Tag: Wike

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday fixed July 2 for hearing of a N10 billion rights suit filed by a Nollywood actor and politician, Emeka Ike, against Lere Olayinka, Senior Special Assistant to FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike.

Justice Salim Ibrahim fixed the date after Ike’s counsel, Leonard Adeh, sought an adjournment to enable the respondents file their defence.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Ike, in the fundamental rights enforcement suit, had sued Olayinka and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as 1st and 2nd respondents over alleged breach of personal data.

When the case was called on Thursday, only the applicant’s lawyer, Adeh, was in court.

He informed the court that the matter was scheduled for mention.

“However, I want to bring to the notice of the court that the bailiff told me that parties (respondents) were only served yesterday.

“My lord, I want to know the nature of service effected, particularly on the 1st defendant (Olayinka),” the lawyer prayed.

When the judge asked him why he made the request, he said: “We don’t want to have jurisdictional issue my lord.”

Justice Ibrahim then directed a court worker to avail Adeh with a copy of the proof of service in court’s record.

“My lord, I am satisfied sir,” Adeh responded.

The lawyer, who said Olayinka and INEC were still within time to respond, sought an adjournment.

Justice Ibrahim subsequently adjourned the matter until July 2 for further mention.

The judge ordered that hearing notices be issued and served on 1st and 2nd respondents.

The Nollywood actor, who aspired to vie for the House of Representatives’ seat for AMAC/Bwari Federal Constituency, Abuja for the 2027 general elections on the platform of Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), lost the bid in a primary poll.

The minister’s aide, through a post on X in May, was alleged to have mocked Ike by leaking his confidential voter registration details on social media.

The post was said to have shown details of Ike’s voter registration transfer from Imo to the nation’s capital.

Olayinka was alleged to have used the screenshots, which appeared to be pulled from INEC’s restricted backend portal, to question the actor’s eligibility to contest the seat under the NDC.

The post sparked outrage, with many Nigerians accusing Olayinka of gaining unauthorised access to a password-protected backend system meant only for INEC officials.

Reacting, INEC dismissed claims of a major breach or external hacking of its continuous voter registration (CVR) database.

The electoral umpire attributed the unauthorised disclosure of Ike’s voter information to the misuse of valid internal credentials by authorised personnel.

Investigators from the Force Intelligence Department, Intelligence Response Team (FID-IRT), also grilled Olayinka and an electoral officer over the alleged leak of voter data from the INEC portal.

Meanwhile, Ike, in the suit filed by Adeh, asked the court to declare that Olayinka’s decision to publish his database on X without his approval “amounts to gross breach and violation of the applicant’s fundamental right to privacy and the protection of personal data”.

Ike argued that Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution, Article 12 of the universal declaration of human rights, and Sections 24 & 39 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023 guaranteed his right to privacy and protection of personal data.

The actor asked the court to declare that INEC owes him and other voters a “statutory duty of care” to protect their private data against unauthorised access.

The applicant, therefore, prayed the court to award him N10 billion against Olayinka and INEC as aggravated and general damages, to be paid jointly and severally for violating his fundamental right to privacy.

He sought a declaration that the press release by INEC dated June 2, in reaction to the viral publication and circulation of his personal voter information and private data on social media by Olayinka, amounts to a tacit admission of guilt and liability to him.

He also wants a declaration that the duo are jointly liable and responsible to him for breach and gross violation of his fundamental right to privacy and the protection of personal data, respectively guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Sections 24 & 39 of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023.

Ike, equally, sought an order directing Olayinka to immediately retract and pull down the offensive post and publication on his social media X handle, @OlayinkaLere, containing screenshots of his personal voter information and private data.

He sought an order directing him to immediately tender an unrreserved apology in writing for breach and violation of his fundamental right and publish same on his (Olayinka’s) X handle and three national dailies; The Punch, The Nation and Thisday, “to run consecutively for two weeks, in order that the written apology shall be widely circulated and made to go viral, replicating the similar publicity and attention, the offensive post and publication by the 1st Respondent, received on his social media X handle and public space.”

 

*Between Rhetoric and Re

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

Expressions such as “I felt like killing him” or “I felt like shooting him” are, within the ordinary fabric of human communication, widely understood as figurative and emotional outbursts, not literal threats, particularly when uttered in moments of anger, frustration, or strong disapproval.

