National News
Lawmakers at ECOWAS Parliament Still in Fight Over Employment of Staff
Lawmakers at ECOWAS Parliament Still in Fight Over Employment of Staff
By Michael Mike
The controversy surrounding the recent employment by the Economic Committee of West African States (ECOWAS) is not over yet as lawmakers at it’s parliament have rejected a motion to present the outcome of the Ad-hoc committee setup to review allegations of nepotism in the exercise.
The lawmakers registered their protestation against the committee headed by Nigerian Senator Ali Ndume, at the plenary session of the 2nd Ordinary Session of the ECOWAS Parliament, in Lome, Togo while alleging that the Speaker of Parliament, Sidie Mohamed Tunis constituted the review committee without recourse to parliament.
The lawmakers noted that it was against the rules of parliament for the recruitment exercise to have gone ahead after it was voted to be suspended in the last parliamentary session when allegations of favouritism were raised.
Hon Awaji-Inombek Abiante who moved a point of order said that the report of the Ad-hoc Committee as set up by the Bureau was given the mandate to work without recourse to its adoption by the Plenary as such was illegal in its entirety.
This position was supported by Nigeria’s Senator Smart Adeyemi, who drew the Speaker’s attention to the adverse implication of the exercise.
Adeyemi said, “when actions are taken that are not in conformity with the spirit and the content of the documents that are supposed to guide us I think Mr. Speaker let us accept that something was done wrong. We should be courageous to say that, but for you to say that you prefer the decision that was not in conformity with the law, as an infringement to the modalities of the Parliament, in fact, the contrary is the case, if we go ahead to accept what is not properly done then the integrity of Parliament itself will be questioned.
“It means that as we are here, somebody can take a decision on our behalf without consulting us. Mr. Speaker with due respect to your position, I personally like you, I respect you, but this decision is not in intent and spirit of the document before us.”
Another lawmaker, Hon. Samson Ahi from Ghana argued that the formation of the Ad-hoc Committee was against the rules of parliament.
He said. “I just want to find out from you Mr. Speaker, are you saying that with the consultation of the Bureau you constituted an Ad-hoc Committee and after that, you gave them a mandate to work without the approval of the entire house, is that what you are saying?
“My understanding is that you can constitute the committee, alright, but it is subject to the approval by the entire members before they can legally work. If you and your Bureau can constitute a committee and they start working without recourse to members before you present your report, then I think there is something wrong with what you have done.”
Also, Nigeria’s Hon. Abdullahi Kamba noted that the Bureau has no right or powers to take the decision and that they should have reverted back to Plenary to form an Ad-hoc committee.
He said: “Not them as the Bureau forming the Committee, it is wrong, and for that matter, I hope that whatever report the Ad-hoc committee has should not be read here, we should form the committee today so that they can start work.”
Responding to the backlash, the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee, Senator, Ali Ndume said “I am standing here because of the Ad-hoc committee that was formed and vested with powers to investigate on the matters raised by our high Commissioner from Nigeria and also the First Deputy Speaker on the purported irregularities in recruitment which was suspended.
“Our mandate as at that time and now did not lift the ban for the suspension that was the decision that was taken at the Plenary.
“On behalf of the other colleagues that undertook this Ad-hoc job, we didn’t look for the job. In fact in my own case I was in my local government because we were on recess and I was mourning my father; then the Speaker called me to say that there is an issue that came up that is eating the system which was true as at that time and that he needed some members as a committee to immediately look into the matter and report. “
He added that: “We have a mission but now I am embarrassed by the observation of abnormalities. I am not looking for this job and I am sure our other colleagues are not looking for this job. I am also sure that even if a new committee has to be formed it has to be members of this ECOWAS, and I don’t think they are looking for the job either and I don’t think any of us cannot do this job.
“I was thinking that members will hear me out or hear the committee or even adopt if there is abnormality because I know the situations where normally if the head of the institution takes a decision that decision is not questioned, but it looked into with the view of ratifying it.”
