ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday ordered that a former Chairman of the Nigeria Bar Association, Shendam branch, Plateau State, Gabriel Nkup Tsenyen, be remanded in the custody of the Department of State Services pending a decision on the propriety of his fresh arraignment.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik fixed August 20 to determine whether Tsenyen, who is also a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress in Plateau State, can be tried afresh over allegations of cyberstalking and incitement of public disturbances.

The development followed an attempt by the DSS to arraign the lawyer on a fresh two-count charge bordering on cyberstalking and incitement to breach public peace.

But shortly after Tsenyen was called into the dock to take his plea, his lead counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Emmanuel Esene, objected to the arraignment.

Esene told the court that his client had already been arraigned before the same court on the same allegations and that the earlier case had been adjourned until September 28 for trial.

He consequently urged the court not to allow the fresh arraignment, arguing that doing so could expose his client to double jeopardy.

However, counsel for the DSS, Muinat Oladunjoye, who appeared for the prosecution from the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, said she was unaware of any previous charge against Tsenyen.

Following the conflicting positions, Justice Abdulmalik requested a copy of the earlier charge from the defence.

Esene produced the document before the court.

The judge subsequently requested the record of proceedings in the earlier case to enable her determine whether Tsenyen had indeed been arraigned on the same allegations.

The defence, however, said it could not produce the record immediately because the fresh charge had come as a surprise to them on Thursday, August 13.

Justice Abdulmalik then ordered that the record of proceedings in the earlier trial be produced on August 20.

Pending the production and examination of the record, the judge ordered that Tsenyen be remanded at the DSS detention facility.

The fresh charge was filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Iseoluwa Oyedepo.

In the first count, the prosecution alleged that Tsenyen, sometime in May 2026, sent a malicious publication on the Ngootuguut local community WhatsApp platform alleging that the entire community was involved in a plot to eliminate him.

The prosecution alleged that he knew the publication to be false and sent it “for the purpose of causing annoyance, insult, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will and needless anxiety” in the community.

The alleged offence was said to be contrary to and punishable under Section 24(1) of the Cybercrimes (Prevention, Prohibition, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended.

In count two, the prosecution alleged that the lawyer sent the same publication “with intent to incite or cause breach to public peace.”

The alleged offence was said to be contrary to and punishable under Section 114 of the Penal Code Act, 2004.

The court will on August 20 determine, among other things, whether the fresh charges relate to allegations for which Tsenyen had previously been arraigned and whether the proposed fresh trial is legally permissible.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress ADC)l, Atiku Abubakar, on Friday personally appeared at the Registry of the Federal High Court, Abuja, where he deposed to an affidavit in support of a suit challenging the qualification of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to contest the 2027 presidential election.

This is contained in a statement issued by the Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication to Atiku Abubakar, Phrank Shaibu.

According to the statement, the action, instituted by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC, invokes, among other provisions, Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.

The statement explained that at the heart of the action is Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC, noting that the suit specifically asks the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from the 2027 presidential election over the plaintiffs’ allegation that Tinubu presented a forged NYSC certificate to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.

Speaking after personally taking the oath, Atiku said his presence at the court registry was deliberate.

“I came here personally because the issues before the court go to the heart of our Constitution and the integrity of the office of President. I cannot ask Nigerians to respect the Constitution while treating a matter of this magnitude casually. I have therefore put my name, my signature and my oath behind the facts we are presenting to the court. Now it is President Tinubu’s turn to answer them,” Shabby quoted him as saying.

In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted to INEC an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which, according to the plaintiffs, is different from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The affidavit further alleges that the same NYSC certificate was submitted in connection with the 2027 presidential election and contends that the document is not a certificate obtained by Tinubu.

The statement disclosed that Atiku has also placed INEC on notice to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections, stating that he had applied for certified true copies of the relevant form before filing the suit but had received no response at the time the processes were prepared.

“This is precisely why we have gone to court. We are not asking Nigerians to decide this matter on social media, and we are not asking INEC to become a court. We are asking the institution holding the records to produce them and the judiciary to examine the evidence and pronounce on it.

“If the certificate belongs to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, let that be established before the court. If ‘Tinubu Bola Adekunle’ and ‘Bola Ahmed Tinubu’ are one and the same person for the purpose of that certificate, let the evidence establish it. These are questions that deserve answers, not political insults or presidential silence,” he added.

Beyond the certificate matter, the statement noted that Atiku and the ADC are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which, according to their written address, effectively restrict who may challenge the qualification of a candidate at pre-election stage and the removal of qualification as a ground for questioning an election as envisaged by Section 139(a)(i) of the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly to make laws allowing the questioning of whether a person elected into the office of President is qualified.

Their argument, the statement said, is that legislation cannot be used to shut the door against enforcement of an express constitutional provision, contending that where an Act of the National Assembly conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail.

“This case therefore raises a fundamental question for our democracy. Can an Act of the National Assembly be used as a shield against an express provision of the Constitution? Can we write into ordinary legislation an escape route from a constitutional standard applicable to everyone seeking the Presidency? Our position is that the Constitution remains supreme,” Atiku said.

The statement explained that the originating summons asks the Federal High Court to determine whether the statutory restrictions complained of can prevent the plaintiffs from invoking Section 137(1)(j), and ultimately whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the plaintiffs’ case is established, noting that among the substantive reliefs sought is an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the election on the grounds pleaded by the plaintiffs.

Atiku further said: “Nobody should misunderstand what is at stake. Nigerian graduates cannot complete NYSC documentation with one identity and simply ask employers to ignore discrepancies. Young Nigerians seeking ordinary jobs are subjected to rigorous scrutiny of their certificates. The standard cannot suddenly disappear because the applicant is seeking the highest office in the land. The Presidency is not an immunity certificate against constitutional scrutiny.”

