BREAKING: President Tinubu reinstates Fubara as Rivers State Governor [FULL SPEECH]

BREAKING: President Tinubu reinstates Fubara as Rivers State Governor [FULL SPEECH]

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has announced that effective midnight today, Mr. Siminalayi Fubara will return as Governor of Rivers state.

Below is the President’s full statement on the Matter;

“I am happy to address you today on the state of emergency declaration in Rivers State. You will recall that on 18th March, 2025, I proclaimed a state of emergency in the state. In my proclamation address, I highlighted the reasons for the declaration.”

“The summary of it for context is that there was a total paralysis of governance in Rivers State, which had led to the Governor of Rivers State and the House of Assembly being unable to work together. Critical economic assets of the State, including oil pipelines, were being vandalised. The State House of Assembly was crisis-ridden, such that members of the House were divided into two groups. Four members worked with the Governor, while 27 members opposed the Governor.”

“The latter group supported the Speaker. As a result, the Governor could not present any Appropriation Bill to the House, to enable him to access funds to run Rivers State’s affairs. That serious constitutional impasse brought governance in the State to a standstill. Even the Supreme Court, in one of its judgments in a series of cases filed by the Executive and the Legislative arms of Rivers State against each other, held that there was no government in Rivers State. My intervention and that of other well-meaning Nigerians to resolve the conflict proved abortive as both sides stuck rigidly to their positions to the detriment of peace and development of the State.”

“It therefore became painfully inevitable that to arrest the drift towards anarchy in Rivers State, I was obligated to invoke the powers conferred on me by Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, to proclaim the state of emergency. The Offices of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and elected members of the State House of Assembly were suspended for six months in the first instance. The six months expire today, September 17th, 2025.”

“I thank the National Assembly, which, after critically evaluating the justification for the proclamation, took steps immediately, as required by the Constitution, to approve the declaration in the interest of peace and order in Rivers State. I also thank our traditional rulers and the good people of Rivers State for their support from the date of the declaration of the state of emergency until now.”

“I am not unaware that there were a few voices of dissent against the proclamation, which led to their instituting over 40 cases in the courts in Abuja, Port Harcourt, and Yenagoa, to invalidate the declaration. That is the way it should be in a democratic setting. Some cases are still pending in the courts as of today. But what needs to be said is that the power to declare a state of emergency is an inbuilt constitutional tool to address situations of actual or threatened breakdown of public order and public safety, which require extraordinary measures to return the State to peace, order and security. Considered objectively, we had reached that situation of total breakdown of public order and public safety in Rivers State, as shown in the judgment of the Supreme Court on the disputes between the Executive and the Legislative arm of Rivers State. It would have been a colossal failure on my part as President not to have made that proclamation.”

“As a stakeholder in democratic governance, I believe that the need for a harmonious existence and relationship between the executive and the legislature is key to a successful government, whether at the state or national level. The people who voted us into power expect to reap the fruits of democracy. However, that expectation will remain unrealizable in an atmosphere of violence, anarchy, and insecurity borne by misguided political activism and Machiavellian manipulations among the stakeholders.”

“I am happy today that, from the intelligence available to me, there is a groundswell of a new spirit of understanding, a robust readiness, and potent enthusiasm on the part of all the stakeholders in Rivers State for an immediate return to democratic governance. This is undoubtedly a welcome development for me and a remarkable achievement for us. I therefore do not see why the state of emergency should exist a day longer than the six months I had pronounced at the beginning of it.”

“It therefore gives me great pleasure to declare that the emergency in Rivers State of Nigeria shall end with effect from midnight today. The Governor, His Excellency Siminalayi Fubara, the deputy governor, Her Excellency Ngozi Nma Odu, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and the speaker, Martins Amaewhule, will resume work in their offices from 18 September 2025.”

“I take this opportunity to remind the Governors and the Houses of Assembly of all the States of our country to continue to appreciate that it is only in an atmosphere of peace, order, and good government that we can deliver the dividends of democracy to our people. I implore all of you to let this realisation drive your actions at all times.”

“I thank you all.”