Ndume said: “Distinguish colleagues, I don’t want it to put my personal interest but because of the interest of the workers, if not I will not present the report, I will not continue with illegality, you have to decide.”
The Speaker of Parliament, Tunis moved that the recruitment process be suspended indefinitely, a decision which seems to have infuriated Senator Edwin Snowe from Liberia who walked out of the plenary in protest of the deferment.
Shortly after the session, at a press conference, the Speaker of ECOWAS parliament accused lawmakers in the parliament of mischief and a deliberate misrepresentation of facts in order to garner the sympathy of constituents.
He said: “You will recall that in the last session in Abuja, Honourable Members raised the issue of recruitment in the ECOWAS Parliament, in fact the impression at that time was that there were a lot of malpractices regarding the recruitment exercises.
“When I got the information, I decided to set up an independent Ad-hoc Committee, headed by a very senior senator from Nigeria, Ali Ndume, to look at the whole situation and to determine whether in fact Nigerians were marginalized, and whether the process was transparent in line with our Supplementary Act in the staff regulations, and any other issues that may arise from their investigations.”
“They submitted their report to me and I called a Bureau meeting. We looked at the report, we adopted it by law and based on the fact that the committee found out that there was nothing wrong in the recruitment exercises, we decided to go ahead to discuss it, to now consider the Advisory Committee Report. The Advisory Committee is provided for in our Staff Regulations, their responsibility is more or less to look at shortlisting and interviews for staff members. The composition of that particular committee is clearly indicated in our Staff Regulations and how to determine who will be a member is already stated in the Staff Regulations. So it’s just a question of looking at the positions, like if they said the Director of Finance is a member, you look at the Parliament who is the Director of Administration you put the person there. It’s all clear in the Staff Regulations.
“By law and in line with the Supplementary Act we have done our part, but of course because the issue of recruitment initially came up from the Plenary I decided that the Chairman should also report to the Plenary for information purposes only, because the Law does not in any way require Plenary to deal with recruitment issues.
“If you look at the recruitment issues, a reference is made to the head of the institution, which is me, I am the Speaker. I am wearing two hats, one as the Head of Institution and the other as Speaker. So as Head of Institutions I can take decisions with regards to that, but then, I can say because colleagues in the Plenary actually raised the issue I needed to be very clear in my mind and to the public, that in fact the process was transparent and it was all done in line with the Law.
“What I am about to tell you especially for our Colleagues in Nigeria, because this is were there was a huge publicity about malpractices in the ECOWAS Parliament, I want the public to know that the Senator Ali Ndume report which will be given to you clearly exonerated the Parliament that from G to P4 Recruitment as ongoing at the ECOWAS Parliament is transparent and in line with the Staff Regulations and the Supplementary Act, that is very important I want the public especially our Nigerian Public to know, that there we no malpractices. Number two, that Nigerians were not marginalized at all in the whole process.
“As a matter of fact, out of ten positions from the report now that has been submitted to us by the Advisory Committee, 5 of them went to Nigeria, 1 to Sierra Leone, 1 to Senegal, 1 to Guinea Bissau, 1 to Niger and 1 to Ghana, and it also important and very important to inform the general public that 70% of this new recruitment came from the internal staff, that means people who have already been serving the ECOWAS Parliament,” the Speaker explained.
The speaker equally alleged that another reason for the row in parliament was because lawmakers are protesting a new administrative rule that takes away the prerogative to buy air tickets from lawmakers themselves and vested it in administration.
He noted that: “When I came to Parliament in 2018, we used to buy our own tickets then the Parliament would refund. They gave us a threshold for a return ticket, then in 2019, that is before I took over as Speaker, that changed completely because of an audit report which I don’t know the details of because by then I was not the Speaker.
“From then, tickets for MPs were not going to be bought by the MPs. When I took over in 2020 that’s what I inherited, but then in the last two years I have been Speaker there has always been agitations from Honourable Members that we should go back to what was obtained in 2018, or before I joined Parliament that MPs should be buying their own tickets.
