Television Nigerian

By upholding the President’s authority to dismiss elected governors and state assemblies under a state of emergency, the Supreme Court has been accused by the African Democratic Congress (ADC) of turning the President into a “constitutional tyrant.”

The party cautioned in a statement signed by Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, its National Publicity Secretary, that despite the ruling’s academic nature, it sets a dangerous precedent and concentrates excessive power in the Presidency in a way that threatens democracy in general as well as Nigeria’s federal system.

According to the ADC, Nigeria’s democracy and federalism are seriously threatened by the ruling.

It cautioned that constitutional dictatorship does not always result from military takeovers and that it frequently develops gradually as leaders gradually undermine democratic institutions and norms.

The entire statement said: “The Supreme Court of Nigeria’s ruling, which gives the President the authority to suspend elected governors and state assemblies during a state of emergency, has alarmed the African Democratic Congress (ADC).” Even while the decision seems harmlessly academic, it could mark a turning point in our democratic evolution and permanently change the character of our democracy.

The President has the “discretion to determine the measures required to restore peace and security” following the declaration of a state of emergency in any state, per the ruling of the Supreme Court. Essentially, the President is free to implement whatever “extraordinary measures” if he believes they are required to bring peace back to that state.

The top court’s stance clearly implies that the President of Nigeria or his representatives might easily create a security situation in any state where the governor is thought to be “unfriendly” and then suspend the governor and the State House of Assembly. Even though the same ruling states that “no arm or tier of government is constitutionally superior to another,” the ruling’s obvious implication is that the President has complete influence over state governors’ political behavior. Thus, the ADC views this ruling as a grave danger to Nigeria’s democracy and federalism.

Examining the protections outlined by the highest court as balances against abuse of presidential authority highlights the tremendous risk inherent in this ruling. Judicial scrutiny, parliamentary oversight, and proportionality are some of these protections.

“Proportionality is obviously out of the question when faced with a president who will stop at nothing to hold onto power, even completely destroying opposition parties, as Nigerians have seen under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu since taking office. Second, legislative monitoring is equally unlikely given the President’s successful takeover of the National Assembly and the legislature’s disgraceful reduction to a mere appendage of the Presidency. Lastly, with regard to judicial review, this same ruling has eliminated any uncertainty regarding the type of review that is now feasible when the nation’s top court decides to give precedence to the letter of the law above its spirit, which is specifically meant to avert the very risk that the Court has now approved.

The Supreme Court has unintentionally contributed to the imposition of constitutional dictatorship on Nigeria through this type of “judicial review,” a perilous form of authoritarianism in which those in positions of authority take advantage of legal frameworks and constitutional flaws to amass and solidify absolute power.

The ADC wants Nigerians to be aware that military takeovers are not the only way that constitutional tyranny may emerge. As we have seen over the last two years, it frequently develops slowly as leaders incrementally undermine democratic institutions and values. It is now painfully obvious that neither the judiciary nor the legislature can be trusted to stop this decline.

Greetings One of the most difficult aspects of Nigeria’s economic restructuring program is still the power industry. The industry still has significant structural, financial, and governance issues in spite of numerous reform initiatives over the years.

These issues are multifaceted and include transmission bottlenecks, inadequate investment capacity, political economy restrictions, tariff distortions, and a prolonged liquidity crisis throughout the value chain. The sector’s financing gap has grown and subsidy dependence has been solidified as a result of the failure to establish a fully cost-reflective tariff regime, primarily because of social and political sensitivities following recent macroeconomic reforms.

In order to keep the system from collapsing and maintain the supply of electricity, government involvement has become necessary in the near future. However, without deeper structural repairs, increased transparency, and the execution of reforms gradually but credibly, the existing trajectory—which is marked by mounting sector debt at approximately ₦4 trillion—is not financially sustainable.

Background and Situation

Power sector reform has long been seen as essential to Nigeria’s industrial development, social welfare, and economic competitiveness.