2026 WCQ: ‘I’m disappointed’ – Chelle on CAF’s decision

2026 WCQ: ‘I’m disappointed’ – Chelle on CAF’s decision

Eric Chelle, head coach of the Super Eagles, voiced disappointment over the poor condition of the Free State Stadium pitch in Bloemfontein ahead of Nigeria’s pivotal World Cup qualifier against South Africa.

Chelle noted that his team had minimal preparation time due to their late arrival in the country. Speaking to Super Sports, he stated, “We arrived late and only had one training session before this match. We had to prepare on the pitch itself. We prepared mentally, but this surface makes mental readiness even more important. I’m really disappointed because both teams deserve a quality pitch. South Africa has a talented side and plays very well.”

Even with the criticism, CAF approved the stadium for the crucial encounter between the two teams.

Mahmood waited few weeks before leaving so he could show his displeasure towards Tinubu–Kachikwu

Mahmood waited few weeks before leaving so he could show his displeasure towards Tinubu–Kachikwu

Former African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Dumebi Kachikwu has made strong allegations against outgoing Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman Mahmood Yakubu, suggesting his final actions in office were motivated by personal grievances against the president.

Speaking during an interview on Channels TV, Kachikwu claimed he anticipated the chairman's controversial decisions before leaving office.

"I didn't expect him (Mahmood Yakubu) to do anything otherwise. I knew that as the INEC chairman was leaving, I knew that he was going to give the president (Tinubu) a big middle finger and he was going to do anything to show his displeasure towards the president, and that's what he did," Kachikwu stated.

The former presidential candidate said he had predicted such actions, adding: "I've said this, I knew that this was what he was going to do and he did it."

Kachikwu suggested the timing was deliberate, claiming Yakubu strategically waited until his departure was imminent to avoid accountability.

"Of course, he waited just a few weeks before leaving so he could do it and then no remorse. There's nothing anybody can say to him. He's gone," he remarked.

The ADC chieftain went further to critique what he described as the broader dynamics of Nigerian politics, suggesting a culture of mutual protection among political actors.

"And again you'll see what happens with the politics of Nigeria. When people have had dealings and have things that they've done that they're hiding, nobody can say anything to him because they can't afford to expose each other. And so he's done what he's done," Kachikwu explained.

However, he expressed concern that his party and other reform-minded political movements were bearing the consequences of these power struggles.

"But unfortunately, my party—the party of Nigerians who are trying to see how they can rebuild Nigeria—we are the victims here. And when two elephants are fighting, the grass is the victim, and we ADC, we are the grass in this case," he concluded.

Unknown land grabbers disrupt lafiaji, Abule, peace in Eti Osa East local govt Lagos

Unknown land grabbers disrupt lafiaji, Abule, peace in Eti Osa East local govt Lagos 

The Lafiaji Abule community wake up to unusual atmosphere on Wednesday 10th of September when a caterpillar enter Elder balogun company to forcefully create a access road to unknown virgin land all effort to ask for clearance or taskforce documents that gives the intruders warrants to carry out the operation proof abortive all the indigene stood their ground  and refuse them to carry out the faceless assignments, speaking to the journalist, the baale of lafiaji claimed unawares of such encroaching and boast of proper documents of all their lands, unconfirmed report gives account of the intruders as "land grabbers" , the village head quickly reached out to their kings and law enforcement officer to report the new development 

Tinubu issues directive to Rivers administrator

Tinubu issues directive to Rivers administrator

President Bola Tinubu has instructed the Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral Ibok-ette Ibas (rtd.), to prepare a detailed handover note summarizing his six-month emergency administration before the conclusion of his ten-day vacation.

According to Vanguard, the directive aims to facilitate the return of suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Prof. Ngozi Odu, and the 32-member House of Assembly on September 18, 2025.

The order followed a closed-door meeting at the Presidential Villa last Wednesday, focused on ensuring a smooth transition back to elected officials.

The handover note is expected to detail all funds inherited from Fubara, revenues collected during the emergency period, expenditures, and projects executed under Ibas’s administration.

Its submission will guide the lifting of emergency rule and the restoration of democratic governance in the state.

Reports indicate that some National Assembly members sought to extend Ibas’s tenure by three months to complete ongoing projects, including the reconstruction of the House of Assembly complex, worker verification exercises, and installation of government equipment.