“I have been resisting it for some time and resisting because I am one person that always believes in what the rule says.
“The reason why I had decided to encourage the idea of MPs buying their own tickets is because I looked at the budget circular, but then from the figures I saw the Parliament was spending more on tickets for MPs, and we were talking about cutting down cost.
“It will only be proper for me to toe the line of MPs for me to say let us try again this idea of buying our own tickets and see what will come out of it. But I must make it very clear, these are not just proposals, the law as it stands right now, is that Parliament was supposed to buy it.
Lawmakers at ECOWAS Parliament Still in Fight Over Employment of Staff
National News
NHRC Demands Arrest, Prosecution of Kuje Chairman Over ‘Leave If Not APC’ Threat
NHRC Demands Arrest, Prosecution of Kuje Chairman Over ‘Leave If Not APC’ Threat
By: Michael Mike
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has demanded the immediate arrest and prosecution of the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Hon. Samuel Danjuma Shekwolo, over his alleged directive that residents who do not support the All Progressives Congress (APC) should leave the council.
The Commission described the chairman’s remarks as an unconstitutional assault on citizens’ fundamental rights and a dangerous threat to democratic participation ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The NHRC Executive Secretary, Chief Tony Ojukwu, SAN, said the statement, which has circulated in a video online, amounted to intimidation and an attempt to weaponise public office against citizens holding political views different from those of the council chairman.
In a video that is now viral, Shekwolo is heard saying that residents must either support the APC or leave the area council, adding that he would not accept opposition to the party during the election.
Reacting to the development, Ojukwu said the position was incompatible with the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees citizens’ freedom of association, movement and protection from discrimination on the basis of political opinion.
He specifically cited Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Constitution, which respectively protect the right to freedom of association, freedom of movement and freedom from discrimination.
According to him, no council chairman, governor or even the President has the constitutional power to banish Nigerians from their communities because of their political affiliation or opinions.
The NHRC chief human rights officer further argued that the alleged remarks could have criminal implications, citing provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, the Penal Code and the Cybercrimes Act dealing with threats, intimidation, incitement and communications capable of causing public disorder.
He warned that political rhetoric that creates an “us versus them” environment could escalate into violence, particularly as the country approaches another highly contested election cycle.
“History has shown that such rhetoric often begins with words and ends in blood, and the NHRC will therefore not wait for it to escalate,” Ojukwu said.
The Commission also rejected any suggestion that federal or FCT government projects should be used as instruments for securing political loyalty.
Ojukwu maintained that Shekwolo, having sworn an oath of office, was bound to serve every resident of Kuje without discrimination, regardless of political affiliation.
The NHRC consequently called on the Nigeria Police Force to immediately arrest and prosecute the council chairman.
It also urged the Department of State Services (DSS), the police and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to investigate the matter and introduce measures to protect Kuje residents from harassment, political profiling, intimidation or possible disenfranchisement ahead of the 2027 elections.
The Commission further called on the APC leadership and the FCT Administration to publicly dissociate themselves from the alleged statement and affirm that membership or support for any political party cannot be a condition for residing in Kuje or accessing public services.
The NHRC assured residents of Kuje that their constitutional rights remain protected and stressed that Nigerians are free to belong to any political party of their choice without fear of expulsion, discrimination or denial of public services.
It urged anyone facing threats or intimidation in connection with the controversy to contact the Commission through its toll-free line, 6472, or visit its nearest FCT office.
The controversy comes at a politically sensitive period as parties and political actors intensify mobilisation ahead of the 2027 general elections, raising fresh concerns over the use of public institutions and local government structures to exert political pressure on citizens.