They belong to the realm of rhetorical exaggeration (hyperbole), employed to convey the depth of one’s feelings rather than any actual intention to inflict harm. In everyday conversational settings, such expressions are typically innocuous. They are interpreted as linguistic devices used to underscore displeasure. A person emerging from a heated disagreement may, for instance, say, “I felt like killing him,” not to suggest any contemplated act of violence, but merely to emphasize the intensity of their emotional reaction. In such contexts, no legal or practical consequence ordinarily arises.

However, it must be emphasized, indeed, it cannot be overstated, that context is the lifeblood of meaning. Words do not exist in isolation; their significance is shaped by the circumstances in which they are used.

The same expression may assume vastly different implications depending on factors such as tone, setting, audience, and accompanying conduct. A remark made in jest among friends may be harmless, whereas the same words uttered in anger, directed at a specific individual, or accompanied by prior hostility or threatening behaviour, may acquire a more serious connotation.

Where such expressions are reinforced by repeated utterances, suggestive conduct, or surrounding circumstances capable of instilling fear, they may, in appropriate cases, be construed as a credible threat. From a legal perspective, both under Nigerian law and within broader common law jurisprudence, the principle is settled: a mere emotional or figurative expression does not, without more, constitute a criminal offence. However, where a statement gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of harm or conveys a genuine intention to cause injury, it may cross the threshold into criminal intimidation or assault (in the sense of placing another in fear of imminent harm). The governing test is objective:
Would a reasonable person, in the circumstances, interpret the statement as a real and credible threat?

It is against this analytical and legal backdrop that the remark attributed to Mr Nyesom Wike concerning Mr Seun Okinbaloye ought to be examined. In my respectful view, it is both difficult and, with respect, unreasonable to construe Mr Wike’s use of the word “shooting” as conveying any literal or physical intention. What he said is, in substance, consistent with expressions commonly used in everyday discourse to convey strong dissatisfaction or disapproval. It reflects intensity of sentiment, not an intention to harm.

For the avoidance of doubt, I hold no brief for Mr Wike. Nor do I necessarily endorse his style of communication, which may fairly be described as forceful and, at times, inelegant. However, intellectual honesty and fairness require that we distinguish between rhetorical excess and actual threat. A careful, dispassionate, and objective reading of the statement suggests that Mr Wike was merely expressing strong displeasure, whether with the substance of Mr Okinbaloye’s views or the manner in which those views were articulated on the programme in question.

One may legitimately disagree with Mr Wike. One may criticise his tone. But to elevate such an expression into a threat of violence is, with respect, a conclusion that does not withstand logical scrutiny. It stretches interpretation beyond reasonable bounds and risks fostering misunderstanding where none need exist.

That said, it must equally be acknowledged that within professional, political, and media environments, such expressions are often considered imprudent, ill-advised, and potentially damaging. Even where they fall short of criminality, they may attract public backlash, invite misinterpretation, and adversely affect reputation. Public officials, by virtue of their position and influence, bear a heightened responsibility to communicate with restraint, clarity, and sensitivity.

It is also imperative to underscore, as a matter of fundamental constitutional principle, that politicians and public office holders must, at all times, respect and uphold the rights to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the freedom of dissent. These freedoms are not mere privileges; they are indispensable pillars of any functioning constitutional democracy. The right of journalists, broadcasters, and members of the public to freely hold, express, and disseminate opinions on matters of public interest must be jealously guarded and consistently respected. Democracy thrives not on uniformity of opinion, but on the robust exchange of ideas, criticism, and divergent viewpoints. Strong disagreement is not a threat to democracy; it is one of its defining features.

Accordingly, expressions, whether verbal or implied, what may be perceived as suppressive, intimidating, or dismissive of dissent must be approached with caution, particularly by those entrusted with public authority. The practical takeaway, therefore, is both simple and significant: While such expressions are not inherently literal, they are context-sensitive and potentially risky. What may be harmless in informal conversation can, in a different setting, assume legal or reputational significance if it is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a real threat.

Ultimately, in an era marked by heightened sensitivity and instantaneous dissemination of information, we owe ourselves, and the society we seek to build, a duty of measured judgment, intellectual discipline, and interpretive restraint. Not every forceful expression should be hastily politicised or sensationalised. Each situation must be assessed on its own merit, guided by reason, fairness, context, and a commitment to truth.
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems).
08021365545
udems@therealityministry.ngo.
(06 April 2026)

 

 

Workers of the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), backed by the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), on Monday picketed the National Industrial Court in Abuja as part of an ongoing total and indefinite strike over unresolved labour disputes.

