gratitude to President Tinubu, the Honorable Minister of Interior, Dr. Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, Harmonization partners, and the management and employees of NIMC for their invaluable assistance in creating a robust and enduring National Identity System, Adegoke stated.

According to Edo North Senator Adams Oshiomhole, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has no moral right to condemn former Delta State Governor Ifeanyi Okowa’s decision to abandon the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in favor of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
According to Oshiomhole, Atiku, a serial defector, cannot question Okowa, who has only defected once.

The former Edo State Governor made the statement on Wednesday at the Independent Television and Radio’s 28th Founders’ Day Lecture, titled “Nigeria, where are we going?”.
Oshiomhole noted that Atiku, as a sitting Vice President, switched from the party that gave him a platform, joined another party, received its presidential ticket, contested and lost an election.

He went on to say that the Supreme Court ruled that there was nothing wrong with his actions, thus the PDP chairman has no moral footing to chastise them because switching parties is his specialty.

“I was listening to those who sought to assess the significance of the Edo-Delta reunification with Dr. Okowa and Governor Oborevwori joining the APC.

Read Also: Property Dispute: Court Fixes May 26 For Ruling

“And those who are talking, including people like Atiku, who helped us realize by his action that a sitting vice president can decamp and take the position of a vice president to an opposition party and still retain the position and Supreme Court has pronouncement on that”

“At the time, I was the NLC’s unofficial opposition president. He subsequently proceeded to Bourdillon, Lagos, to join another party named Action Congress, where he ran for president and failed.

“This same guy who is louder in his criticism of Okowa deserted back to the PDP, contested and lost, then decamped to the APC and contested against former President Muhammadu Buhari, losing. He returned to the PDP, contested against President Bola Tinubu, and lost,” he stated.

He expressed surprise that Atiku was attacking a man who had only switched political parties once.

Justice Akingbola George of the Lagos State High Court has adjourned ruling for May 26, 2025 in an application seeking leave to amend the statement of defence and counterclaim in Suit No: LD/4471LM/2023.

The court fixed the date following an oral arguments from counsel representing the parties Mr. A.N. Salau for the defendant, Anthony Ugbebor, a United States based Engineer and Mr. D.A. Ajiboye for the claimant, Oak Homes Multinational Services Ltd.

During the court proceedings, Salau informed the court that the defence filed a motion dated March 31, 2025, seeking to amend its initial statement of defence and counterclaim, along with other related court processes.

The application, he noted, contained five prayers supported by a written address and an affidavit.

Among the reliefs sought is an order granting leave to amend the defence and deeming the separately filed amended processes as properly before the court.

Salau argued that the amendment became necessary to include critical facts omitted in the earlier filing, particularly those countering the claimant’s assertion that the properties in dispute had been sold.

According to the affidavit in support, the claimant is allegedly attempting to sell the first defendant’s properties without authorisation, despite the ongoing litigation.

The proposed amended defence contends that the contractual relationship between the parties began with an offer letter dated November 6, 2017, which the defendant accepted.

It further alleges that the claimant breached the agreed project delivery date of February 28, 2019—well before the COVID-19 pandemicand that the delay has adversely affected the defendant.

Salau also indicated that the defence intends to call additional witnesses, and argued that the right to amend pleadings before the commencement of trial remains preserved.

“The claimant had the opportunity to amend and respond to our counterclaim.

“Their cited authority even supports our right to amend. We urge the court to disregard their counter affidavit and grant our application,” he submitted.

In response, the claimant’s counsel, Ajiboye, said he filed their counter affidavit on April 17, 2025, and relied on a seven-paragraph counter affidavit opposing the application. He argued that the motion was brought in bad faith and intended to overreach.

“The facts the applicant seeks to introduce only arose between January and December 2024. They are coming late, and it is in the interest of justice that this court strike out the application,” he said.

After hearing both sides, Justice George adjourned the matter to May 26, 2025, for ruling on the application and commencement of trial.