Why Supreme Court can’t accept Atiku’s fresh evidence – Tinubu, Senate leader - Newstrends
Connect with us

News

Why Supreme Court can’t accept Atiku’s fresh evidence – Tinubu, Senate leader

Published

3 years ago

on

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:

“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:

“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:

“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:

“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)

Loading

Related Topics:
Advertisement

News

NAF Tracks 46 Abducted Pupils, Teachers in Oyo as Tinubu Deploys Special Rescue Unit

Published

5 hours ago

on

June 8, 2026

By

NAF Tracks 46 Abducted Pupils, Teachers in Oyo as Tinubu Deploys Special Rescue Unit

NAF Tracks 46 Abducted Pupils, Teachers in Oyo as Tinubu Deploys Special Rescue Unit

OYO STATE – The Nigerian Air Force has continued aerial surveillance support in efforts to rescue abducted pupils and teachers taken from Yawota and Ahoro-Esinele communities in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State. According to a statement by NAF spokesman Air Commodore Ehimen Ejodame, the development was confirmed during a courtesy visit by representatives of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Sunday Kelvin Aneke, and the Air Officer Commanding Logistics Command, Air Vice Marshal Abubakar Suleh. The visit underscored the Air Force’s commitment to collaborating with state authorities in addressing the security crisis that has left 46 people – including 39 pupils and seven teachers – in captivity since May 15, 2026.

Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, said the Air Force deployed an aerial surveillance platform immediately after the abduction was reported, providing critical intelligence to support search-and-rescue operations. According to the governor, the intelligence generated from the surveillance missions has continued to assist security agencies in tracking developments and coordinating efforts to secure the victims’ release. The governor noted that the intervention came at a critical time, as Oyo State’s newly acquired aerial security assets are yet to become operational. He explained that the surveillance aircraft was made available while the state’s newly procured aircraft are still being assembled at the NAF Base in Lagos. Makinde further explained that the state acquired the aerial platforms following consultations with the Nigerian Air Force to ensure access to maintenance support, engineering expertise, and pilot training, expressing confidence that the assets would significantly enhance security operations across Oyo State and neighbouring states once fully operational.

Speaking on behalf of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Vice Marshal Suleh reaffirmed the Air Force’s commitment to supporting rescue operations and working with other security agencies to ensure the safe return of the abducted victims. He conveyed the NAF’s solidarity with the government and people of Oyo State and praised the state government’s support for Air Force projects and infrastructure development within the state. He stressed that the Air Force would continue to work closely with other security agencies and relevant stakeholders to safeguard lives and property while addressing security challenges across the country. The NAF has urged residents to remain patient and supportive, assuring that coordinated resources are being deployed to resolve the situation.

READ ALSO:

The pupils and teachers of Baptist Nursery and Primary School (Yawota) , Community Grammar School (Esiele) , and L.A. Primary School were abducted on May 15, 2026, during an attack by armed bandits. The attackers reportedly seized 39 pupils and seven teachers, bringing the total number of victims to 46. The abduction has been marked by tragedy. A teacher, Mr. Michael Oyedokun, a Mathematics teacher at Community High School, Ahoro-Esinele, was killed while in captivity – reportedly beheaded by the abductors, with a video of the killing circulating online. Another school official, an Assistant Headmaster identified as Mr. Adesiyan, was also killed during the initial attack, along with a yet-to-be-identified motorcycle rider. Some teachers were reportedly shot or injured during the raid.

Security operatives attempting to rescue the victims have encountered significant challenges, including improvised explosive devices (IEDs) reportedly planted by the kidnappers. Some security personnel were injured in these explosions, underscoring the sophistication of the criminal network behind the attack. The presence of IEDs suggests the abductors may have links to better-resourced criminal or insurgent groups operating in the region.

Following the abduction, President Bola Tinubu approved the deployment of a specialised tactical security unit to launch a fresh rescue operation and ensure the victims are returned safely. The President, in a statement on June 1, 2026, said security agencies have been instructed to sustain intelligence-driven operations and deploy all lawful resources necessary to bring the abducted pupils and teachers home safely. President Tinubu also approved the immediate recruitment of 1,000 local forest guards in collaboration with the Oyo State Government to strengthen security in vulnerable communities and secure the state’s forest corridors often exploited by criminal elements. The forest guards will be sourced locally from the communities to improve surveillance and intelligence gathering within the vast forest corridors.

A high-powered Federal Government delegation, led by Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila, visited the affected Esiele and Yawota communities to assess the situation and comfort the families of the victims. The delegation included top security chiefs: National Security Adviser Malam Nuhu Ribadu, Chief of Defence Staff General Christopher Musa, Inspector-General of Police Tunji Disu, and the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare. The delegation assured anxious residents that the President is deeply troubled by the incident and that all necessary resources are being deployed.

