News
Why Supreme Court can’t accept Atiku’s fresh evidence – Tinubu, Senate leader
Why Supreme Court can’t accept Atiku’s fresh evidence – Tinubu, Senate leader
President Bola Tinubu has advanced reasons why the Supreme Court should reject the purported fresh evidence Atiku Abubakar and his party claimed to have obtained from the Chicago State University (CSU) in relation to his academic records.
Tinubu argued among others, that the Supreme Court could no longer, at this stage, assume trial jurisdiction in the case since the 180 days allocated for the hearing of election petition has lapsed.
He added that not only are the said new evidence strange to the proceedings having not been presented by the trial court, Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who were joint petitioners at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), did not challenge the outcome of the last presidential election on ground of forgery before the PEPC.
Also, the Majority Leader of the Senate, Opeyemi Bamidele noted that Atiku and the PDP never pleaded, before the PEPC, any document or deposition from the CSU in support of the their fourth ground, which spoke about Tinubu’s alleged non-qualification.
Bamidele said if they had done so, Tinubu would have had the opportunity to respond appropriately, including raising the discrepancies in Atiku’s credentials.
These are contained in the counter affidavit and written address filed by Tinubu, through his team of lawyers, led by Wole Olanipekun (SAN) in response to the application by Atiku and his party seeking the permission of the Supreme Court introduce fresh evidence in their appeal.
Atiku and the PDP had appealed the September 6 judgment of the PEPC, dismissing their petition, challenging Tinubu’s victory at the February 25 presidential election.
Tinubu, in the written address, argued that the Supreme Court cannot accept the written deposition of the Registrar of the CSU, who was not a witness before the the PEPC and whose written statement was not activated through oral evidence as required under Section 41(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022.
“The mode of oral examination is provided for in paragraph 41(3) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, to wit: adoption of written deposition.
“Where a written deposition is not activated by oral examination of the deponent before the court, same will not be acted upon by a court.
“It is not in doubt that the deponent of the deposition sought to be introduced as additional evidence was not orally examined at the lower court.
READ ALSO:
- Groups uncover fresh shortcomings in Enugu guber tribunal’s verdict, seek review of judgement
- Nnamdi Kanu’s release: Ohanaeze seeks meeting with Tinubu – Iwuanyanwu
- Reject bill to regulate social media, SERAP urges National Assembly
“The appellant has not made a case for the court to override the provision of Paragraph 41(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act or referred to any law permitting the use of the deposition outside the confines of Paragraph 41(1) of the 1st Schedule.
“Appellants are attempting the impossible – thus, they have not stated whether the evidence is documentary or oral evidence because it fits into neither.
He also argued that the Supreme Court no longer has the power to assume trial jurisdiction on the petition by Atiku and the PDP because the 180 days allowed by the Constitution for the hearing of election petion lapsed on September 17 in respect of this petition.
“In the circumstance, this honourable court is without the vires to consider the said deposition either as oral or documentary evidence, moreso when same was not considered by the court of first instance within the 180 days timeframe provided by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
He argued that the case presented by Atiku and the PDP is worse than the situation in the case of Tofowomo v. Ajayi (SC/CV/1526/2022 where the apex court, in a judgment delivered on January 27, 2023, declined to invoke its power under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act as being sought by Atiku and his party in their latest application.
“The court will note that the above decision presented more valid basis than this application for the Supreme Court’s intervention, because therein, the issues had been raised at the lower court without resolution.
“The situation of this application is worse because, admittedly, it relates to fresh evidence obtained after the judgment of the lower court and the date of the filing of the motion was/is outside 180 days of the filing of the petition.
“Admission of fresh evidence can only proceed from the combined provisions of sections 22 and 33 of the Supreme Court Act.
“The provisions of Order 2 Rule 12(1) of the Rules of this honourable court, pursuant to which appellants’ motion has been brought, circumscribe the receipt of fresh evidence within the circumference of section 33 of the Supreme Court Act.
“Hence, for this honourable court to be able to give effect to Section 33 of the Supreme Court Act, which is the bedrock for Order 2 Rule 12(1), the jurisdiction of the lower court must be alive.
“Unfortunately for the appellants, however, this jurisdiction died as far back as 17th September, 2023, upon the expiration of 180 days from the date of filing of the petition by the appellants.