However, progress has been uneven and gradual. Because the electricity sector’s value chain—gas supply, generation, transmission, and distribution—is so intertwined that flaws in one part threaten the system as a whole, it poses a different kind of problem than other reform areas.

The reform environment has become more complex due to recent macroeconomic changes, such as the removal of fuel subsidies and the unification of foreign currencies, which have increased cost-of-living pressures and strengthened opposition to tariff modifications in the power sector.

Tariff Reform’s Political Economics

The challenge of creating a truly cost-reflective pricing structure is a significant barrier to power sector reform.

Because of worries about affordability and the social effects of reforms on consumers and businesses, electricity tariffs are still capped.

However, the industry cannot provide enough cash to support operations or draw in new investment without cost-reflective pricing.

Because of the ensuing subsidy burden, the government has been compelled to make financial interventions on a regular basis, thereby shifting inefficiencies and revenue shortfalls onto the public balance sheet.

Therefore, one of the most politically delicate and technically challenging aspects of Nigeria’s current reform agenda is power sector reform.

Problems with Privatization and Structural Weaknesses

In addition to tariff problems, the industry has intrinsic structural flaws, especially since privatization.

Concerns still exist about:

• Some private investors’ financial and technical capacity

• Deficits in due diligence and transparency throughout the privatization process

• Ineffective operations and poor governance, particularly in the TCN and distribution corporations (Discos) These difficulties have restricted revenue collection, lowered service quality, and decreased operators’ capacity to make investments in network upgrades and loss mitigation.

Public Ownership and Transmission Restrictions

The Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN) is still entirely owned and run by the government. Control of this vital infrastructure by the public sector has been linked to delayed network growth, insufficient investment, and operational inefficiencies.

Transmission continues to be a major bottleneck that limits the use of generation capacity and lowers system reliability. Liquidity and service delivery issues throughout the value chain are made worse by this segment’s flaws.

Grid collapses are less common, nevertheless, because to recent initiatives under the Presidential Power Initiative.

Crisis in Liquidity Throughout the Power Value Chain

The power industry functions as a closely connected chain. One segment’s financial difficulties spread swiftly to others. Presently:

• It is difficult for generating firms (Gencos) to pay gas providers.

• Discos, or distribution corporations, cannot make enough money to fulfill their commitments to Gencos.

• There are governance issues and underinvestment in transmission infrastructure. A systemic liquidity problem has been solidified by these circumstances, threatening sector sustainability and confidence.

Justification for Governmental Financial Involvement

In the short term, government involvement to close the sector’s financing shortfall is now unavoidable due to the scope and immediacy of the situation.

Preventing a failure of the electrical supply system is the goal of recent efforts, such as bond issuances to settle outstanding commitments, especially to gas suppliers and Gencos.

While longer-term reforms are progressively put into place, such interventions are required to keep power available for homes and businesses.

Progressive Reform and New Positive Advancements

There is a compelling justification for gradual and incremental reform, even though a swift shift to complete subsidy elimination may not be politically feasible. Current events show cautious progress, such as:

• The implementation of distinct tariff bands, like Band A

• Greater decentralization, with states taking on more operational and regulatory responsibilities

• The growth of autonomous power initiatives

• Growing use of renewable energy solutions in homes and businesses These patterns imply that the industry is gradually moving toward higher resilience and diversity in spite of present difficulties.

Risks to Debt, Transparency, and Fiscal Sustainability

The finance paradigm in use today is unsustainable. Sector liabilities have increased to around N4 trillion and are still rising. It is imperative to guarantee that all unresolved claims are:

• Correctly confirmed

• Conducted a thorough audit

• Credibly and openly managed

Nigeria’s experience with fuel subsidy programs highlights how susceptible subsidy schemes are to misuse and dishonesty. Therefore, to avoid comparable results in the power industry, strong oversight and accountability measures are crucial.

Policy Consequences and Suggestions

Establish a Clear Plan for Cost-Reflective Tariffs

Adopt a gradual and predictable shift to cost-reflective pricing while providing vulnerable customers with tailored social protection.

Enhance Accountability and Governance

Boost openness in financial settlements, debt verification, and subsidy administration.