The incident triggered protests by teachers and civil society groups in Ibadan, calling for urgent rescue action. Members of the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) in Oyo State protested on May 30, carrying placards and chanting “Bring Back Our Children,” warning that the prolonged captivity of the victims had deepened fears over the safety of schools across the state. The NUT also declared an indefinite strike in Oyo State to protest the security breach and demand faster action from authorities. Similarly, members of the National Association of Nigeria Students (NANS) and Civil Society Organisations marched across Bodija, Mokola, Iwo Road, and the state Secretariat in Agodi, Ibadan, demanding immediate release of the abductees. Student leader Mr. Moses Olawole decried the government’s delayed actions, stating that with decisive action, the situation wouldn’t have lasted about three weeks, warning that students would march to Aso Rock, Abuja, for a national protest by June 8 if the government failed to free the abductees. The House of Representatives has also urged federal authorities and security agencies to ensure the victims are returned safely.

READ ALSO:

Addressing protesters on June 2 in Ibadan, Governor Makinde appealed to Nigerians to stop apportioning blame over the abduction and instead support government efforts to ensure the speedy release of the victims. He disclosed that federal security operatives have been in the state for the past two weeks and that he meets with them at least three times daily to review rescue efforts. “This is not the time to trade blames that it’s the President that should have handled this or the governor or the local government chairman. This is the time to pull together as one, because we are not dealing with normal human beings. The bandits are not normal people,” Makinde said. The governor recalled that his father taught at Ahoro Dada Primary School in 1959/60, very close to where the abduction took place, stating: “I wouldn’t have been born if such incident happened to him while teaching there.” He appealed to residents of the affected communities and the state at large to remain patient and support ongoing security operations, assuring them that all necessary resources were being deployed to ensure the successful resolution of the incident, and warned against actions that could deepen divisions, saying “we shouldn’t provide oxygen to people that want to see us divided.”

The successful rescue of Mrs. Olaide Busayo Adegoke John-Paul (sister of former Minister of Power, Chief Bayo Adelabu) and her twin sons on June 6 has sparked renewed public demands for the speedy recovery of the Oriire schoolchildren and teachers. Many Nigerians on social media have questioned why the same level of operational success had yet to be recorded in the Oriire case, urging authorities not to relent until every abducted child and teacher regains freedom. Mrs. Olufunmilayo Adelabu, mother of the former minister, also spoke about the Oriire victims, revealing that she wept bitterly when she saw the abducted schoolchildren on her phone, only for her own daughter and grandsons to be kidnapped the following day. She prayed for the release of the Oriire victims, saying: “The God who freed my children from bondage will free others too. None of them will die there. They will all come home safely.”

The abduction has renewed concerns over the safety of schools in southwestern Nigeria, a region previously less affected by such大规模 school kidnappings. Security analyst Cheta Nwanze described the abductions as a troubling development, warning that the spread of school kidnappings into Nigeria’s South-West represents a dangerous escalation of insecurity and demonstrates how criminal networks previously concentrated in the North-West and North-East are increasingly extending operations into other regions. The Nigerian Air Force reiterated its commitment to collaborating with other security agencies to ensure the safe return of the abducted teachers and pupils and tackle emerging security threats across the country.

NAF Tracks 46 Abducted Pupils, Teachers in Oyo as Tinubu Deploys Special Rescue Unit

Loading

Continue Reading

News

MURIC Denounces Joint Statement With Fulani Group, Clarifies Identity Confusion With AMURIC

Published

2 days ago

on

June 6, 2026

By

MURIC Denounces Joint Statement With Fulani Group, Clarifies Identity Confusion With AMURIC
Saudi-based Nigerian Islamic scholar and MURIC's Secretary, Oyo State Branch, Mallam Ibrahim Agunbiade

MURIC Denounces Joint Statement With Fulani Group, Clarifies Identity Confusion With AMURIC

The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) has issued an urgent clarification distancing itself from a joint statement released on Friday, June 5, 2026, in conjunction with a Fulani group, explaining that the statement actually came from another Islamic organization with a confusingly similar name: AMURIC (Amalgamated Muslim Rights Concern).

In a press statement signed by Mallam Ibrahim Agunbiade, Secretary of MURIC’s Oyo State Chapter, on Saturday, June 6, 2026, the group informed the public that there exists another Islamic body called AMURIC, which was responsible for the joint statement. “We wish to explain further that it was AMURIC that issued a statement in conjunction with a Fulani group yesterday, not MURIC,” the statement read.