“In recent times, even in very dire and pathetic situations, this honourable court has been faced with supplications from parties to consider the merit of their actions which was left unattended by the trial court after consideration of threshold issues.
READ ALSO:
- Suspected ritualists kill young girl in Bauchi
- Ex-Senate President, Lawan loses mother
- ‘10,000 Aborted Babies’: NHRC insists on unraveling truth of Reuters allegation against Nigerian army
“However, being bound by the provision of section 285(6) of the Constitution , this honourable court has consistently declined.”
Tinubu, who is listed as the 2nd respondent in the appeal, contended that the application by Atiku and the PDP did not satisfy the condition in which the court can accept fresh evidence from the appellants
“We reiterate that the new document/deposition was neither pleaded nor listed at the lower court. Even in regular civil proceedings, the court will still be required to fall back to originating processes in assessing the extent of its powers.
“Five conditions/requirements must co-exist before this court can grant this type of application, as decided in a host of authorities.
“In summary, the conditions are that: the fresh evidence could aot have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial; such evidence, if admitted would have important effect on the subject of the appeal; such evidence, er facie, is apparently capable of being believed; such evidence would have influenced the judgment of the lower court in favour of the appellants, had it been available; and if such evidence is admitted, further evidence from the opposing party will not be needed.
“Aside from the fact that there was no pleading whatsoever in the appellants’ petition before the lower court relative to the fresh evidence, which they seek to adduce, may we refer the court to paragraph 14(iii) of the counter affidavit, where the 2nd respondent had reiterated the fact that no issue was joined as between him and the appellants on this purported evidence which they seek to tender.
“This is in addition to the fundamental issue of fair hearing contained in paragraph 14 (iv) to the effect that the respondent will have no opportunity of reacting to this fresh evidence.
“A person who alleges that his right to fair hearing is being or likely to be breached does not need to prove any special damage.
He accused Atiku and his party of deliberately misrepresenting facts before the Supreme Court in relation to their claim that he was not qualified to contest the election.
“In addition to the foregoing, is the misleading posture of the appellants, attempting to mislead the apex court in ths land through Ground 1 of their application, that ‘one of the grounds of the appellants/applicants’ petition before the court below is that the 2nd respondent was not qualified at the time of the election to contest the election as required by section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)’, whereas, the only ground (Ground D) of their petition relating to disqualification reads thus: ‘The 2nd respondent was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election.’
“While this application, for whatever it is worth, seeks the equitable jurisdiction of this honourable court, it is obvious that the applicants have not come with clean hands; they have come with a deceitful disposition ex facie (on the face of it).
READ ALSO:
- Confusion as sacked NIPOST boss returns, says he’s been reinstated
- Another billionaire ‘steps in’ as Qatar’s Sheikh Jassim withdraws bid to buy Man Utd
- Brain drain: Minister confirms plans to engage retired doctors, others
“This honourable court cannot pay heed to this type of applicants, even if they had had a good cause, owing to their attitude.
Tinubu argued that the Supreme Court can equally not admit the deposition by the CSU’s Registrar and an additional document (marked Exhibits C and D) because the deposition was not made before a court, but in the office of Atiku’s lawyer.
“Exhibits C and D are not admissible in their current form. Starting from page 1 of Exhibits C, it reads: ‘This is the discovery deposition of Caleb Westerberg taken in the above titled cause before Gwendolyn Bedford, a Certified Shorthand Reporter…taken at the offices of Dechert LLP…’
“The purported deposition was made, not before a court, but before a shorthand reporter, in a law office of the 1sz appellant’s (Atiku’s) counsel.
“In essence, the appellants seek to tender as fresh evidence, before the Supreme Court of Nigeria, statements made by a third party by name Caleb Westerberg, in the presence of lawyers and a shorthand reporter , without calling him as a witness. It is at best hearsay, which is of no evidential value in the absence of the alleged deponent, Caleb Westerberg. See section 83 of the Evidence Act.
“While we are not oblivious that the procedure adopted is as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1782 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the USA, we dare submit that these body of laws do not have extra-territorial application and cannot bind this honourable court, which is by no means of equal or subordinate status to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois or more ridiculously, the law office of 1st appellant’s US counsel, Dechert LLP, where the deposition took place.”
He argued that there is no connection between the appeal and the documents that Atiku and the PDP went to the US to obtain and which they seek to tender before the apex court.
