Author: user user

Presidential candidate of the Accord Political Party, Dr. Gbenga Olawepo-Hashim, has declared that no administrative action by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) can extinguish his candidacy for the 2027 presidential election.

Hashim was reacting to his exclusion from the final list of presidential candidates published by INEC, over the weekend.

In a statement issued in Abuja, yesterday, Hashim described the development as a matter that remains subject to judicial determination, insisting that he remains the duly nominated presidential candidate of Accord.

‘I am the candidate of the Accord Party. No one can exclude me from the 2027 presidential election. The court will do justice,’ he said.

Hashim said Nigeria’s constitutional democracy does not confer on INEC an overriding power of ‘finality’ over disputes concerning who emerges as a political party’s candidate.

According to him, the adjudicatory powers vested in the courts exist precisely to prevent administrative decisions from becoming instruments of impunity or a means of foreclosing legitimate political rights.

He said: ‘Our democracy does not give INEC any right of finality over who stands as the candidate of a political party. Where there is a dispute over the emergence or exclusion of a candidate, the adjudicatory functions of the courts are provided precisely to prevent impunity and to ensure that no administrative process becomes a pre-planned mechanism for keeping particular candidates off the ballot.

‘We have seen this before. In the last Osun governorship election, the courts intervened in circumstances where candidates initially excluded from INEC’s processes were subsequently restored to the ballot. That is why nobody should assume that an administrative publication by INEC is the final word in a matter that is before the courts.’

Hashim has already taken the matter before the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking, among other reliefs, an order compelling the Accord Party to recognise him as its presidential candidate and transmit his name to INEC. The case has been heard and reserved for judgment.

His case is based on his contention that he emerged as the sole winner of Accord’s presidential primary conducted on May 30, 2026, after paying the prescribed nomination fee, with the exercise monitored by INEC officials.

He insisted that the dispute cannot be conclusively determined by an administrative listing.

‘The publication by INEC is not the final determination of my candidacy. There is a subsisting legal dispute before the court, and I have confidence in the judicial process.

‘I emerged from the presidential primary as the candidate. I have done what the law requires, and I believe the court will uphold the law.

‘No individual or administrative action can take away a right that has been lawfully acquired. I remain the presidential candidate of Accord, and we will see this process through to its lawful conclusion,’ said Hashim.

Hashim also took aim at what he described as the political forces that would prefer presidential contest built around division, sentiment and weakened opponents rather than one centered on substantive national issues.

Hashim said his legal battle, therefore, goes beyond his personal political ambition, describing it as a test of the integrity of political party primaries, internal democracy and the constitutional right of Nigerians to freely choose their preferred presidential candidate.

‘The real issue is whether a political party can conduct a presidential primary, produce a winner, and subsequently prevent that winner from participating in the election.

‘If that can happen without judicial scrutiny, then, what happens to internal democracy within political parties? What happens to the right of party members who participated in the primary? And ultimately, what happens to the right of Nigerians to choose who they want on the ballot?

‘That is why this case matters beyond Gbenga Hashim. It is about whether the rules of our democracy apply to everyone, including those who occupy powerful institutions.’

He called on his supporters and Nigerians who believe in democratic choice to remain calm, assuring them that he would continue to pursue the matter through constitutional and legal means.

‘I am not asking anyone to break the law. I am asking that the law be allowed to work.

‘We will not be intimidated, we will not be distracted and we will not surrender a legitimate democratic right because somebody has published a list.

‘The court will speak, and when it does, we will abide by the judgment,’ he said.

According to the AG, the proposed amendment was not an Executive Bill sponsored by his office, but a Private Member’s Bill currently before the Lagos State House of Assembly for legislative consideration.

Pedro, SAN, in a statement titled ‘Understanding the Proposed Amendment to the Magistrates Law of Lagos State,’ argued that the proposed legislation had reasonable justification, particularly in strengthening and sustaining the administration of justice in the State.

The commissioner maintained that the position of his office is based on Lagos State’s long-standing policy of harmonising the conditions of service of Law Officers with those of Magistrates.

Pedro suggested that the policy had been implemented in Lagos since 1997 pursuant to a government circular dated March 20, 1997.

The SAN posited that the harmonisation of the conditions of service of Law Officers and Magistrates was not peculiar to Lagos State, adding that other states had enacted legislation to give effect to similar arrangements.

He referenced Abia State’s Law Officers Harmonisation with Magistrates Law, 2008, which provides for the salaries and conditions of service of Law Officers to correspond with those of Magistrates in equivalent posts.

The AG equally mentioned Kogi, Benue, Imo and Kwara states as jurisdictions that had adopted similar arrangements.

The Lagos Attorney-General said whether the proposed reform was eventually implemented through a single legislation or separate laws applicable to Magistrates and Law Officers, it should be viewed as an intervention aimed at strengthening the justice sector.

Pedro declared that the proposal concerned Law Officers as a specialised professional cadre performing functions integral to the administration of justice, and was not intended to benefit lawyers generally.

