Politics
Tinubu’s action in Rivers a Coup, should be removed, tried for treason – Kenneth Okonkwo
Veteran Nollywood actor, politician and activist Kenneth Okonkwo has called for the removal of President Bola Tinubu for for what he termed declaration of Martial Law in Rivers State.
What he did is a coup not a state of emergency as people erroneously call it
Okonkwo’s reaction to the recent events in Rivers State is contained in a podcast shared on YouTube which the actor personally availed everydaynewsngr.net.
Hear him:
People have been making a mistake as to what the president did in Rivers State. Tinubu did not declare state of emergency in Rivers State, the president declared a Martial law in Rivers State.
State of Emergency is recognised by our constitution. And has given the president the power to declare state of emergency under certain conditions.
The Nigerian Bar Association has made it clear that none of those conditions has been fulfilled to warrant the declaration of State of emergency. Meaning that the purported declaration is not a state of emergency.
The Supreme Court is very clear! In the case of Attorney General of Bendel State and Adeyo, It said any act of governance not covered under an enabling law is a nullity. So there is nothing like state of emergency in Rivers. What Bola Tinubu did is not a state of emergency because even when the situation has arisen it doesn’t include the removal of elected representatives of the people.
The constitution is very clear in Section 1(2) that Nigeria shall not be governed or any part thereof by any persons except in accordance with the constitution. Where is it in the constitution that Nigeria or any state shall be governed by a sole administrator. None.
So what the President did is akin to what the president of South Korea did when he declared martial law and wanted to remove the representatives of the people. The legislature moved in immediately.
Including members of the party of the president and removed the president himself. Declaring martial law to remove representatives of the people; that is a coup against the federation.
The president of South Korea is awaiting trial for doing that.
What the legislature is expected to be thinking about doing is removing Tinubu for declaring martial law on a state, federating unit and trying to rule that state through the military; through Sole administrator, not contemplated by our constitution.
Tinubu usurped the power to make law for that state; he said the sole administrator can make regulation – regulation is part of law. So he usurped it through a decree; not our law. That sole administrator can make law and he, Tinubu, and his cabinet will be the one to authorise the law. Usurping power of the legislature- that is treason. That is trying to govern Nigeria or a part of it in a manner not contemplated by the constitution.
Tinubu suspended numerous sections of the constitution in order to make his declaration. No state of emergency authorises the govt to suspend any provision of the constitution. But in declaring the martial law which Tinubu did he suspended Sections 1, 179,180, 188, 189, 120 and 121 including Section 117 and 110 of the constitution in order to make that declaration. That cannot be declaration of a state of Emergency.
What are these Sections talking, that you cannot govern Nigeria outside elected members of the representatives of the people. And these Sections enumerated the methods you can use to remove a member of the House of Assembly Or the Governor. One, by death, resignation, impeachment, by permanent incapacity and expiration of term. And for the House of Assembly member by recall. That’s the summary of the Sections I have enumerated.
So the president suspended these sections and wants to rule Rivers State by decree. Because he has already usurped the power of the legislature and that is why I am saying that what he declared was martial law, was a coup against the people of Rivers State.
Rivers State are the ones that elected the Governor and members of the Assembly. And even by interpretation act, it said, he that appoints is the only person that has the power to remove. So the President did not appoint the Governor, he did not appoint members of the Assembly, they were elected. The President has no right to remove them. And any govt in place on a democracy was instituted by laws; that’s why the Supreme Court say any act of governance that is not covered under an enabling law is a nullity.