“It is our further submission that in the most unlikely event that this honourable court considers Exhibits C and D admissible, they will be of no utility or affinity to the appellants’ appeal, for several reasons, including the fact that there is no ground of appeal upon which they can be structured, as well as there being no accommodative issue for determination.
“The law is trite that an appeal is not only a continuation of hearing, it is also circumscribed by matters heard and determined at the trial court.
“Thus, the Supreme Court cannot exercise any jurisdiction that the Court of Appeal is incapable of exercising.
“We refer your Lordships to the brief of argument filed by the appellants, and submit that no issue for determination thereof, can accommodate Exhibits C and D, yet, appeals are decided on issues for determination, which must be predicated on the grounds of appeal.
“None of the seven issues for determination presented by the appellants has any proximity to the disqualification of the respondents on the ground of forgery of any certificate whatsoever.
“Equally, there is no relief in the petition, seeking the disqualification of the respondent on the ground of forgery.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in that case Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 at 188, Tinubu submitted that the latest application by Atiku and the PDP “is meant to harass, irritate and annoy the respondent (Tinubu),” adding that “it is reckless and frivolous, and there is no iota of law supporting it.
READ ALSO:
- Adamawa: Father of 20 rapes 12-year-old girl, says victim didn’t cry during the act
- Passport : Immigration boss gives fresh condition on 2 weeks issuance timeline
- BREAKING: Police avert theft of train coaches in Maiduguri
“From the foregoing, it is safe to submit that this application is a crass abuse of the processes of this honourable court.
“Arising from the foregoing, we urge the Supreme Court to resolve the sole issue formulated in this address against the appellants/applicants and in favour of the respondent.
“In conclusion, and for the reasons and arguments advanced in this address, we urge the Supreme Court to dismiss this application.”
Bamidele, in the counter affidavit, stated that he only fact Atiku and the PDP pleaded in support of ground (d) of the petition, relating to qualification was where they stated that: “The petitioners aver that the 2nd respondent was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election, not having the constitutional threshold.”
He noted that the ‘deposition on oath from the Chicago State University’, which the appellants are now praying the Supreme Court for permission to supply, “is not one of the documents listed by the appellants as petitioners, in their petition and list of documents accompanying the petition.
“The respondents vehemently objected to the introduction by the petitioners of fresh allegations of forgery of academic certificates and dual citizenship through their reply on diverse grounds, including the fact that they were not pleaded; that there was no ground in the petition to connect them; that they could not bring in those fresh allegations through a reply; that the time for them to introduce new facts had elapsed by statutory and constitutional imperatives.”
He accused Atiku and the PDP of misrepresenting facts in their application
“In ground 1of the appellants’ application, the appellants deliberately set out to mislead this honourable court by stating thus: ‘one of the grounds of the appellants/applicants’ petition before the court below is that the 2nd respondent was not qualified at the time of the election to contest the election as required by section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).’
“Based on this gross misrepresentation of the appellants, they approached the US District Court for the deposition which they now pray this honourable court to admit as fresh evidence.
“It is this misleading information that the appellants have been bandying in the press as well as the social media.
Bamidele added that even when the appellants were aware of the documents, they now seek to tender, before the filing of their petition at the PEPC, they chose to wait for the election court to conclude its proceedings before seeking to present them..
“It was only on 2nd of August, 2023, that the 1st appellant commenced his action against the Chicago State University at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois – in re: Application of Atiku Abubakar for on Order Directing Discovery from Chicago State University Case No. 23-CV-05099.
“2nd August, 2023, when the appellants commenced their application … is a period of 155 days from the date the 2nd respondent (Tinubu) was announced as winner of the presidential election on 1st March, 2023; 134 days from the date the appellants filed their petition on 21th March, 2023; 40 days from the date the appellants closed their case before the lower court on 23rd June, 2023; and 24 hours after parties adopted their addresses before the lower court on 1st August, 2023.
“180 days from 21th March, 2023, when the appellants filed their petition, expired on 17th September, 2023.
Bamidele stated that the appellants deliberately went silent on the date the commenced their case before the US court because they knew they were acting outside the time allowed by the Electoral Act.
“Throughout the supporting affidavit to the appellants’ motion, they deliberately
omitted/left out the day they commenced their action against the Chicago State University at the US District Court.
“On 7th September, 2023, a day after the lower court delivered its judgment, the 1st appellant (Atiku) held a press conference, whereat, he described the decision of the lower court as being ‘bereft of substantial justice.’
