Connect with us

News

Why we voted for e-transmission of results with conditions – Senate President

Published

on

Senate-President-Lawan
Senate President, Ahmad Lawan
Share

**Says not only APC but some PDP Senators too voted for it

President of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan has advanced reasons to justify the position taken by the Senate on the electronic transmission of election results.

The Senate on Thursday, while considering the Electoral Act 2010 Amendment Bill, voted that “The Commission(INEC) may consider electronic transmission of results, provided the national coverage is adjudged to be adequate and secure by the National Communications Commission (NCC) and approved by the National Assembly.”

Lawan explained that the Upper Chamber voted the way it did in defence of about half of the Nigerian voters whose votes may not be counted with immediate deployment or application of electronic transmission of election results.

The Senate President spoke to journalists at the weekend while on a constituency visit to his Yobe North Senatorial District.

Asked to comment on the passage of the Electoral Act 2010 Amendment Bill, Lawan said: “I’m happy that we have been able to pass the amendment even though some people are complaining of what we have passed in the Senate and probably what the House of Representatives has also passed.

“When the majority of Senators voted against immediate application or deployment of electronic transmission of results from the polling units, to the ward, to the local government, states and federal, they didn’t say they do not believe in electronic transmission (of election results).

“All of us in the Senate, 109 of us, believe that at one point, our electoral process must deploy electronic transmission so that it eases and enhances the electoral process and give it more credibility and integrity.

“But you see, when you have not reached that stage where you could deploy the electronic transmission from every part of the country, then you have to be very careful. And no matter what anybody may say, you cannot have about 50 percent of Nigerian voters not participating or not getting their votes counted in elections and say it doesn’t matter, that we have to start the electronic transmission.

“We know the evils of not transmitting results electronically but compare the evils of electronically transmitting just half of the electoral votes from Nigerians and say you have elected a President with 50 percent only.

“And others have voted but their results or their votes could not be electronically transmitted. This is disenfranchising Nigerians and we are not going to support this kind of thing because essentially, we are supposed to be fair to every part of Nigeria and when we voted, every part of Nigeria voted for and against(the amendment).

“What I mean here is that, you have Senators from northern part of Nigeria who voted for electronic transmission. Maybe that is their belief or their environment is ready for electronic transmission. And you have Senators from southern part of Nigeria who voted against immediate deployment of electronic transmission but they support that the electronic transmission of results should be allowed after certain conditions are met and the conditions are simple: The National Communication Commission(NCC) had provided the technical information that only NCC could give – that only about 50 percent of the Nigerian environment, the polling units, in the country could possibly have their results electronically transmitted.

“So what happens to the other 50 percent. So we believe that all of us in the Senate were aiming at the same target but chose to go through different routes and that is why in my concluded remarks in the Senate after the debate and voting, I said there was no Victor, no Vanquish because we all meant well.

“And for those Nigerians who still feel that the electronic transmission should have just been allowed to take effect, I said well, this is how democracy works. Democracy is to allow those minority views to be expressed and democracy provides that the majority views will always prevail.”

The Senate President faulted some media reports that insinuated that only the APC Senators voted against immediate application of the electronic transmission of results.

He said the votes cast on either sides of the subject matter cut across party lines and regional divides.

“In this respect, it was not just APC. I have seen it reported in the media that only APC Senators voted against the immediate deployment of electronic transmission.

“There are PDP Senators who voted against that but it appears that some people want to target at APC Senators. There were PDP Senators who voted against immediate deployment. I’m using the word ‘immediate’ with an emphasis.

“Nobody said don’t use electronic transmission at all. You use it when we reach there and only NCC can give you information. That is the main reason why, in the Senate version, clause 52(3), there is that provision to contact the NCC because INEC will not know until they go to NCC.

“So NCC will be the only institution to give that information because they are competent and it’s within their jurisdiction. And we say the National Assembly should approve of it.

“It is not when they want to do transmission that they will have to go to National Assembly that we want to do transmission. No. That once NCC has told INEC is now ready. INEC should come to the National Assembly with the NCC and say we are now ready.

“There is no way any National Assembly, not even this Ninth National Assembly will deny INEC the use of electronic transmission as part of our electoral process when we are ready for it,” Lawan said.

The Senate President said it was wrong to conclude that Senators who voted for electronic transmission with conditions did not like the results transmitted electronically.

“I want to take this opportunity to debunk that insinuation or outright castigation of Senators that voted against immediate deployment of electronic transmission that they don’t like electronic transmission. It is not true.

“Even though I didn’t vote. But I believe that what my colleagues did is binding on all of us in the Senate. 28 against 52…l believe that what we have done requires that the Senate and the House will each constitute a conference committee. What we call harmonisation for the two sides. When we harmonise, then we will send it to Mr President,” Lawan said.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Senate Moves to Reshape Legal Profession, Proposes Two-Year Mandatory Pupillage for New Lawyers

Published

on

Senate Logo
Share

The Nigerian Senate on Wednesday considered sweeping reforms to the legal profession, passing into second reading a bill seeking to amend the Legal Practitioners Act 2004. Central to the proposal is a mandatory two-year pupillage programme for newly called lawyers, designed to align training and regulation with global best practices.