NHRC Demands Arrest, Prosecution of Kuje Chairman Over ‘Leave If Not APC’ Threat
National News
Jungle Justice Is Murder, Not Justice — IGP Disu Orders Nationwide Crackdown on Mob Killings
Jungle Justice Is Murder, Not Justice — IGP Disu Orders Nationwide Crackdown on Mob Killings
By Zagazola Makama
The Inspector-General of Police, IGP Olatunji Rilwan Disu, has declared a firm war against jungle justice and mob action across Nigeria, directing Commissioners of Police in the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory to treat every case of mob violence as homicide and investigate such incidents with the same seriousness accorded other killings.
Disu, in a strong-worded public address, on Sunday said no Nigerian, community, vigilante group or association had the legal authority to arrest, try, convict or execute another person on the basis of suspicion, accusation, rumour or social media evidence.
The IGP’s declaration comes amid renewed public concern over cases in which suspected criminals are subjected to beatings, burning, stabbing and other forms of extrajudicial punishment before security agencies can intervene.
He said the Police Force would no longer regard such incidents as mere community disputes or spontaneous public reactions, but as serious criminal offences requiring full investigation and prosecution.
“Jungle justice is murder. It is not justice. It is a crime, and the Nigeria Police Force will treat it as such,” Disu said.
The police chief stressed that Nigeria operates under the rule of law and not mob rule, warning that no citizen or group has the constitutional authority to determine the guilt of another person or impose punishment outside a competent court.
‘Nobody has the right to take another person’s life’
According to the IGP, Sections 33, 34 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, guarantee fundamental rights including the right to life, dignity and fair hearing.
He said those rights remain applicable even when a person is suspected of committing a serious crime.
Disu argued that the growing practice of gathering around an alleged criminal, beating the person and sometimes killing him or her before the police arrive represents a direct assault on the country’s justice system.
He said an accusation does not amount to proof of guilt. A person shouting “thief”, a viral video, a photograph circulated online or an allegation made by a member of the public, he maintained, cannot replace a police investigation or judicial determination.
“The law presumes everybody innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not in the street, not by a mob, not by a phone video because you saw him in video,” he said.
The IGP cited the March 2025 killing of 16 travellers in Uromi, Edo State, as a painful reminder of the consequences of mob justice.
The victims, who were reportedly travelling from Rivers State towards Kano, were intercepted after local security personnel found locally made weapons in their vehicle. The situation escalated after they were suspected of being kidnappers, resulting in the mob attack that claimed 16 lives. Police subsequently arrested suspects in connection with the incident.
The incident generated nationwide outrage and renewed calls for stronger action against mob killings. Amnesty International also called for a transparent investigation into the Uromi killings, describing the incident as a brutal lynching.
The IGP said Nigeria had witnessed several disturbing cases in which individuals were killed over allegations that were either unverified or subsequently found to be mistaken.
He referenced cases involving students accused of stealing phones, travellers mistaken for criminals, and young people attacked over allegations of blasphemy or ritual activities.
Such cases, he said, demonstrate the deadly consequences of allowing rumours and accusations to substitute for evidence.
The warning is particularly significant in an era where videos and allegations can spread rapidly across social media platforms.
A short video clip can be shared thousands of times within minutes, while an accusation attached to it can quickly become accepted as fact before investigators establish what actually happened.
Disu made clear that the police investigation would not stop with the individual who physically killed the victim.
He directed police commands to identify and prosecute ringleaders, instigators and other participants whose actions contributed to the mob violence, where the evidence supports criminal liability.
The IGP said investigators would use video recordings, eyewitness accounts, community intelligence and forensic evidence to reconstruct incidents and identify those involved.
The implication is that the traditional excuse of “I did not touch him” may not necessarily shield a person whose conduct amounts to criminal participation. Those who plan, incite, encourage or facilitate mob action may face investigation for conspiracy or other offences, depending on the facts and applicable law.
In one of the strongest elements of his warning, the IGP also addressed people who record mob attacks on their phones.
He said filming incidents, circulating the videos, mobilising crowds or preventing security personnel from rescuing a suspect could attract criminal consequences where such conduct amounts to an offence.
The warning is significant because videos of mob killings have increasingly become part of the evidence available to investigators.