Bamidele stated that he testified as Tinubu’s second witness before the PEPC and knew that Atiku and his party never raised issue of forgery against Tinubu, which would have afforded him the opportunity to respond.
The Senate Majority Leader stated that if the issue was raised at the lower court, Tinubu would have had the opportunity to demonstrate that it is only Atiku that has discrepancies in his secondary school certificate, which he has failed to explain.
“It is the 1st appellant’s acclaimed Primary School certificate, bearing the name ‘Atiku Kojoli’ and his purported 1965 West African School Certificate and General Certificate of Examination bearing the name “Siddiq Abubakar ‘ (as opposed to the name “Atiku Abubakar”, which he claims to Nigerians and INEC to be his) that are yet to be explained by Jeda Primary School Adamawa (which he claimed to have attended), the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, West African Examination Council or such other credible institution with the capacity to so do.
“If the appellant had made a case of forgery in his petition at the lower court, the respondent would have put the appellant’s said alleged West African School Certificate and General Certificate of Examination in issue.
“There are so many allegations against the 1st appellant in the public domain, and to which he has access, but that since the appellants as petitioners before the lower court did not make any iota of allegation against him regarding forgery in their petition, he did not join issues with them in his reply, as he could only reply to what hey pleaded in their petition.
“There is no singular ground of appeal against the decision of the lower court, touching on its resolution of the issus of forgery, which the appellants attempted to introduce at the lower court, despite not being part of their petition.
“The appellants have also consequently, not formulated any issue in respect of any subject bordering on forgery in their brief of argument filed on 2nd October, 2023.
“The appellants are not praying this honourable court for leave to raise new issue on appeal, either in their notice of appeal or brief of argument.
“It is improper for the appellants to maintain any form of ex-parte correspondence with this honourable court as they confess to have done, without putting other parties, including the 2nd respondent in copy/notice of same.
“The 1 and 3nd respondents (INEC and the APC) were not present at the proceedings in the US and they never had the opportunity of examining or cross-examining the witness whose deposition and record of proceedings, the appellants seek to tender herein.”
Why Supreme Court can’t accept Atiku’s fresh evidence – Tinubu, Senate leader
(NATION)
![]()
News
US Imposes 12.5% Tariff on Nigerian Imports Over Forced Labour Claims
US Imposes 12.5% Tariff on Nigerian Imports Over Forced Labour Claims
The United States has imposed a 12.5 per cent tariff on imports from Nigeria as part of a new trade measure targeting 60 economies it says have failed to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labour.
The measure, announced on Thursday, July 23, 2026, by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), affects imports from 60 economies that Washington says have not “imposed and effectively enforced a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labour”. Nigeria is among the countries subject to the higher 12.5 per cent tariff rate, while some nations that have adopted or committed to implement bans on imports linked to forced labour will face a lower 10 per cent rate. The move follows investigations launched by the USTR in May 2026 under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into 60 of the United States’ largest trading partners. According to the agency, it received more than 1,600 written submissions, held public hearings involving over 100 witnesses, and consulted more than 45 governments before announcing the tariffs.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the action was aimed at encouraging trading partners to strengthen measures against forced labour. “President Trump recognises that decades of moral suasion have not eradicated forced labour from global supply chains. The United States has had a forced labour import ban for nearly a century. It’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” Greer stated. Explaining the tariff structure, the USTR stated that 10 per cent is the appropriate rate for investigated economies that impose a forced labour import prohibition, have committed to impose such a prohibition through an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, or have imposed a partial regime preventing the importation of certain forced labour goods. These economies include Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United Kingdom. The 12.5 per cent tariff applies to all other investigated economies, including Nigeria, Algeria, Angola, Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, Japan, Morocco, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Vietnam, among others. A full list published by Punch Newspapers shows that Nigeria is grouped with 46 other economies facing the higher tariff rate.