Even the National Assembly that has the right, and I am talking now about the State of emergency, for us to know the difference between State of emergency and what Tinubu did. In state of emergency, Section 305 is very clear, you declare State of emergency when there is war, when there is imminent threat of invasion of Nigeria – that has not happened. Or when there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety as to warrant extra ordinary measure to correct the situation or where there is a danger that such a thing will happen or where there is a natural calamity of such that needs extraordinary measure to correct it or where there is a threat to the collapse of the federation of Nigeria. This is Section 305(3). Now, none of these has happened and the President came on TV to say there is a security report – security report Mr President is for you, it is not for Nigerians. So anything that Nigerians do not know should not know Nigerians. You that know your security report has not given you the right to remove elected representatives. So what the State of emergency actually is doing is that the president should empower the democratic forces to be able to overcome the danger even if it means using extraordinary measure. What is the extraordinary measure? The state of emergency that is talking about extraordinary measure is that you have the right to restrict the fundamental rights of Nigerians when you are taking away the extraordinary measure it does not mean removing elected representatives and it was stated in Section 45 of the constitution when they say that the provisions of the human rights cannot invalidate any law made by the National Assembly if that law is intended for the defense, public safety, public morality, public order or public health of the country and even that Section made it clear that the National Assembly has the power to make such law for the defense even if it affects the fundamental human rights. And in Section 11(4) the constitution made it clear that the making of the law by the National Assembly does not include the removal of the governor or the deputy. That is, even if the legislature is not functioning in that state. What does that tell you, that no law gives any right to any elected president to remove elected representatives of the people. Now let me tell you this catch, because the President is referring to one pipeline or two that was breached. During the regime of President Goodluck Jonathan the whole pipelines in Niger Delta were threatened; most of them were breached by the militants that had waged war against the federal Republic because of marginalisation of The Niger Delta. President Goodluck Jonathan…that was a situation that needed a state of emergency, he did not even declare a state of emergency because he didn’t believe there was anything extraordinary in what these people were doing which the security forces cannot contain. He simply made an order that security forces should restore order in that region and arrest the culprits and bring them to justice. That was what he did and the security forces moved in. No governor was affected, no assembly was affected and it led to the dialogue which resulted in the amnesty which brought peace to the region which we are enjoying today. When a competent president wants to make peace in any part of the country he goes by the way that Goodluck Jonathan, that Umar Y’adua did. You negotiate; you go into dialogue not going to support your appointee in order to destroy the state because you want to capture the state. That is why it is not a state of emergency he is doing because Y’Adua faced with problem in the entire Niger Delta which breached all the pipelines, which brought war against the federal government did not even declare a state of emergency and a president is telling you apprehension, there is tension not that there is something actual, no evidence, that is one. Secondly, when Goodluck Jonathan was faced with invasion, insurgency by a terrorist group called Boko Haram that had taken over local governments and three states were under threat, Goodluck Jonathan rightly declared a state of emergency and did not remove any governor and did not remove any representative of the people; why? Because he was not declaring any martial law he was declaring state of emergency and he took out that situation and in six weeks he wiped them out. Why he declared a state of emergency is to let the people know- your movement might be curtailed so don’t come and quote for us freedom of movement. You shouldn’t come out at so so time because stray bullet can catch you. And then if hit by stray bullet you can’t go to anyone and say the person was killed. That’s the essence of the state of emergency. Your fundamental human rights could be be involved.
Now, let’s go to Obasanjo because he was the only leader that removed some governors while declaring state of emergency which the courts now have ruled illegal. But one thing Obasanjo did; he didn’t use it as an instrument of power grab. Obasanjo never declared or removed any elected representatives in the opposition party; it was only PDP members, his own party he removed. And there was another governor that had security issues from another party, Obasanjo refused to remove him because he knew it would be interpreted as power grab. He wrote a letter of warning to that Governor.
When Tinubu was governor there were security problems in Lagos. Obasanjo restrained himself from declaring state of emergency in Lagos.
.. it is a coup to forcefully and with military remove elected representatives so that he can take over the state and administer it with military people that’s a coup.
Tinubu is the first President since 1979 that has used the instrument of State of emergency to usurp power from the opposition party. There was nothing in Rivers State that necessitated a declaration of State of emergency.
When they organised local government election in Rivers State secretaries were burned by people who were against the Governor. Somebody was caught with a bomb; he detonated it, it wounded him. They arrested him, what has happened to him till date, nothing. People committed arson; people loyal to appointees of the president. Burned down secretariats in open glare, nobody was arrested, why? No state of emergency was declared, why? And then, now you have peace you are saying you declared state of emergency.
I was really troubled When the president was mentioning Supreme Court judgement; Supreme Court said that appropriation act must be re submitted by the governor because the governor had submitted it to a legitimate House of Assembly and they were legitimate until the declaration of the Supreme Court.
They said he should re-present it to the 27 lawmakers. And the law is that no money of the state can be spent except it’s appropriated by the House of Assembly and that the Governor will present it for such appropriation.