Resolve Weaknesses in the Distribution Sector

Set performance standards for discos, such as loss minimization, technology advancements, and recapitalization.

Restructure Transmission Control

To increase productivity and investment, investigate other management or concession structures for TCN.

Encourage Renewables and Decentralization

To ease the strain on the national grid, promote state-level initiatives, independent power projects, and the use of renewable energy.

Reduce Financial Exposure

Financial assistance from the government should be clearly time-bound and connected to quantifiable reform benchmarks.

Summarization

Nigeria’s power sector reform is a gradual, long-term process rather than a short-term solution.

Progress will be slow due to the sector’s complexity, institutional flaws, and political economy limitations.

However, the current trajectory will continue unsustainable unless strong action is taken to address structural inefficiencies, enhance governance, and guarantee fiscal discipline.

Building a financially viable, dependable, and inclusive electricity industry that can support Nigeria’s economic growth and development requires a balanced approach that combines short-term government support with medium-to long-term structural transformation.

• The CEO of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise (CPPE) is Dr. Muda Yusuf.

The former governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, has claimed that he has never asserted that the country’s southern area should produce the president in 2027.

El-Rufai said that the widely shared assertion was untrue in a statement he put on his former Twitter account, X, on Monday.

He made it clear that he never made such remarks in any of his speeches, talks with the media, or on his verified social media accounts.

“My attention has been drawn to a trending fake news item alleging that I specified which region of the country should produce the president in 2027,” he added.

Despite going viral, this assertion is false. In none of my speeches, interviews, or posts on social media did I make such a claim. I keep up verifiable social media accounts where I directly voice my opinions and speak my thoughts.

Even while I distribute these articles on my platforms as contributions to the national discourse, it is incorrect and improper to assign to me opinion pieces written by other authors.

“These explanations are essential as we deal with both careless politicking and the intentional abuse of social media to propagate false information.

“Treating fake news platforms with any seriousness is not justified by their deliberate attribution of claims I did not make.”

He cautioned that society loses when media leaders and influencers neglect this duty and asked the public and media professionals to always confirm information before publishing or sharing.

In order to stop the propagation of false information and irresponsible politics, the former governor further urged all parties involved to take appropriate action.

anything is now more crucial than ever to confirm facts before posting or publishing anything in this turbulent and deceptive times. It seems that some senior editors disregarded this responsibility in this case.

“When media executives support the most careless social media users in what can only be described as the unedifying Olympics of fiction and fakery, society stands to lose.” Everyone needs to fulfill their obligations.

“I want to reiterate that unless I have specifically stated my opinions on my official social media platforms or in interviews with respectable media organizations, no opinions should be attributed to me,” he continued.

The Nigerian Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a sitting president has the authority to suspend democratically elected officials and declare a state of emergency in any state of the federation in an effort to prevent a breakdown in law and order or a plunge into chaos or anarchy.

The ruling concerned a lawsuit brought by Adamawa and ten other states led by the People’s Democratic Party contesting the legality of President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, which resulted in the six-month suspension of elected state officials including Governor Siminalaye Fubara.

In a lead majority ruling, Justice Mohammed Idris ruled that when emergency rule is declared, the president may use exceptional measures to restore normalcy under Section 305 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, in a six-to-one split ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the president’s authority to suspend democratically elected officials during an emergency, but it maintained that these suspensions must be temporary.

According to Justice Idris, the president has discretion over how to proceed because Section 305 is vague concerning the type of extraordinary measures.

The Attorney General of the Federation and the National Assembly, the two defendants, had already submitted preliminary objections to the suit’s competence, but Justice Idris had upheld them.

Justice Idris upheld the objections, ruling that the plaintiffs (the 11 PDP states) had not established a cause of action that could activate the apex court’s original jurisdiction.

As a result, the jurist dismissed the lawsuit after striking it out for lack of necessary jurisdiction and deciding the matter on its merits.

However, Justice Obande Ogbuinya found in a dissenting opinion that the case was partially successful.