READ ALSO:
- Dollar to Naira Exchange Rate Today: Naira Holds Steady as Fuel Importer Demand Mounts
- Senate Bill Requiring Social Media Offices in Nigeria Gains Stakeholder Support at Public Hearing
- Army Declares Soldier Wanted Over Alleged Sale of Military Uniforms to Terrorists
A Federal Register notice issued by the USTR specifically confirmed that Nigeria would be subject to the 12.5 per cent tariff on its exports to the United States, except for products covered under listed exemptions. The notice stated: “Based on the findings in the investigation of Nigeria, considering the public comments, testimony, and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, as well as the advice of advisory committees, and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative has determined to impose 12.5 percent tariffs on products of Nigeria, except as provided in Annex I and Annex II, Part A, of this Notice.” The notice added that the Trade Representative determined that the tariff rate and scope of exemptions are appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, and practices determined to be actionable in the investigation.
The USTR clarified that certain categories of products would be exempted from the tariffs. These include raw materials whose restriction could trigger domestic supply shortages, goods capable of causing widespread economic disruption, products unavailable in sufficient quantities within the United States or from alternative suppliers, as well as selected imports from countries that have adopted or committed to enforcing bans on forced labour-related goods. Additional exemptions apply where the tariffs are not considered effective in addressing the trade practices identified during the investigations.
The new tariff regime comes after President Donald Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to introduce a temporary universal tariff on imports following a US Supreme Court decision that blocked his administration’s broader tariff programme under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Trump administration subsequently raised the rate to 15 per cent, with the temporary measure due to expire on Friday. For countries like Nigeria, the 12.5 per cent tariff comes on top of the existing 10 per cent baseline duty introduced under President Trump’s reciprocal trade framework, effectively raising total tariffs on Nigerian exports to the United States to 27.5 per cent.
The development comes as Nigeria continues efforts to expand non-oil exports and strengthen trade relations with major economies. If implemented, the additional tariff could make it more expensive for affected countries to sell products into one of the world’s largest consumer markets, raising concerns about trade competitiveness and export earnings. The USTR said the measure was aimed at levelling the playing field, arguing that countries that fail to prevent the import of goods produced with forced labour gain an unfair edge by allowing cheaper products to flood global supply chains. “The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable. This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field,” Greer said. Nigeria already has laws prohibiting forced and compulsory labour, including constitutional protections and anti-trafficking legislation, but enforcement remains a key issue in international assessments. Some US trading partners have already criticised the new tariffs. Japan’s chief government spokesman, Minoru Kihara, said Japan regrets that the measure imposes tariffs on Japan solely on the grounds that there is no ban on the import of products produced through forced labour. Brazil called the measure “completely arbitrary” and accused the USTR of manipulating an issue of great importance to human rights for protectionist purposes.
US Imposes 12.5% Tariff on Nigerian Imports Over Forced Labour Claims
![]()
News
House of Reps Passes State Police Bill with 311 Votes, Moves Nigeria to Decentralised Policing
House of Reps Passes State Police Bill with 311 Votes, Moves Nigeria to Decentralised Policing
- The landmark constitutional amendment bill, transmitted by President Bola Tinubu, seeks to establish state-controlled police services alongside the existing Nigeria Police Force amid minority walkout protest.
In a historic move to restructure Nigeria’s security architecture, the House of Representatives on Thursday overwhelmingly passed the executive bill seeking to establish state police across the federation. No fewer than 311 lawmakers voted in support of the constitutional amendment bill, with Speaker Tajudeen Abbas confirming that 35 members participated virtually while 276 voted physically in the chamber. The legislation, titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to Provide for the Establishment of State Police Services and for Related Matters (HB. 2797),” was approved following the consideration and adoption of the report of the House Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, chaired by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu. The decision followed the Nigerian Senate’s earlier passage of its version of the legislation, bringing the proposed reform closer to becoming law. This comes weeks after the House had separately passed a constitutional amendment bill on state police, during which about 288 lawmakers supported the proposal.
President Bola Tinubu transmitted the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) (State Police) Bill, 2026 to the House of Representatives last week, describing it as a “critical component” of his administration’s strategy to reorganise Nigeria’s security architecture. In his letter to the House, the President stated that the bill builds on the significant work already done by the National Assembly and incorporates additional safeguards to ensure the effective implementation of a dual policing structure. Upon receiving the executive proposal, the House rescinded its earlier resolution of June 11, 2026, on the establishment of state police and dissolved the 12-member Conference Committee it had constituted on July 9, 2026. The decision allowed lawmakers to proceed with the executive-backed version of the constitutional amendment.