Tinubu suspended the constitution because he wanted to go against the Supreme Court judgement which has ordered the governor to re-present the budget to the Assembly. This declaration is against the Supreme Court judgement and it is now Tinubu disobeying the Supreme Court judgement not the governor. The governor wrote to the Assembly; come let is discuss about the budget. What a good man. Why is he inviting them? Because the budget that contained only four members of the Assembly will not be the same as the budget that will contain 27 members. They refused. They gave him ultimatum. Ultimatum means we are waiting for you and you must come and present this within this time. The governor went to honour the ultimatum. They locked the gate against him and yet Tinubu is giving it as an example. And he is calling the governor who said he would obey the decisions of the Court and has obeyed all. And you are still calling him. That means you have a sinister motive to overthrow his government by force and that is exactly what he did, deploying the military which is against the judgement of the Supreme Court. It’s an impeachable offense for a President to go against the judgement of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is very clear that no money should be spent. It even suspended the allocation. So saying that you will unilaterally make a law to overrule the Supreme Court and give Rivers State money to a Sole administrator who is not even from their State means that you want to use your power which is military power as Commander in chief of the Armed forces …if this is not military dictatorship tell me what it is…so what happened in Rivers State is coup and Nigerians must rise..like what happened in South Korea, Tinubu ought to be removed and ought to be facing trial for treason…”
ABAKALIKI — The camp of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate, Chief Dr Ifeanyi Chukwuma Odii, has dismissed reports suggesting that he may withdraw from the 2027 Ebonyi State governorship race and support Governor Francis Nwifuru.
In a statement signed by Odii’s spokesperson, Chief Emmanuel Chidi Igwe, the campaign described the reported withdrawal as false, insisting that Odii remains committed to contesting the election.
According to Igwe, “Chief Dr Ifeanyi Chukwuma Odii will never, under any condition, step down from the 2027 governorship contest.”
The statement said Odii’s political camp remains focused on what it described as its campaign position: “Odii must run and win.”
It added that any political discussions, persuasion or negotiations involving other individuals should not be interpreted as a decision by Odii to abandon his governorship ambition.
Camp Rejects Withdrawal Narrative
The Odii camp further described reports of a possible withdrawal as a political narrative allegedly being promoted by individuals opposed to his candidacy.
Igwe challenged those behind the reports to produce evidence showing that Odii had personally announced his withdrawal from the race.
“There is a fundamental difference between reporting that a politician intends to persuade Chief Odii to withdraw and reporting that Chief Odii has agreed to withdraw,” the statement said, stressing that the latter would require evidence from the candidate himself.
The spokesperson also urged journalists, bloggers and online publishers to maintain professional standards when reporting political developments, warning against presenting speculation or the intentions of third parties as established decisions by political candidates.
24-Hour Retraction Demand
The camp has consequently demanded that publishers of the alleged withdrawal story retract or prominently correct their reports within 24 hours, unless they can produce an authentic statement from Odii confirming that he has decided to withdraw from the 2027 contest.
The statement also reminded online publishers of their responsibilities under Nigerian law, citing the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, as amended, as well as other laws relating to unlawful online publications and defamatory material.
The spokesperson clarified that the reference to the law was not intended as a threat against legitimate journalism or political criticism, but as a reminder that political disagreements should remain within the bounds of the law.
The statement concluded by reaffirming that Odii remains in the 2027 governorship race and urged members of the public to regard reports of his withdrawal as unverified unless supported by a direct statement from him.
By Petrus Obi, London
London — The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship aspirant in Ebonyi State, Ifeanyi Odii, has intensified his criticism of the administration of Governor Francis Nwifuru, insisting that the people of the state deserve a different approach to governance.
Odii, who spoke with EverydayNewsngr.net in London, said what he described as the “fire brigade approach” of the Nwifuru administration was not the kind of governance Ebonyi needs.
According to him, the state requires a government with a clear vision, long-term planning and the capacity to deliver meaningful development to its people.
“The fire brigade approach of the Nwifuru government is not what the state needs,” Odii said.
He added: “I am coming to bring a new lease of life to my people.”
Odii’s comments come amid renewed political debate in Ebonyi State following the recent removal of the state Commissioner for Works. The development has attracted attention from opposition circles, with critics using it to question aspects of the administration’s handling of governance and infrastructure.
The PDP chieftain said the people of Ebonyi should expect more than what he described as reactive governance, arguing that development should be driven by a coherent programme capable of producing lasting results.
He maintained that his political ambition was motivated by a desire to provide what he described as purposeful leadership and improve the welfare of residents across the state.
“We deserve better government in Ebonyi State,” Odii said, stressing that his vision was centred on giving the people renewed confidence in government and creating opportunities for them to prosper.