Among other things, Justice Ogbuinya declared that while the president might declare a state of emergency, elected state officials, such as governors, deputy governors, and members of parliament, could not be suspended using this authority.

Recall that after President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, governors elected on the PDP platform went to the Supreme Court to seek compensation.

The lawsuit specifically contested President Tinubu’s declaration of an emergency in Rivers State.

In court proceedings, the PDP governors—which included leaders from the states of Bauchi, Adamawa, Bayelsa, Enugu, Osun, Plateau, and Zamfara—argued that the president lacked the constitutional authority to suspend a democratically elected governor and deputy governor.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit sought a ruling that the president’s acts violated Sections 1(2), 5(2), and 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

They requested that the Supreme Court issue an order declaring Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas’ appointment as the only administrator to be illegal and in flagrant violation of the constitution.

The governors also asked the court to prevent the president from attempting to suspend other governors or interfere with their constitutional responsibilities in the future.

Under the pretense of or in accordance with the declaration of a state of emergency, they contended, the president had “no powers whatsoever or vires to suspend a democratically elected governor and deputy governor of a state in the federation of Nigeria.”

The PDP governors further argued that the emergency proclamation did not comply with Section 305 of the Constitution in their court submission.

The governors said that “the proclamation was made for reasons beyond those specified in the said constitutional provision and failed to meet the stipulated conditions and procedures for such a declaration.”

The governors stated that they are pursuing the case to establish a legal precedent even though they are not directly impacted by the emergency regulation.

Furthermore, the PDP governors argued that the appointment of a single administrator was illegal and hence void.

Furthermore, the governors insisted that the National Assembly’s use of a voice vote to authorize the state of emergency was “unconstitutional” and informed the Supreme Court of this.

They proposed that a two-thirds majority vote from all members of each parliamentary house was required by the Constitution to grant such consent.

On March 18, 2025, Governor Siminayi Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and every member of the state House of Assembly were suspended for six months due to the emergency rule.

The only person designated as the state’s administrator was Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd.).

PDP warns that a court ruling could set a dangerous precedent.

In the meantime, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has voiced serious concerns about the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the president’s authority to proclaim a state of emergency in a federation.

In the lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of Adamawa State and others against the Attorney General of the Federation and the National Assembly (SC/CV/329/2025), the Supreme Court rendered a divided ruling (6-1).

The lawsuit questioned whether President Bola Tinubu could suspend democratically elected officials like the governor and deputy governor or legislative bodies like the Rivers State House of Assembly. It also contested the constitutionality of President Tinubu’s earlier declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.

In a statement released on Monday in Abuja, the PDP’s National Publicity Secretary, Comrade Ini Ememobong, accepted the supreme court’s authority but cautioned that Nigeria’s democratic and federal structures are seriously threatened by the reasoning behind the ruling.

The statement states, “Our concern is based on the clear constitutional position that no person or institution, other than the state House of Assembly or a court of law, is empowered to remove a governor from office during their constitutional term, and the long-standing legal principle that the express mention of one thing excludes others.”

The PDP issued a warning that the ruling’s interpretation would establish a precedent that would enable the president to use emergency powers to force political conformity from state governments with the backing of the National Assembly.

The party also cautioned that similar arguments might eventually be used to support the suspension of other constitutional institutions, such as the judiciary.

In order to clarify and restrict the scope of presidential emergency powers, the statement urged the National Assembly to immediately enact constitutional and legislative safeguards.

Additionally, the PDP called on Nigerians, civil society organizations, the media, and the global democratic community to continue being vigilant in their defense of federalism, constitutionalism, and the integrity of electoral mandates.

In order to guarantee justice, democracy, and long-term national stability, the party concluded by expressing optimism that the Supreme Court would explain the constitutional limits of emergency powers at the next chance.

Abubakar Malami (SAN), a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, has requested that Ola Olukoyede, the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), recuse himself from any investigation or prosecution involving him, citing political persecution, bias, and personal grudges.