The AG explained that the proposed amendment should therefore be regarded as a continuation of an existing policy rather than the creation of a new privilege for Law Officers.

The SAN further made reference to Osun State as an example, saying the state had enacted Law No. 7 of 2023, assented to on December 15, 2023, to increase the retirement age of officers involved in the administration of justice, including state counsel and court registrars, to 65 years.

Pedro stated that the proposed amendment has become necessary because of an unintended institutional consequence arising from the constitutional extension of the retirement age of High Court Judges.

The SAN explained that Section 291(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered by the Fifth Alteration (No. 37) Act 2023, increased the retirement age of High Court Judges from 65 to 70 years.

The AG who revealed that before the constitutional amendment, the retirement of High Court Judges at 65 created a predictable pattern of vacancies on the High Court Bench, added that the vacacies, provided opportunities for experienced Chief Magistrates and senior Law Officers who possessed the necessary qualifications, competence, and years of service to progress to the High Court Bench.

‘However, the extension of the retirement age of High Court Judges to 70 has reduced the frequency of vacancies on the High Court Bench,’ he said.

Pedro argued that this has consequently narrowed the traditional career pathway through which experienced Chief Magistrates and senior Law Officers could progress to the High Court.

The commissioner stressed that some chief magistrates and senior law officers could now reach the age of 60 and be required to retire despite having considerable professional experience and institutional knowledge that could otherwise have been utilised for longer periods.

He added that, ‘This creates an imbalance in the career structure of the justice sector and risks the premature loss of experienced personnel whose knowledge and expertise remain valuable to the administration of justice.’

The Commissioner for Justice said the proposed amendment was designed to correct the disparity and establish a more coherent and sustainable career structure within Lagos State’s justice system.

Pedro stated that the reform would ensure that the constitutional extension of the retirement age of High Court Judges did not, as a collateral consequence, lead to the premature exit of experienced Chief Magistrates and senior Law Officers.

The SAN also argued that retaining experienced officers would help preserve institutional knowledge and strengthen continuity in the administration of justice.

He said it would also enable the state to derive maximum value from the substantial investment made in the training and professional development of judicial and legal officers.

According to him, the proposal should not be viewed simply as an extension of the service period of individual officers.

Rather, he said, it represented a structural response to the changed judicial environment created by the constitutional amendment extending the retirement age of High Court Judges.

The AG urged members of the public to approach the controversy surrounding the proposed amendment based on facts rather than emotion or sentiment.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has called on the Federal Government to provide full accountability for revenues, savings and deductions accruing since the removal of fuel subsidy, as Nigerians contend with petrol selling for as much as N1,470 per litre.

Speaking on Monday through his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said subsidy removal was presented to Nigerians as a policy that would free resources for education, healthcare, infrastructure and other essential services.

Nearly three and a half years later, he said, citizens are facing high fuel prices and deserve a clear explanation of how the proceeds have been applied.

‘Petrol at N1,470 per litre is not merely a figure at the filling station. It enters the price of transportation, food, school runs, farming, manufacturing and virtually everything Nigerians buy. Every increase at the pump travels directly into the household budget.

‘After all the sacrifices made by Nigerians, they have a right to ask: where are the subsidy savings and how have they been applied?’ he said.

Atiku referenced official Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) records, noting that in June 2025, gross Federation Account revenue was reported at N4.232 trillion, while N1.818 trillion was distributed, with substantial amounts categorised as cost of collection, transfers, interventions, refunds and savings.

The presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) called for a comprehensive reconciliation of Federation Account revenues from 2023 to date, detailing gross collections, all deductions made before distribution, the statutory basis for each deduction, the receiving accounts and the ultimate application.

‘Nigerians deserve accounts they can interrogate and understand, not accounting labels that discourage questions,’ he said.

The former Vice President also urged full disclosure on the Renewed Hope Infrastructure Development Fund, OML 143, oil-production revenues, NNPC’s international LNG trading operations, and other oil-related revenue flows, to allow for independent verification.

‘Every barrel can be measured, every cargo identified and every legitimate payment traced. Publish the records and allow independent forensic auditors to reconcile them. Transparent records will provide clarity,’ he said.

Atiku also questioned the impact of global crude prices on domestic pump prices.

He noted that with crude oil around $102.52 per barrel, petrol is selling for as much as N1,470 per litre in Nigeria, compared to 2008, when crude reached about $147 per barrel and petrol sold for N65 per litre under the Yar’Adua administration.

He said economic policy must ultimately protect citizens’ welfare.

He further compared domestic fuel costs to those in the United States, where petrol is about $4.31 per gallon, roughly $1.14 per litre, while the U.S. federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, compared to Nigeria’s N70,000 monthly minimum wage.

Atiku said that after the hardship associated with subsidy removal, Nigerians are entitled to a detailed account of how savings and oil revenues have been managed.

‘With petrol at N1,470 per litre, Nigerians are asking legitimate questions: where are the savings, where are the revenues, and how have they been utilised for the benefit of the people?’ he said.