As political activities ahead of the next governorship election continue to gather momentum, governance, infrastructure, accountability and the delivery of public services are expected to feature prominently in the emerging contest.
Odii’s intervention in London is likely to add further momentum to the political conversation, particularly as opposition figures seek to distinguish their vision for Ebonyi from that of the incumbent administration.
STATEMENT BY CHIEF EMMANUEL CHIDI IGWE,
SPOKESPERSON TO CHIEF DR. IFEANYI CHUKWUMA ODII
The 2027 governorship election in Ebonyi State is not a family affair, nor is it a matter to be decided by one individual or political godfather. It is a democratic contest, and Ebonyians will ultimately decide who becomes their governor through the ballot box.
No aspirant should be expected to step down simply because another politician believes he should. Every qualified candidate has the right to contest, present his programme and seek the mandate of the people.
Let me make this clear: since Senator Dave Umahi did not bring Chief Dr. Ifeanyi Chukwuma Odii into the governorship race, he cannot now claim the authority to ask him to step down. Chief Odii has his own political identity, supporters, convictions and legitimate right to seek the mandate of Ebonyians.
The decision to contest or withdraw belongs to the candidate, while the ultimate decision on who governs Ebonyi State belongs to the people.
The 2027 election should therefore be about issues, programmes, records, accountability and the future of Ebonyi—not political arrangements made by individuals behind closed doors.
Chief Dr. Ifeanyi Chukwuma Odii is prepared to place his vision and programme before Ebonyians and subject them to public scrutiny. Those seeking to retain power should equally be prepared to defend their records before the electorate.
Ebonyi 2027 is not a family arrangement. It is a contest for the confidence of the people. The people of Ebonyi State—not individuals—will have the final say.
Chief Emmanuel Chidi Igwe
Spokesperson to Chief Dr. Ifeanyi Chukwuma Odii
Politics
BREAKING: SaharaReporters Report on Arrest of Enugu Traditional Ruler, Ex-Lawmaker Is False and Misleading
The recent publication by SaharaReporters alleging that prominent Enugu traditional ruler, Igwe Obiora Igwesi, his brother and former federal lawmaker, Hon. Uchenna Sunday A. Igwesi (USA Igwesi), and eight others were arrested over an alleged attack on an NDC ward meeting in Obuoffia, Nkanu West Local Government Area, is false and deeply misleading.
The report is being described as a deliberate attempt to damage the reputation of respected leaders in Enugu State and create unnecessary political tension ahead of the 2027 elections.
Contrary to the claims contained in the publication, there was no arrest ordered by the Inspector-General of Police against Igwe Obiora Igwesi, Hon. USA Igwesi, or the other individuals named in connection with any alleged attack on an NDC meeting. There was also no operation by detectives from Zone 13 Command, Ukpo, Dunukofia, Anambra State, as alleged in the report.
Similarly, the purported petition dated September 15, 2026, and the allegations of conspiracy, unlawful possession of firearms, attempted murder, assault, threatening violence and stealing are strongly disputed and described as fabricated claims intended to create a damaging narrative around the individuals concerned.
The broader allegation that the 17 Local Government Areas of Enugu State have experienced coordinated armed attacks allegedly sponsored by Local Government Chairmen to silence the opposition is equally rejected as unfounded.
Attempts to associate Igwe Obiora Igwesi and Hon. USA Igwesi with criminal activity or political violence are viewed as an unacceptable effort to tarnish the image of individuals who have served their communities and contributed to the development of Enugu State.
The public, particularly the people of Enugu State, is therefore urged to exercise caution and verify the facts independently before accepting or circulating the allegations contained in the SaharaReporters publication.
Enugu State remains focused on peace, stability and development. Political disagreements should not be allowed to degenerate into the circulation of unverified allegations capable of inflaming tensions or damaging the reputations of individuals.
The position being maintained by the affected parties is clear: there was no arrest of the named individuals in connection with the alleged incident, no evidence has been presented establishing that any Local Government Chairman sponsored an attack, and the allegations contained in the publication are disputed in their entirety.
The public is encouraged to await verifiable facts from the appropriate authorities rather than rely on claims that have not been independently substantiated.
Fresh legal questions emerge over Chijioke Ugwu’s membership registration after Supreme Court restores party-register provisions
By Our Correspondent
Fresh legal questions have emerged over the Peoples Democratic Party’s 2027 governorship ticket in Enugu State following the Supreme Court’s restoration of key provisions of the Electoral Act dealing with political party membership registers and the conduct of primaries.