The protest followed a directive from the NLC declaring full support for the industrial action, which it described as justified amid what it termed persistent violations of workers’ rights by the FCTA management and political leadership.

At the court premises, protesters carried placards with messages reading “Wike must go!!”, “Abuja no be Rivers”, “Pay promotion arrears”, “Enough is Enough” and “No working tools”.

The placards highlighted workers’ grievances as the strike continued without resolution.

 

 

 

THE decision by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, rejecting the Tanimu Turaki, SAN-led National Working Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party, citing subsisting court judgments and unresolved legal processes, has been described as a sinister plot by INEC in cahoots with the office of President Tinubu and the leadership of the All Progressives Congress, APC, to cripple constructive and independent opposition political parties to pave way for a smooth ride for the incumbent president comes the 2027 presidential poll.

Frontline pro-democracy and civil rights advocacy group Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria, HURIWA, stated that it was absolutely ridiculous that the same INEC, which monitored and observed the Ibadan, Oyo state held National convention attended by PDP governors, which produced the Tanimu Turaki led National Executive Committee of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, yet INEC is speaking from both sides of their mouth on the authentic leadership of the PDP, which HURIWA said was a well arranged dangerous plot by the trio of the presidency, INEC and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, to weaken and completely cripple the PDP to stop it from producing a viable presidential candidate to challenge Tinubu of APC in the 2027 poll.

The Rights organisation also called for the investigation of the allegation made by the Oyo State Governor that the FCT minister was executing a plot to destroy the PDP so as to make it easier for Tinubu to have a soft landing in the next presidential poll.

HURIWA in a media statement by the National Coordinator, Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, condemned the Independent National Electoral Commission for allowing itself to be deployed by the presidency, the All Progressives Congress, minister of FCT to demolish political opposition in the country just as HURIWA recalled the disclosure by the Oyo state governor that the FCT minister had told the President that he would cripple the PDP.

HURIWA has also cautioned President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to stop forthwith his active agenda to cripple constructive and independent opposition political parties in the countries.

“Why is President Tinubu afraid to have strong personalities contest against him in 2027? Isn’t true that clear conscience fears no accusations? So let the President rely on his milestones to campaign for reelection rather than seeking to come from the backdoor to win a manipulated election in 2027.

HURIWA said it was incredibly unbelievable that INEC could play along with some politicians like Nyesom Wike, who alongside a few allies duly expelled by the authentic leadership of the PDP headed by Tanimu Turaki, have held meetings inside the dining room of the serving minister of the FCT just as the Rights group condemned the Federal High Court for accepting landed and housing assets as gifts from the FCT ministry and at the same time always designating particular judges in Abuja to handle cases filed by the allies of the FCT minister, which have all been decided in their favour.

“The Federal High Court hierarchy is gravely compromised and this is why only same few judges working openly for the FCT ministerial interest are often assigned cases by the Tanimu Turaki led leadership of PDP, which had duly expelled Wike and his acolytes.

“INEC officials ought to have awaited for the judgment of the Court of Appeal before jumping to conclude that it wouldn’t recognise the Tanimu Turaki led hierarchy of PDP, which enjoys the backing of the highest ranking political office holders in the party platform, who are governors of their Federating units.

The Rights group in a statement by the National Coordinator Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko noted that while the governors facilitated a smooth handover from former chairman Umar Damagum to Turaki before Damagum’s tenure officially ended on December 9, the Wike-aligned faction went ahead on December 8 to appoint Mohammed, Anyanwu, and others as 13 members of a 60-day caretaker committee, which HURIWA concluded is part of the larger sinister plots to physically and practically kill off PDP a campaign and a well funded initiative backed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who is mortally scared of vibrant opposition presidential candidates to face him in the 2027 election.

HURIWA recalled that INEC, in a letter dated December 22 and addressed to the Turaki-led NWC lawyers, Akintayo Balogun & Co, and signed by  Rose Oriaran-Anthony, Secretary to the Commission, titled “Re: Demand for Recognition and Update of the List of the National Officers Elected at the Purported 2025 Elective National Convention of PDP,” obtained by The PUNCH on Tuesday, stated that it could not recognise or update the list of PDP national officers allegedly elected at the November convention, citing adherence to the law and existing court orders.