READ ALSO:
- BREAKING: 68 Passengers Escape Death as Enugu Air Crash-Lands at Benin Airport
- Ibadan Council Boss Demolishes Criminal Hideout in Apata
- Fashola: I Have Tinubu’s Ears, Can’t Advise Him on Television
The proposed legislation seeks to amend Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution to formally establish both Federal Police and State Police formations across the country. Under the proposal, the National Assembly will determine the structure, organisation, administration, and powers of the Federal Police, while also providing the legal framework and national standards for establishing state police services. The bill provides that no state police force can begin operations unless it is established through a law passed by the relevant State House of Assembly and certified as meeting the minimum national standards prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. Until then, the Federal Police will continue to perform policing duties in any state without an operational state police service. The legislation also limits the circumstances under which the Federal Police can intervene in a state’s internal security matters. Such intervention would only be permitted in cases of a complete breakdown of law and order, at the request of a state governor, or where a state police force becomes unable to function because of administrative, financial, or other challenges.
The bill proposes significant changes to the appointment and command structure of the police. Under the amendment, the Inspector-General of Police would be appointed by the President on the advice of the Nigeria Police Council from among serving members of the Federal Police, subject to confirmation by the National Assembly. State Commissioners of Police would be appointed by governors on the advice of the National Police Council from among serving members of the State Police, subject to confirmation by their respective State Houses of Assembly. The proposal also empowers governors to issue lawful directives to State Commissioners of Police on matters relating to public safety and maintaining law and order. However, where a commissioner believes such directives are unlawful or inconsistent with accepted policing standards, the matter may be referred to the National Police Council, whose decision would be final. To address concerns over possible abuse of state police by political authorities, lawmakers incorporated safeguards to protect civil liberties and political freedoms. One provision states that a state Commissioner of Police shall not arrest, detain, investigate, or deploy force against any individual, political party, or group merely for criticising a government, except in accordance with the law.
Despite the overwhelming support for the bill, the Minority Caucus in the House of Representatives staged a walkout from the chamber in protest, accusing the House leadership of violating constitutional provisions and the chamber’s Standing Orders during the passage. Addressing journalists shortly after leaving the chamber, the Minority Leader, Fredrick Agbedi, insisted that their action was not borne out of opposition to state police but against what they described as the abuse of parliamentary procedures. The caucus argued that the Speaker, while presiding as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, ignored clear constitutional requirements governing the alteration of the Constitution. “Constitutional amendment bills must be considered clause by clause, with each provision supported by a two-thirds majority of members as stipulated in both the Constitution and the House Standing Orders,” Agbedi said. He faulted the decision to merely read the long title of the bill and determine its passage through a voice vote without detailed consideration of each clause. Defending his handling of the proceedings, Speaker Abbas said the constitutional threshold required for the amendment had already been met, noting that 276 members signed the attendance register in support while 35 more voted online, bringing the total to 311 lawmakers in support—well above the two-thirds requirement of 240 members.
Following the House’s passage, the bill will now require concurrence with the Senate, which had already passed its own version earlier. Both chambers of the National Assembly are working in close collaboration to fast-track the constitutional amendment process. The harmonised bill must then secure the endorsement of at least two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly (24 out of 36 states) before it can be transmitted to the President for assent to become part of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The push for state police has continued to receive support from several state governments. On Wednesday, Kano State Governor Abba Yusuf declared that Kano was ready for the establishment of state police, describing the initiative as critical to improving security and protecting lives and property. “The proposed State Police will complement, not compete with, the Nigeria Police Force. Both institutions share the responsibility of protecting lives and property and maintaining law and order,” Yusuf said. He added, “Kano State has the institutional capacity, human resources, and political will to establish and sustain State Police when the necessary constitutional frameworks are in place.” The governor also pledged his administration’s support for efforts to strengthen Nigeria’s security system, saying, “We will support every legitimate initiative that strengthens Nigeria’s security architecture and creates a safer environment for citizens.”
House of Reps Passes State Police Bill with 311 Votes, Moves Nigeria to Decentralised Policing
![]()
News
Nigerian researcher develops AI system to transform marine conservation, fisheries management
Nigerian researcher develops AI system to transform marine conservation, fisheries management
A Nigerian researcher, Dolapo Salim Olatoye, is attracting international attention with his groundbreaking work that combines Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ecology to develop smart monitoring systems capable of transforming marine conservation, fisheries management and biodiversity protection in Nigeria and across West Africa.