However, the proposal was blocked, with Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Wike insisting that emergency rule must end on September 18. Rivers APC Chairman Chief Tony Okocha also confirmed the date as final.

Fubara, currently in London with his family, is expected to return soon and receive a list of political appointees, including commissioners, to collaborate with.

Breaking News: South Africa faces three points deductions

Breaking News: South Africa faces three points deductions 

Head coach of Benin Republic’s senior national team, Gernot Rohr, has urged FIFA to enforce disciplinary action against South Africa for fielding an ineligible player during the ongoing 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifiers.

South Africa’s Teboho Mokoena featured in their 2-0 victory over Lesotho despite having accumulated two yellow cards in previous matches—a situation that should have triggered a one-match suspension.

According to Rohr, FIFA has already informed the South African Football Association of the infraction and explained that the sanction involves a deduction of three points and three goals. However, the governing body has yet to officially confirm the penalty.

Rohr is no stranger to such disciplinary measures. While managing Nigeria in 2018, his side lost three points in World Cup qualifiers after fielding a suspended player. Now, he insists the same rules must apply to South Africa to ensure fairness in the competition.

 “I am calling on FIFA to clarify the points situation in our World Cup qualifying group,” Rohr told veteran journalist Osasu Obayiuwana from his base in France.

“South Africa used an ineligible player, which by the rules means they must lose three points and three goals to Lesotho. With the qualifiers resuming in September, it is vital for all teams to know where they legitimately stand.

Rohr further expressed frustration over FIFA’s delay in finalizing the matter, describing it as “a very straightforward case” that should have been resolved promptly in the interest of fair play.

"I am unstoppable” – Former President Goodluck Jonathan opens up on eligibility to run again

“I am unstoppable” – Former President Goodluck Jonathan opens up on eligibility to run again

The controversy over the eligibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan to join the 2027 presidential race took a twist last week when it emerged that a court had cleared the obstacle to his being sworn in for the third time as president.

Critics had cited Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which provides that no elected person in public office in Nigeria shall be sworn in more than twice, basing their argument on the former president’s swearing-in in 2010 after his predecessor, the late President Umaru Yar’Adua, died in office, and 2011 when he won his own election. He left office in 2025 after losing reelection, and Section 137(3) wasn’t law until 2018, three years later, triggering the argument on whether or not the law can apply to him retroactively.

Significantly, some leaders of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) are pushing for him to contest on the platform of the party the 2027 presidential election.

Sunday Vanguard obtained the judgment of the Federal High Court Yenagoa which heard the case and the trial judge, Hon. Justice Isa H. Dashen, while reviewing the submissions made before him on May 27, 2022, quoted copiously from the Counter-Affidavit in which Jonathan made his case, saying he could not be legally stopped from participating in presidential election in the future based on Section 137(3) of the Constitution.

Dashen agreed with the former president’s position.

Curiously, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which were both joined as Defendants in the suit filed by two persons who described themselves as APC members (Andy Solomon and Ibidiye Abraham), failed to make appearances despite being served with all the processes, forcing the presiding judge to remark that they agreed with all the facts of the case as pleaded by the Plaintiffs and Jonathan who was the First Defendant.

On this, he noted: “As earlier stated, both 2nd and 3rd Defendants (APC and INEC) did not file any processes in response or reaction thereto despite service of the Originating process on them.

NWLR (Part 50) 350, the Apex Court held thus: ‘A Defendant who fails to enter appearance or file Counter-Affidavit in response to the averments in support of the Originating Summons would be presumed to have demurred and admitted the facts deposed to in the Affidavit filed in support of the Originating Summons.

“See the recent case of FUTMINA & ORS VS OLUTAYO (2017)

LPELR- 43827 (SC) and CHEVRON (NIG) LTD VS IMO STATE

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY AND ORS (2016) LPELR- 41563 (CA), where the Appellate Courts confirmed the above position.

The Jonathan case

Dashen, in his judgment, while referring to Jonathan’s Counter-Affidavit in which he made his case, said: “The 1st Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit is of Twelve (12) paragraphs and is deposed to by one Engr. Peletiri John Debetimi whodescribed himself as an Assistant to the 1st Defendant.

“One (1) exhibit marked as Exhibit EKOI was annexed to the said Counter-Affidavit.