Rather than helping perpetrators escape, such recordings can potentially provide investigators with a trail of evidence showing who was present, who attacked the victim, who encouraged the crowd and who prevented intervention.
The IGP therefore warned Nigerians against assuming that remaining behind a camera automatically removes them from criminal responsibility.
Police officers who look away will also face consequences. Disu’s directive was not directed exclusively at civilians.
He also placed responsibility on police officers who fail to intervene when mob action is taking place.
The IGP warned that officers who stand by, look away or fail to take reasonable action to protect a suspect from a violent crowd could face disciplinary measures.
This aspect of the directive is particularly important because the responsibility to protect life remains central to policing. A suspect may eventually be convicted. A suspect may eventually be acquitted. But while the investigation and trial are ongoing, the state remains responsible for protecting that person’s life and dignity.
Disu therefore told officers that protecting life was not an optional responsibility attached to wearing the police uniform.
‘Take suspected criminals to the police’
The IGP appealed to Nigerians to redirect their anger and frustration through lawful channels.
He urged anyone who suspects another person of committing a crime to immediately alert the police or the nearest security agency rather than attempting to punish the suspect.
He also called on community leaders, religious leaders, market associations and other influential groups to use their platforms to discourage mob violence.
According to him, community vigilance should complement law enforcement, not replace it.
A responsible community member, he said, should help the police identify a suspected criminal, preserve evidence and provide information—not become judge, jury and executioner.
The IGP’s intervention comes at a time when public frustration over insecurity, criminality and delays in the justice system can easily translate into demands for immediate punishment.
In many communities, jungle justice is sometimes rationalised as a response to the belief that criminals will escape justice if handed over to the authorities. But the police chief rejected that logic.
He acknowledged the frustration created by crime and the slow pace of justice but maintained that the answer to institutional weakness is reform and stronger enforcement, not extrajudicial killing.
A society cannot simultaneously demand respect for the rule of law while allowing crowds to determine who deserves to live or die.
Disu’s declaration is strong, but its ultimate impact will depend on enforcement.
The police will have to demonstrate that cases of mob justice can be investigated with the same determination applied to other homicide cases.
Investigators will have to identify suspects from often chaotic scenes, preserve digital evidence, obtain witness statements, establish individual culpability and work with prosecutors to build cases capable of surviving judicial scrutiny.
There is also the question of police response.
Where officers arrive early enough to prevent a mob killing, their intervention can mean the difference between a criminal investigation and a homicide investigation. Where officers fail to act, the IGP’s promise of disciplinary action will therefore be closely watched.
Perhaps the most important message from the IGP is that criminal responsibility does not necessarily begin only when the fatal blow is delivered.
It can begin with the decision to mobilise the crowd. It can begin with incitement. It can involve preventing the police from taking custody of a suspect. It can involve encouraging the attackers.
And, depending on the evidence and the law applicable to the particular conduct, it can extend to other forms of participation in the offence. The police are therefore drawing a new line around mob violence:
If you suspect someone, report them.
If you have evidence, submit it. If the person is arrested, allow the law to take its course.
But if a crowd gathers and turns an accusation into a death sentence, the people involved should not expect the law to describe the killing as “community justice.” It will be investigated as a crime.
The central message of IGP Disu’s declaration is ultimately about the kind of country Nigeria wants to be. One system of justice cannot operate in the courtroom while another operates on the street. The court must remain the place where guilt is established.
The police must remain the institution responsible for investigating crime. Citizens must remain witnesses, complainants and partners in crime prevention not executioners.
And communities must understand that protecting themselves from criminals does not require them to become criminals themselves.
The Uromi killings demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of allowing suspicion to become collective punishment. The IGP’s latest directive is an attempt to ensure that such incidents are neither normalised nor dismissed as spontaneous expressions of public anger.
The message from the police chief is therefore unequivocal: Jungle justice is not justice.
Mob action is not a court. A viral video is not a conviction. An accusation is not a death sentence.