Debating the bill at plenary, lawmakers agreed that the legal system must evolve in response to technological advancement, complex commercial transactions, and growing demands for professional accountability. The bill was sponsored and led by the Leader of the Senate, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele.

According to Bamidele, the current law — nearly six decades old in design — no longer reflects contemporary realities of legal practice. He explained that the reform seeks to modernise oversight structures, strengthen discipline mechanisms, and enhance the quality of service within the profession.

A major highlight of the bill is the restructuring of the Body of Benchers, which, for the first time, will be established as a corporate legal entity with financial autonomy, strengthened secretariat, and defined rule-making authority. The reforms also introduce a clearer institutional framework for committees, oversight, and policy enforcement.

The Senate Leader stressed that the initiative would deliver “a coordinated and well-modernised regulatory framework that addresses admission to the bar, discipline, and professional standards.”

The bill also seeks to fast-track disciplinary processes by reorganising the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC). Under the proposed structure, multiple panels would sit across the country while wielding broader sanctioning powers, including suspension, disbarment, restitution, compensation, cost awards, and formal apologies. For transparency, disciplinary outcomes will be published, while affected practitioners will retain the right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

Additionally, the proposal creates a new Ethics, Adherence and Enforcement Committee empowered to inspect law offices, demand records, investigate public complaints, and prosecute cases before the LPDC.

To further boost competence, two years of compulsory pupillage and ongoing professional development will now be requirements for lawyers before full practice certification and licence renewal.

The bill also criminalises unauthorised legal practice, clearly defining the practice of law to protect the public from impersonators and unqualified service providers. Other provisions address the regulation of foreign lawyers, reform of the Senior Advocate of Nigeria rank, and improved safeguards for clients and public trust.

Speaking in support, Chief Whip of the Senate, Senator Tahir Monguno, recalled his experience entering practice over 35 years ago, noting that the realities of the digital age justify reform.

“This bill is very apt and germane,” Monguno said. “We are in the digital age, and our legal profession must reflect these realities.”

The Senate subsequently referred the bill to its Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters for public hearing and a report within two weeks.

 

Continue Reading

News

Tinubu Approves Nigerian Team for US–Nigeria Joint Security Working Group

Published

on

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu
Share

President Bola Tinubu has approved the Nigerian contingent of the US–Nigeria Joint Working Group, a new collaborative platform aimed at strengthening security cooperation between both countries.

The decision follows agreements reached during a recent high-level visit to Washington, D.C., led by the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu. Ribadu will head the Nigerian side of the Working Group, supported by senior officials drawn from key security and government institutions.

The Nigerian members include Minister of Foreign Affairs, Amb. Yusuf Maitama Tuggar; Minister of Defence, Mohammed Badaru Abubakar; Minister of Interior, Hon. Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo; and the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Dr. Bernard M. Doro.

Also on the team are the Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Olufemi Oluyede; Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency, Amb. Mohammed Mohammed; and the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun.

Ms. Idayat Hassan of the Office of the National Security Adviser and Mr. Paul Alabi of the Nigerian Embassy in the United States will serve as the secretariat.

President Tinubu urged the members to work closely with their US counterparts to ensure the effective implementation of all agreements reached across various sectors.

The announcement was made on Wednesday in a statement by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy.

Continue Reading

News

Obasanjo Returns $20,000 Allegedly Given for Fayose’s Birthday Logistics

Published

on

EX President Olusegun Obasanjo and Former Ekiti State, Ayo Fayose
Share

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has returned the $20,000 allegedly provided to him by former Ekiti State Governor, Ayo Fayose, ahead of Fayose’s 65th birthday celebration, following a fresh disagreement between the two political figures.

Fayose confirmed the development during an interview with AF24 News, where he narrated the sequence of events surrounding the controversy. According to him, preparations for his birthday prompted him to reach out to individuals he had previously fallen out with politically. He noted that this move was aimed at “mending fences,” but stressed that his call to Obasanjo should not be misconstrued as an apology.

The former governor recounted that Obasanjo visited his Lagos residence days before the celebration and expressed willingness to attend the event, despite having a conflicting engagement in Rwanda. Fayose said that during the visit, Obasanjo requested financial support for his travel logistics, prompting him to provide $20,000.

“I changed $20,000 and gave it to him. How can you accept somebody’s money and come and be spiting that person?” Fayose said, expressing disappointment over Obasanjo’s subsequent public remarks.

The matter escalated after Obasanjo stated that he had not opened the money and would return it, comments that Fayose considered disrespectful. In response, Fayose said he sent the former president a strongly worded text message demanding clarity and expressing his displeasure.

Following the exchange, Obasanjo reportedly returned the money.

“I have written to him, and he has returned my $20,000,” Fayose confirmed during the interview. When asked how he felt about the return of the funds, he replied: “I am very happy. I will not allow such a man to carry my money away.”

The clash adds another layer to the long-standing political tension between both men, who have had a history of public disagreements spanning several years.

Continue Reading