Olatoye, currently pursuing a fully funded PhD at the University of Pisa, Italy, said his research focused on developing computer vision and remote-sensing technologies that could enable scientists to automatically monitor marine ecosystems using underwater cameras, satellite imagery and sensor data.
His research, which forms part of two European Union Horizon-funded projects, comes at a time when governments and technology companies worldwide are increasingly deploying AI to tackle environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.
According to him, the systems he is developing use advanced object-detection and ensemble computer vision models to identify marine species automatically, making ecological monitoring faster, more accurate and scalable than traditional manual survey methods.
He noted that while many ecological AI tools are designed by computer scientists with little biological field experience, his approach bridges both disciplines through years of practical fisheries and marine fieldwork in Nigeria and Italy, alongside hands-on expertise in deep-learning engineering.
“I build the detection models myself and deploy them as working software rather than research demonstrations,” Olatoye explained, adding that the goal is to create practical tools that close the gap between field science and engineering.
The researcher began his academic journey at the Federal University Oye-Ekiti, where he studied Fisheries and Aquaculture and graduated as the best student in his department during the 2018/2019 academic session.
READ ALSO:
- Nigeria Takes Centre Stage at UN Road Safety Summit as Tinubu Delegates FRSC Corps Marshal
- FG begins JAMB registration for NCE, non-tech agricultural programmes without UTME
His outstanding academic performance earned him a fully funded Master’s scholarship at the University of Salento, Italy, where he graduated with a perfect score before securing another fully funded doctoral scholarship at the University of Pisa, one of Italy’s leading research institutions.
Beyond Europe, Olatoye believes his work holds enormous promise for Nigeria.
With an 853-kilometre coastline along the Gulf of Guinea and some of West Africa’s richest marine resources, Nigeria still meets only about 30 per cent of its annual fish demand through local production.
Experts believe improved scientific monitoring of marine ecosystems could significantly strengthen fisheries management, support conservation efforts and enhance food security.
Nigeria is also among eight Gulf of Guinea nations that signed the Yaoundé Declaration, committing to the sustainable management of ocean resources. The Federal Government has equally identified agriculture as a priority sector under its National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, creating opportunities for AI-driven solutions in fisheries and environmental management.
Olatoye said the technologies being developed for marine ecosystem monitoring align closely with these national priorities and could eventually be adapted for use by Nigerian fisheries and conservation agencies.
His work also reflects a growing global movement where leading technology companies are investing heavily in AI-powered biodiversity monitoring.
Google Research has developed SpeciesNet, an AI platform that has processed more than one billion wildlife images and audio recordings from 11 countries to identify animal species automatically.
Similarly, Microsoft’s AI for Good Lab recently unveiled Project SPARROW, a solar-powered bioacoustic monitoring system designed to track biodiversity in real time.
According to Olatoye, these initiatives demonstrate that AI is no longer being used merely to automate data collection but to revolutionise how scientists understand and protect ecosystems.
As part of his commitment to open science, Olatoye is also developing EcoQuad, a software platform emerging from his research.
The tool has already been adopted as instructional material for teaching at the University of Pisa and is designed to be openly accessible, allowing researchers and institutions to adapt it to local needs.
He expressed the hope that Nigerian and West African scientists would not have to depend entirely on imported technologies but would instead develop and customise world-class AI tools locally.
“My ambition is to build open, reproducible monitoring systems that meet the same standards as those developed by leading research groups in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada,” he said.
He added that by making such tools accessible, researchers across Africa would be better positioned to participate fully in the global scientific community while addressing local environmental and food security challenges through home-grown innovation.

Nigerian researcher develops AI system to transform marine conservation, fisheries management
![]()
-
metro2 days agoHow to apply for FG’s YouthCred loan and qualify for up to ₦2 million
-
News2 days agoNACOMYO urges greater Muslim youth participation in politics at Lagos summit
-
Politics2 days agoOndo Speaker given Sunday deadline to resign or face impeachment
-
Opinion2 days agoUI, UCH and the Question of Inclusive Leadership
-
Politics3 days ago2027: North-Central group backs Tinubu for second term, says re-election ‘done deal’
-
Education3 days agoHigh graduation fees spark outrage among parents, guardians
-
News2 days agoKalu denies ₦1bn church budget claim, says actual allocation is ₦780m
-
Politics3 days agoAtiku’s lobbying firm sends Tinubu’s forfeiture records to US Congress