Following his recent defection to the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Malami claimed that the EFCC’s activities against him, including his imprisonment and impending prosecution, are politically motivated in a statement released by his media assistant, Mohammed Bello Doka.

Malami asserted that the investigation is motivated by long-standing personal hostility between him and the EFCC chairman rather than law enforcement issues.

He noted that the Justice Ayo Salami Judicial Commission of Inquiry was established by the Federal Government to look into allegations of corruption and abuse of office inside the EFCC while he was Attorney-General.

Malami claims that the current EFCC chairman was mentioned in the committee’s report while serving as the panel’s secretary.

He claimed that portions of the publicly accessible Salaami study brought up grave concerns about the EFCC chairman, including suggestions that would have resulted in legal action.

Citing what he called “illegal detention, media trial, and procedural abuses,” Malami contended that the current investigation against him exhibits indications of retaliation.

Malami claimed that because of this, he has already been prejudiced and that the current EFCC leadership is unable to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry.

In order to maintain credibility and public confidence, he thus insisted that the EFCC chairman resign and that the matter be sent to another suitable government body.

As Nigeria’s top legal officer, the former justice minister also urged the Attorney-General of the Federation to step in and guarantee the EFCC chairman’s recusal in order to stop the misuse of prosecutorial authority.

Malami further insisted that charges be brought against him and that he be brought before the court within 24 hours in accordance with the Nigerian constitution, and that he be either immediately prosecuted or released.

He emphasized that the subject can only be fairly decided by a court of law, not a politically appointed body.

Additionally, he warned that the integrity of Nigeria’s legal system would be compromised if the EFCC relied on those who were purportedly convicted abroad as witnesses against him.

Malami stated that in order to prepare his defense, his legal team has formally obtained certified copies of the petitions and investigation reports that constitute the basis of the investigations.

“Let’s be clear and unambiguous: Abu Bakar Malami, SAN, does not seek any kind of political compromise, coercion, or alliance of convenience. His only goal is to clear his reputation in front of a court with the necessary authority in an open, transparent, and definitive manner.

“Nigeria must not degenerate into a republic where justice is replaced by retaliation and anti-corruption organizations are transformed into instruments of political intimidation.”

He insisted that he merely wants an honest and legal trial to clear his name and cautioned against using anti-corruption organizations as a means of political intimidation.

On Tuesday, Edo State Governor Monday Okpebholo gave the State House of Assembly a budget estimate of N939,850 billion for 2026.

The budget was reportedly dubbed the “Budget of Hope and Growth.”

According to Okpebholo, the budget is more over N140.03 billion more than the N799,820,058,858,52 billion budget for 2025.

He claims that N302 billion, or 32 percent, is set aside for recurring expenses and N637 billion, or 68 percent, is allotted for capital expenditures.

He clarified that the goal of the 2026 budget projection is to build on the progress made during his first year in office, broaden the government’s influence, and give the Edo people hope for better governance.

The goal of the 2026 Budget of Hope and Growth is to expand upon the groundwork we established in 2025. It is a budget that addresses the demands of our citizens. Security, infrastructure, agriculture, education, employment generation, and healthcare are its main priorities.

“Roads, schools, hospitals, water, housing, and economic initiatives will remain Edo State’s top priorities. According to Okpebholo, “Our people want real development they can see and feel.”

According to the governor, the budget will be financed by N160 billion from internally generated revenue, N480 billion from the Federal Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), N153 billion from capital receipts and grants, N146 billion from public-private partnerships, and other state-available revenue streams.

The governor promised that instead of placing undue financial strain on individuals, his administration will enhance mechanisms and prevent leaks.

The economic sector has the largest share of N614.2 billion, followed by the administrative sector with N157.7 billion and the social sector with N148.9 billion, according to the sectoral breakdown allocations.

According to Okpebholo, the budget is based on the government’s SHINE Agenda, which consists of five pillars: education, natural resources/agriculture, infrastructure, health, and security.

He went on to say that the goal of the 2026 budget is to create prosperity and a unified Edo State where all communities are impacted by governance and all citizens have hope.