The letter read in part: “The commission has carefully considered the demands in the light of all material facts, extant laws, and most importantly, subsisting court judgments touching directly on the subject matter.

“You may wish to note that there are two subsisting final judgments of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, namely: Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/2025, Austine Nwachukwu & 2 Ors. v. INEC & 8 Ors., delivered on October 31, 2025; and Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/2025, Alhaji Sule Lamido v. PDP & 4 Ors., delivered on November 14, 2025.

“Both judgments, which are final in nature and binding on all parties, expressly restrained the commission from supervising, monitoring, recognising, or in any manner whatsoever accepting the outcome of the PDP National Convention held on November 15 and 16, 2025, or any other date, pending compliance with the orders of the court.

“While the commission is aware that notices of appeal have been filed against the said judgments, it is settled law that the mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution. Until the said judgments are set aside or stayed by a competent court, the commission remains bound to obey and give full effect to them, in line with Section 287(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”

The commission further highlighted the interim orders issued by the High Court of Oyo State in Suit No. 1/1336/2025, Folahan Malomo Adelabi v. PDP & Ors., noting that its name had been removed from the suit due to lack of jurisdiction. It added that, in any case, an interim order could not override or nullify existing final judgments of courts of equal or higher authority.

It stated in part: “In addition, there is also a suit filed by your client in Suit No. FHC/IB/CS/121/2025, PDP v. INEC, wherein it sought an order mandating the commission to recognise the National Working Committee and members of the National Executive Committee elected by the National Convention of the PDP held in Ibadan on November 15 and 16, 2025, as the Executive Committee of the PDP in all matters pertaining to her, including the conduct of primary elections for political offices and the submission of PDP’s list of candidates for any election to be conducted by the commission.

HURIWA, however, accused the leadership of INEC of conniving with President Tinubu, the APC and the Minister of FCT of carrying out a well orchestrated campaign of demolition and destruction of the PDP just as the Rights group warned that should President Tinubu and his acolytes succeed in killing off the PDP, then constitutional democracy may die before the 2027 General poll. We are warning the Professor Amupitan led INEC to thread softly and be truly independent or risked destroying Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

 

The controversial directive, contained in an internal memo sighted by SaharaReporters, targets all officers on Salary Grade Level 14 and below, forbidding them from entering office premises with their mobile phones beginning Wednesday, November 12, 2025.

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, has ordered a sweeping ban on the use of mobile phones by staff of the Abuja Geographic Information Systems (AGIS) and the Department of Land Administration, SaharaReporters can report.

The controversial directive, contained in an internal memo sighted by SaharaReporters, targets all officers on Salary Grade Level 14 and below, forbidding them from entering office premises with their mobile phones beginning Wednesday, November 12, 2025.

The memo, issued by AGIS Management, reads in part: “There shall be a ban on the use of mobile phones within the office premises for all officers on Salary Grade Level (SGL) 14 and below… affected staff are not permitted to enter the premises with their mobile phones henceforth.”

It was issued by the Head of AGIS, Chijioke Nwankwoeze.

Sources within AGIS told SaharaReporters that the directive came barely 24 hours after videos of Wike’s heated confrontation with a Naval officer at a disputed property site in Abuja went viral on WhatsApp groups reportedly shared by AGIS staff.

“The minister was furious that the videos circulated among staff. He saw it as an act of sabotage. This phone ban is his way of showing anger,” said one source who asked not to be named.

The policy has sparked outrage among workers and civil rights advocates, who condemned it as primitive, draconian, and anti-labour. Critics say it reflects Wike’s growing intolerance for criticism and his penchant for authoritarian control.

“It’s absurd that in 2025, a minister would ban phones in a public agency because of a viral video,” one labour activist fumed. “This is not leadership—it’s paranoia in power.”

As of press time, the FCT Administration had yet to issue any official clarification regarding the controversial directive.

There have been reactions to the incident since Tuesday.

The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) condemned the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister, Nyesom Wike, over the viral video showing him verbally assaulting a military officer on official duty.

In a statement signed by its National President, Comrade Atiku Isah, the students’ body said it watched with dismay as the minister was seen in the viral clip insulting an officer who had been lawfully detailed by his superior to guard a parcel of land.

“The officer was carrying out a lawful order by his superior and does not deserve to be insulted,” the statement read.

“However, the composure and restraint of the officer show how disciplined the military is. The officer was professional and disciplined.”