And where a mob takes a person’s life, the police will treat the incident not as justice served, but as a crime to be investigated and prosecuted.
Jungle Justice Is Murder, Not Justice — IGP Disu Orders Nationwide Crackdown on Mob Killings
National News
NHRC Boss Honoured for Victim-Centred Human Rights Push
NHRC Boss Honoured for Victim-Centred Human Rights Push
…UTA rewards Ojukwu for compensation, restorative justice, empowerment of rights-abuse victims
By: Michael Mike
The Executive Secretary of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Chief Tony Ojukwu, has been honoured with the 2026 UTA International Humanitarian Award for championing a victim-centred approach to human rights protection, including compensation, economic empowerment and restorative justice for victims of violations.
The United Towns Agency for North-South Cooperation (UTA), Nigeria Chapter, presented the award to Ojukwu in Abuja on Thursday as part of activities marking World Humanitarian Day 2026.
The recognition, according to UTA, was in acknowledgement of Ojukwu’s sustained efforts to promote human dignity, expand access to justice and protect vulnerable and marginalised Nigerians.
Rather than limiting the response to documenting violations, the interventions highlighted by UTA focused on helping victims recover and rebuild their lives through economic empowerment, compensation and restorative support.
The initiatives also include transitional and restorative justice programmes in the North-East and efforts to improve access to justice for poor and marginalised persons.
The recognition comes against the backdrop of Nigeria’s continuing humanitarian and human rights challenges arising from conflict, displacement, poverty and other forms of vulnerability.
Under Ojukwu’s leadership, the NHRC has increasingly positioned victims at the centre of its interventions, pursuing not only accountability for violations but also remedies, restoration and practical support for affected persons.
Receiving the award, Ojukwu described it as both an honour and a fresh call to humanitarian service.
“As a humanitarian myself, this award has stimulated me to do more,” he said.
He stressed the importance of placing victims, dignity and justice at the heart of human rights protection, particularly in a country facing complex humanitarian challenges.
UTA described the NHRC chief’s interventions as contributing to the advancement of human dignity and the protection of vulnerable populations.
The organisation is a United Nations-affiliated non-governmental organisation with consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
The award ceremony attracted government officials, diplomats, humanitarian actors and other stakeholders.
The Vice President, Senator Kashim Shettima, was represented by the Director-General of the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), Hajiya Zubaida Abubakar Umar.
Also present were representatives of the Zamfara State Governor; the Comptroller-General of the Nigeria Customs Service, Adewale Adeniyi; the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation, Bernard Doro; members of the diplomatic corps; UTA International Global Secretary-General, Dr. (Amb.) Eya Essif; and UTA-Nigeria Country President, Amb. Princess Abigail Amalaha.
The honour effectively places renewed attention on the humanitarian dimension of human rights protection in Nigeria, particularly the need to move from responding to violations to ensuring that victims receive justice, restitution and the means to regain sustainable livelihoods.
NHRC Boss Honoured for Victim-Centred Human Rights Push
-
News2 years agoRoger Federer’s Shock as DNA Results Reveal Myla and Charlene Are Not His Biological Children
-
Opinions5 years agoTHE PLIGHT OF FARIDA
-
News1 year agoFAILED COUP IN BURKINA FASO: HOW TRAORÉ NARROWLY ESCAPED ASSASSINATION PLOT AMID FOREIGN INTERFERENCE CLAIMS
-
News2 years agoEYN: Rev. Billi, Distortion of History, and The Living Tamarind Tree
-
Opinions5 years agoPOLICE CHARGE ROOMS, A MINTING PRESS
-
ACADEMICS3 years agoA History of Biu” (2015) and The Lingering Bura-Pabir Question (1)
-
Columns2 years agoArmy University Biu: There is certain interest, but certainly not from Borno.
-
Politics1 year ago2027: Why Hon. Midala Balami Must Go, as Youths in Hawul and Asikira/Uba Federal Constituency Reject ₦500,000 as Sallah Gift
