Television Nigerian

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.

The late former president Muhammadu Buhari made the contentious “other room” remark on the incorrect stage, according to former first lady Aisha Buhari.

Mrs. Buhari claims that statements like that one frequently don’t translate well internationally.

Charles Omole’s recently published biography of the former president, “From Soldier to Statesman: The Legacy of Muhammadu Buhari,” includes her thoughts on the comment.

The remark “she belongs to my kitchen…and the other room” took on a life of its own after it was spoken in Germany while standing next to Angela Merkel, according to excerpts from the book.

“Aisha Buhari answers with the casualness of someone who is aware of the soldier’s and the man’s propensity for gallows humor.

She claims, “We laughed about it.” However, she acknowledges that the location was inappropriate for such a joke.

Irony travels poorly in the global square, according to the book. When she returned home, her foreign coworkers questioned her, seeing the joke as government policy.

She responded succinctly: both she and he are aware of their roles. The gap between the country he envisioned and the administration he was in charge of occasionally caused them to disagree.

However, they never debated whether or not she should be in areas where authority is used. She just strolled in.

One thing people appreciate about Chief Dr. Philip Agbese is that he doesn’t lead by guesswork. He has a clear purpose in everything he does. From the way he speaks in the National Assembly to the way he engages with his constituency, you can see a man who knows exactly why he is in office. He is not there to pass time. He is not there to make noise. He is there to make a difference that the ordinary person can feel.
When you look at his activities, you notice a pattern of intention. He focuses on areas that matter to the everyday life of the people: education, youth development, community welfare, representation at the national level and the protection of the Idoma voice. These are deliberate steps aligned with the needs of Ado, Okpokwu and Ogbadibo. And this is why people trust him. There is no confusion around his mission. He is simply doing what he promised to do.
Many politicians come into office without direction. They move from one issue to another without any real plan. But Okanga is different. His purpose is rooted in service. He wants to uplift the lives of the people who believed in him. He wants to push the constituency forward. He wants to make sure the next generation does not inherit the same struggles the previous generation faced. This sense of mission is what gives his leadership weight and meaning.
People follow leaders who know where they are going. A leader with purpose brings stability. A leader with purpose brings clarity. A leader with purpose gives people hope because they can see that every decision is leading somewhere better. This is why so many people are comfortable supporting him again in 2027. They have watched his journey and they know he is progressing.
2027 is not just about re-electing someone. It is about maintaining a clear direction for the constituency. It is about building on a foundation that is already strong. It is about trusting a man whose actions match his words.