While clarifying the identity mix-up, MURIC affirmed that like every other ethnic group in Nigeria, the Yoruba people have the inalienable right to defend themselves against bandits and terrorists. The group stated that Yoruba leaders of all persuasions have the right to mobilise the youth towards achieving this objective. This affirmation comes amid growing concerns over insecurity in the South-West region, where incidents of banditry, kidnapping, and terrorist infiltration have prompted calls for local vigilance and self-defence measures.

MURIC acknowledged that AMURIC is a sister Islamic organization made up of respected Muslim brothers and sisters, but advised the leadership of the group to make such changes in its name as to easily differentiate between it and MURIC. “We therefore call on those behind AMURIC to adopt a distinctly different name that will not create confusion with MURIC or mislead the public regarding the source of statements issued by either organization,” the statement added. MURIC explained that it would be difficult for it to change its own name because it has been using the same name since its formation in 1994. The group noted that it was this same name that was registered by the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) , suggesting that it may be difficult for the authorities to register AMURIC.

READ ALSO:

The clarification became necessary, MURIC explained, because the organization has a difference of opinion from the position taken by AMURIC in its press statement of Friday, June 5, 2026. In particular, MURIC stated that it does not see the need for bringing the names of respected Yoruba leaders like Chief Sunday Igboho, Chief Ayodele Fayose (former Ekiti State Governor), and Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State into the narrative.

Although it described itself as a national organisation, MURIC expressed its belief that bandits who make inroads into Yorubaland should be severely dealt with by both the security agencies and the civilians themselves. The group specifically mentioned that this should be done under the auspices of vigilante groups like Amotekun, Oduduwa People’s Congress (OPC) , Iru Ekun, and others. MURIC concluded by reiterating that it was AMURIC that issued Friday’s statement in connivance with a Fulani group, not MURIC, and that the organization knew nothing about it. The clarification comes amid heightened tensions over security in the South-West region, where concerns about banditry and terrorist incursions have prompted calls for local vigilance and self-defence measures.

MURIC Denounces Joint Statement With Fulani Group, Clarifies Identity Confusion With AMURIC

Loading

Continue Reading

News

Oyo Kidnappers Demand Release of Ansaru Terrorist Commanders in Exchange for Schoolchildren

Published

2 days ago

on

June 6, 2026

By

Oyo Kidnappers Demand Release of Ansaru Terrorist Commanders in Exchange for Schoolchildren
Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Rilwan Disu

Oyo Kidnappers Demand Release of Ansaru Terrorist Commanders in Exchange for Schoolchildren

OYO STATE, Nigeria – The armed group responsible for the abduction of students and teachers from three schools in the Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State has made a chilling and unconventional demand: the release of high-profile Ansaru terrorist commanders currently in government custody, rather than a conventional ransom. The kidnappers, who targeted schools in the Esinele, Yawota, and Alawusa communities on May 15, 2026, allegedly requested the release of imprisoned terrorist leaders, a ransom payment, two Hilux trucks, and the enforcement of Sharia law prior to releasing the hostages. The attack resulted in the abduction of 46 people — seven teachers and 39 students and pupils — according to a full list of victims published by local media. One teacher, Mr. Michael Oyedokun, was brutally beheaded by the abductors in a gruesome act that has sent shockwaves across the nation. The coordinated attack occurred simultaneously with another school abduction in Borno State, where suspected terrorists abducted schoolchildren from Mussa Primary and Junior Secondary School in Askira Uba, marking an unprecedented escalation in the country’s security crisis.

The Federal Government now finds itself caught between its determination to secure the victims’ freedom and its reluctance to release captured commanders back into circulation, where they could regroup and resume attacks. According to a Presidency source who spoke on condition of anonymity, the Oyo and Borno school abductions were deliberately coordinated and timed to maximize pressure on the government and strengthen the terrorists’ bargaining position. “In the Oyo kidnapping, the terrorists did a coordinated attack with that of Borno because they want to use it as a negotiation,” the source explained. “They are pressing for a swap with some high-profile terrorists who are in government custody. These are some of their leaders who were arrested.” The government has maintained that the safe return of every child and every teacher remains a top national priority. Speaking at a special national security media briefing themed “Unite Against Terror,” the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, stated that President Bola Tinubu has directed security agencies to deploy all lawful means to secure the release of those in captivity. “The President has made it clear that no child belongs in captivity and that no effort will be spared in ensuring that those responsible for these heinous crimes are brought to justice,” Idris said.