He said the judicial action also places a responsibility on INEC to demonstrate its neutrality by making the relevant records available to the court, adding that his affidavit expressly states that INEC, as a neutral public institution, is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution regardless of whose political interest may be affected.

“INEC is holding the documents. The court has the jurisdiction to examine the issues. President Tinubu has the opportunity to defend himself. That is the constitutional process, and nobody should be afraid of it. The 2027 election must begin with clarity about the qualification of those seeking the Presidency. Nigerians should not be asked to vote first and investigate later,” he said.

Atiku stressed that his personal appearance to depose to the affidavit underscored his willingness to submit himself to the same constitutional standards he demands of others.

“I have sworn to my case before the law. I am prepared to be held accountable for what I have placed before the court. President Tinubu should equally be prepared to answer the case against him before the law.

This is not about privilege, personalities or presidential power. It is about one Constitution and one standard for every Nigerian. Nobody is above the Constitution — not Atiku Abubakar, not Bola Tinubu, and certainly not the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

Counsel to the plaintiffs, Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Onu Silas, Esq., expressed confidence in the case. Speaking for the legal team, Silas Onu said they had carefully reviewed the law and placed their arguments before the court, adding that they were prepared to confront the defendants’ case once served.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU, has called for a comprehensive review of Nigeria’s education system and decried the non-payment of the balance of lecturers’ withheld salaries from the 2022 nationwide strike.

The National President of ASUU, Prof. Chris Piwuna, made the call on Friday during a press conference in Jos, Plateau State.

He was flanked by other officials of the union including Bauchi Zonal Coordinator, Prof. Timothy Namo; branch chairmen of ASUU from the University of Jos and Plateau State University,Profs Jurbe Molwus and Dr Vincent Choji respectively as well as the Legal Committee chairman of the union and other union members on ground .

Addressing journalists, Piwuna read the union’s press text titled: “Nigerian Universities and Nigeria Today :Our Worries ,Our Propositions”

Speaking on the 2022 withheld salaries, Piwuna said: “In words and deeds, the Federal Government appears to have turned its back on paying the outstanding balance of lecturers’ three-and-half months arising from the 2022 nationwide strike action of ASUU.”

He noted that the union “had applauded President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s initial pro-labour disposition for paying the four out of the seven-and-half months’ salaries withheld by the last administration.”

However, he added: “The non-payment of the balance has left a strong bitter taste in the mouths of ASUU members.”

Piwuna further stated: “The repeated union’s arguments that its members made extraordinary sacrifice to cover the last ground during the provoked-strike action and that paying the withheld salaries would further cement industrial harmony on the university campuses appear to have fallen on deaf ears. This is a sad development.”

The ASUU President said NEC “rejected government’s position” and “resolved to use all legitimate means available to the union to make the government reciprocate the goodwill ASUU members have demonstrated.”

He also expressed concern over “continuous delay in the payment of 25/35% wage award and promotion arrears of our members,” and called on “the Federal and affected State Government to urgently pay these entitlements in order to encourage our members and guarantee industrial harmony in our Universities.”

On the December 2025 FGN-ASUU Agreement, Piwuna said: “The signing of the December 2025 FGN-ASUU Agreement was seen by many as a significant move to arrest restiveness among academic staff of Federal and State universities and chart a new path of growth and stability for the Nigerian University System (NUS).”

But he lamented that “the haphazard implementations of the Agreement by governments at the two levels leave much to be desired; making the resurgence of campus unrest inevitable.”

He cited funding challenges, noting that “Vice-Chancellors of other federally-owned universities are struggling to partially implement the financial component of the Agreement or raise their empty hands in helplessness due to non-funding of their monthly salary bills by the federal government.”

At the state level, he said “only about 10% or less among the governors have openly endorsed the new salary package for academics; several others are playing the ostrich.”

Consequently, Piwuna announced that “NEC resolved to grant some affected state and federal universities permission to embark on varying degrees of industrial action to press home their demands.”

Among the institutions listed are Plateau State University, Bokkos, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Gombe State University, Abia State University, and Kaduna State University.

The ASUU President also condemned the harassment of members in some universities.

“The recent harassment of our members by Vice Chancellors in the following universities, Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT), Imo State University (IMSU), and very recently Abia State University (ABSU), will not be tolerated by NEC,” he warned.

“For the avoidance of doubt, NEC will not consider calling off the action in these universities, until the victimisation of our members stops.”

Piwuna further accused the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation of stalling payments.

“The federal ministry of finance has deliberately stalled the payment of our promotion arrears and its foot dragging tactics in the release of our monthly salaries is becoming a trigger for restiveness on our campuses,”he said.

On broader national issues, ASUU called for a rethink of government policies.

“ASUU calls for a comprehensive review of Nigeria’s education system to reflect the country’s peculiar socio-economic, cultural, technological and developmental realities rather than merely replicating models developed for other societies,” Piwuna said.

He added that “greater attention must be given to research, technical education, agriculture, innovation and the development of skills relevant to Nigeria’s needs.”

The union also criticized the TETFund policy on “tenable and non-tenable universities,” describing it as “discriminatory,” and condemned the rising insecurity ahead of the 2027 elections, saying: “The political class are the most significant and dangerous threat to Nigeria’s security. They are the ‘tribe’ that threaten us all.”

Piwuna concluded that “to derive maximum benefits from Nigeria’s public universities, however, the Federal and State governments must take urgent steps to address all outstanding issues of academic staff welfare as well as all matters arising from the FGN-ASUU Agreement of December 2025.”