The questions centre on Chief Chijioke Peter Ugwu, who was recently announced by the PDP governorship candidate, Chief Uche Geoffrey Nnaji, as his running mate.
Nnaji announced Ugwu’s selection on September 24, shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment restoring Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. Ugwu’s selection was subsequently reported by several Nigerian media outlets.
But documents and information available to this newspaper raise a question that could potentially become significant if the PDP ticket is challenged in court.
The PDP governorship primary in Enugu State was conducted on May 25, 2026.
However, Ugwu is understood to have registered as a PDP member on May 31, 2026 — six days after the governorship primary.
This means that if the May 31 registration date is accurately reflected in the party’s official records, his name could not have appeared in the PDP membership register submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the May 25 governorship primary.
That immediately raises the question:
Can a person who was not a member of the party on the date of its governorship primary subsequently be selected as the deputy governorship candidate without the Supreme Court’s restored membership-register provisions affecting the ticket?
What the Supreme Court restored
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment delivered on September 24, set aside the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision which had declared the disputed provisions of the Electoral Act unconstitutional.
The apex court upheld the validity of Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2), following an appeal by INEC against the Court of Appeal judgment in the case involving the Zenith Labour Party.
Section 77(5) provides that only persons whose names are contained in a political party’s membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention may participate in the exercise.
Section 77(6) requires political parties to use the membership register submitted to INEC for their primaries, congresses and conventions.
Section 77(7) deals with the consequence of failure by a party to submit its membership register within the prescribed period.
These provisions are now back in force following the Supreme Court judgment. Legal opinions suggest that the law’s insistence on the membership register submitted to INEC is relevant to the validity of the party’s eventual nomination process, depending on how the PDP formally nominated and submitted its governorship and deputy governorship candidates.
The precise documents will therefore be crucial.
Among the questions likely to arise are:
What date did the PDP submit its membership register to INEC?
Was Ugwu’s name contained in that register?
When exactly did Ugwu become a registered PDP member?
Was he a PDP member before the register was submitted to INEC?
How did the PDP formally nominate him as running mate?
Was the nomination made through a procedure recognised by the Electoral Act and the party’s constitution?
The controversy is coming at a sensitive time for the PDP, which has only recently unveiled Ugwu as Nnaji’s running mate. Ugwu, from Nguru in Nsukka Local Government Area, is an entrepreneur, philanthropist and community leader who runs businesses in logistics, contracting, consultancy and hospitality.
However, the governorship candidate and the deputy governorship candidate constitute a single electoral ticket. Therefore, any legal or constitutional issue affecting the eligibility of the deputy governorship candidate automatically has implications for the validity of the joint ticket, including the governorship candidate.
Another legal opinion available to this newspaper insists that “the gubernatorial ticket is a joint one. If the name of a deputy governor is not on the digital register, it invalidates the entire process.”
In the 2019 Bayelsa governorship election, APC’s David Lyon was declared winner. His running mate was Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo.
The Supreme Court later disqualified Degi-Eremienyo over the documents he submitted to INEC. The crucial point was that the Supreme Court held that his disqualification affected the joint ticket he shared with David Lyon. Consequently, the court ordered INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Return issued to Lyon and his deputy.
This happened one day before Lyon was due to be sworn in as governor. The certificate was subsequently issued to Douye Diri of the PDP, who had the next-highest lawful votes and the required geographical spread.
-
Politics5 days agoEbonyi Guber: ‘Our People Deserve Better Government,’ Odii Insists
-
News5 days agoNigeria @66: Democracy Evolving, Says Anambra APC Chairman Anosike
-
News5 days agoNigeria at 66: Ebonyi Reps Candidate Urges Nigerians to Keep Hope Alive
-
News2 days agoSacked Works Commissioner: Release or Charge Him to Court, Oganiru Izzi Challenges Nwifuru
-
News9 hours agoNo Survivor Found Yet in Ondo Air Crash — Aiyedatiwa
-
Crime2 days agoPolice Deploy DIG, Two Commissioners to Rescue 20 Abducted Prospective Corps Members
-
Politics10 hours ago
2027: Odii Will Not Step Down, Says Spokesperson
-
News41 minutes agoHow NAF Plane Vanished From Radar Shortly After Take-Off, Crashes In Ondo Swamp