“Exhibit EKOI is a copy of the Official Gazette containing the 4th Alteration to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

“In summary, the 1st Defendant’s response, as stated in his Counter-

Affidavit, is that he has never been ‘elected’ into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on Two (2) previous occasions.

“The 1st Defendant stated that the oath of office he took on the 6th of May, 2010 was taken upon his ‘Election’ as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“The 1st Defendant further asserted that he took the said oath to complete the aborted tenure of the late President Umar Yar’ Adua.

“The 1st Defendant referred the Court to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of CYRIACUS NJOKU VS.GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN (2015) LPELR-24496 wherein the Court of Appeal held that the oath of office he took on 6th May, 2010 cannot be taken into account in the interpretation of the provisions of Section 137(1) (b) of the Constitution. “The 1st Defendant, thereafter, stated that he has only been elected to the Office of President once and in year 2011.

“With respect to the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution, the 1st Defendant stated that from Exhibit EKOI (i.e. the Official Gazette of the 4th Alteration of the Constitution), ‘Commencement’ date of the said amendment to the provisions of Section 137 of the Constitution therein contained is said to be ‘7th Day of June, 2018’. “Therefore, the 1st Defendant contended that the amendment introduced by sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution came into effect and became operational from 7th June, 2018.

“On the basis of the foregoing, the Defendant contended that since he took the first oath of office as President in year 2010 and the second oath of office in year 2011 respectively, the 4th Alteration of the Constitution which took effect from th June, 2018 cannot be applied retrospectively to prevent him from exercising his right to contest for the Office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which said right accrued to him since year 2015 before the 4th Alteration to the Constitution was effected.

Three questions

“In his written address, the 1st Defendant formulated three (3) questions for the determination of this Court.

“Whilst the 1st Defendant adopted questions 2 and 3 submitted by the Plaintiffs, he re-phrased question 1 submitted by the Plaintiffs.

“Therefore, the questions submitted by the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant are congruent and are not substantially different.

“The questions submitted by the 1st Defendant read as follows:

1. Whether in view of the provisions of:

a. Section 137(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered); and

b. Section 137 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) (as contained in the 4th Alteration (No.16) Act 2017), the 1st Defendant is qualified to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections.

2. If the answer to 1 above is in the affirmative, then: Whether the

2nd Defendant is entitled to field the 1st Defendant as its presidential candidate in the 2023 General Elections.

3. Whether the 3rd Defendant is entitled to disqualify the 1st Defendant from contesting and/or from 2nd Defendant’s presidential candidate in the 2023 General Elections.

“Again, at paragraphs 4.00 4.05 of his written address, the 1st Defendant raised a Preliminary Point challenging the locus standi of the Plaintiffs to institute the instant suit.

“I shall deal with this preliminary point whilst considering the substantive Originating Summons.

“On the basis of the foregoing, the 1st Defendant asserted that he is eminently qualified to contest for and/or nominated for election into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“The 1st Defendant therefore urged the Court to discountenance the Plaintiffs’ contentions and answer the questions submitted in the Originating Summons in his favour and against the Plaintiffs and refuse the reliefs sought for by the Plaintiffs”.

For the part of the Plaintiffs, the questions they wanted resolved by the court, according to the judge, are:

1. Whether, in view of the provisions of Section 137(1)(b) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) and the fact that the 1st Defendant had earlier been sworn-in as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2010 and 2011 respectively, the 1st Defendant is qualified to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections to be organized by the 3rd Defendant (INEC).

2. If the answer to 1 above is in the negative, then: Whether the 2nd

Defendant (APC) is entitled to field the 1st Defendant as its presidential candidate in the 2023 General Elections.

3. Whether the 3rd Defendant (INEC) is entitled to disqualify the 1st Defendant (Jonathan) from contesting and/or from being presented as the 2nd Defendant’s (APC) presidential candidate in the 2023 General Elections.

Juxtaposition

Reading his judgment, Justice Dashen said: “Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties, I am of the view that the determination of the application or otherwise of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution to the 1st Defendant lies on the juxtaposition of the date when the 1st Defendant claims to have acquired his present right to be sworn-in as President and the date on which sub- section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution took effect.