NANS criticised Wike for what it described as an act of disrespect and arrogance, stressing that the minister erred by attempting to forcefully encroach on a land belonging to a former Chief of Naval Staff who, according to the group, had served the nation meritoriously.

“It is unbecoming of the minister to speak disrespectfully to people. The Naval Chief deserves to be respected and should have been invited for dialogue instead of being humiliated,” the association added.

The students’ body urged President Bola Tinubu to caution the FCT Minister, saying NANS would not sit idly by while those who have served the nation in uniform are disrespected.

Courtesy: Sahara  Reporters

 

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, has clear the air over controversy surrounding the ownership of River Park Estate in Abuja.

The minister, who spoke on Channel’s TV Political Platform on Thursday, dismissed claims that Paulo Homes Ltd is the original owners of the estate.

He said the FCT signed an agreement with JonahCapital Nigeria Ltd to develop the estate on Plot 4, Cadastral Zone E30, Lugbe, Abuja, during the tenure of President Olusegun Obasanjo.

He alleged that the company brought in a third party to help them obtain building approvals from FCT Development Control without authorities’ approval.

“A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, S.I. Ameh wrote a petition, and I set up a ministerial panel headed by the General Council; General Council is like the Attorney General of other states, saying ‘go and look into this.’

“Their lawyers made presentations, look this is terrible.

“First of all, we don’t have any business with Paulo Homes; there is no business between the FCT and Paulo Homes, nothing.

“The only people we signed an agreement with are JonahCapital Ltd,” he said.

Wike observed that although JonahCapital breached the agreement with the FCT by bringing in Paulo Homes which had allegedly continued to obtain Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) for buyers without a valid lease agrement, its development lease had expired by the effusion of time.

He said the ministry decided to demolish the property hurriedly developed by Paulo Homes, withdrew all the C of Os signed for the company and gave them directly to the Nigerian owners to protect them.

On why he demolished the property built overnight while he was still investigating the matter, Wike said, “I know the system and how they operate.

“They will now take it to court. By the time you know, the minister is out and when he leaves another minister will come and will be able to settle.

“I told my people, let’s get everything down. This is why things are getting wrong in this country,” he said.

 

The Centre For Human Rights And Advocacy In Africa Network has condemned the demolition of Margaret Lawrence University Teaching Hospital (MLUTH), by the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA).

The world-class hospital, which was situated inside the high-brow River Park Estate Abuja, was demolished on Saturday.

The group, in a statement co-signed by its Executive Director, Mr Henry Abba, and Director of Programmes, Michael Ikwebe, on a Sunday in Abuja, described the demolition as “high handed, insensitive, barbaric and unacceptable.”

It alleged that information at its disposal suggested that no reason was advanced by the FCTA for the action.

It expressed shock that demolition of the hospital could take place in a contemporary Nigeria, and wondered what the FCTA aimed at in the high-value estate.

“The whole incident has brought about panic in the estate.

“At this point, nobody knows what is going on because what was said in the report of the FCT Minister was that all undeveloped portion is what they want to re-possess.

“What we have in this instance is a project that has been commissioned for over a year and has been actively under development for the past one year.

“We learnt on good authority that without any prior notice, the FCTA came in and demolished the structure.

“In fact, they took the whole day to even do what they were doing there” the group stated.

It said that the action of the FCTA was highly condemnable, unacceptable and could best be described as “one demolition done in bad fate.”

According to the group, the demolition exercise was ill-timed.

It alleged that the demolition was part of the FCTA’s policy to claim portions of land within the estate.

“We are under siege in this country, and nobody seems to be talking.

“It is legally and morally wrong for the FCTA to come into an estate to demolish a University Teaching Hospital Cancer Center, without prior notice, and on a Saturday.

“Saturday’s exercise came on the heels of 35 structures that have been demolished in the last three days within the estate on the directive of the Ministerial Taskforce set up by the FCT Minister, Barrister Nyesom Wike,” it stated.

The group alleged that what was going on in the estate “is a policy of land grabbing disguised as urban development.”

“We strongly condemn the continued demolition of structures in River Park Estate Abuja by the FCTA, under the watch of the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike.

“When has a project under construction become an undeveloped space in the estate?” the group querried.

It, therefore, appealed to Wike to call the ministerial taskforce to order, saying that the committee “is going outside the the report approved by the minister.”