READ ALSO:

Chronicle NG gathered that two of the terrorists being demanded for release are Mahmud Usman, also known as Abu Bara’a or Abbas Mukhtar, and his deputy, Abubakar Abba, alias Isah Adam or Mahmud al-Nigeri, who is also known as Mallam Mamuda. Mahmud Usman is from the Okene Local Government Area of Kogi State, while Mahmud al-Nigeri is from Daura, Katsina State — the home state of former President Muhammadu Buhari. The two men are leaders of the Jama’atu Ansarul Muslimeena Fii Bilaadis Sudan (JAMBS/Ansaru) , a breakaway offshoot of Boko Haram that has established links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network. They are accused of assisting and abetting terrorist operations in the country between 2013 and 2015, a period that saw some of the deadliest attacks in Nigeria’s northeast. The suspects were captured between May and July 2025 after high-risk, intelligence-led operations announced by National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu on August 16, 2025. They are currently on trial for terrorism in a suit filed on September 4, 2025, under case number FHC/ABJ/CR/464/2025. The trial of the suspects began on January 15, 2026, before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja. Mahmud Usman had previously been sentenced to 15 years in prison on September 11, 2025, after pleading guilty to one count of engaging in illegal mining activities and using the proceeds to acquire arms for terrorism, though he denied other allegations. The case against him and his deputy includes charges of terrorism financing, membership in a proscribed organization, and conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. When asked why the government kept the terrorist leaders in custody despite the horrors they were accused of committing, one of the senior security officers engaged in the trial stated: “We did not kill the terrorist leaders immediately when they were caught. We have a justice system and court process which must be followed.” This adherence to due process, while commendable from a legal standpoint, has now created negotiating leverage for the abductors.

The difficult terrain has also hindered rescue efforts. The abductors are believed to have come from the Kainji National Park area in Niger State, an expansive forest that straddles Niger, Kwara, and parts of the Republic of Benin. The heavily forested and unfamiliar terrain in Oyo State has made any potential military operation highly sensitive and fraught with risk. “The area is highly forested and unfamiliar,” an official told reporters. “The issue is the sensitivity of any hostage situation. It is a major problem because a successful hostage rescue where you have all the hostages alive is very difficult. You don’t want to risk the lives of the children and the teachers in the process.” Security analysts have offered differing views on how the Federal Government should respond to the terrorists’ demands. A retired Brigadier-General, Bashir Adewinbi, urged caution, warning that yielding to ransom demands empowers terrorists. “Anytime you give terrorists cash, you are creating insecurity because you are empowering them. They will use the money to recruit more fighters, expand their operations and commit more harm.” However, Kabiru Adamu, CEO of Beacon Security and Intelligence Limited, advised the government to undertake a detailed risk assessment before deciding whether to accept or reject the demands. “If accepting their demand poses a very low risk to Nigeria as a country, we can go ahead and accept it. If, on the other hand, accepting their demand poses a high risk to Nigeria… this is the kind of risk assessment that should be conducted.” Maj. Gen. Segun Fatola (retd.) argued that Nigeria should adopt tougher measures, stating that terrorism should be treated as an act of war rather than a criminal enterprise, and that negotiating with terrorists would not solve the problem.

READ ALSO:

Following the attack, Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Rilwan Disu, visited the affected communities in Oriire Local Government Area and met with the Commissioner of Police of the Oyo State Command, Abimbola Ayodeji Olugbenga, alongside other security stakeholders. The IGP received detailed operational briefings on ongoing rescue efforts and assured residents that the Nigeria Police Force, in collaboration with other security agencies, has intensified a well-coordinated search-and-rescue operation involving additional tactical and intelligence assets. Accompanying the IGP were the Commissioner of Police, Kwara State Command, Ojo Adekimi, due to the strategic proximity of the Oriire axis to border communities in Kwara State, as well as the Commissioner of Police, Schools Protection Squad, Abayomi Shogunle. The IGP’s visit was seen as a significant show of force and commitment, but questions remain about the operational capacity to conduct a successful rescue in such challenging terrain.

Chronicle NG reports that the Muslim community in Oyo State has condemned the Sharia-related demands reportedly made by terrorists holding teachers and pupils abducted from schools in the Oriire Local Government Area, declaring that the criminals do not represent Islam or Muslims. The position came as public and private schools across Oyo State’s 33 local government areas shut down in solidarity with the abducted victims. The National Association of Proprietors of Private Schools (NAPPS) directed all member schools in Ibadan District to close on Friday, June 5, 2026, “as a mark of solidarity and for prayers for the victims’ safe release and the protection of all schools.” In a statement issued on Friday and jointly signed by its chairman, Alhaji Ishaq Sanvni, and secretary-general, Alhaji Murisiku Siyanbade, the Muslim community in Oyo State described the terrorists’ action as criminal and a negation of Islamic teachings. The group stated that attempts by the abductors to justify their actions through religious rhetoric amounted to a distortion of Islam. “Islam forbids kidnapping, terrorism and the extortion of innocent citizens. Legitimate Sharia promotes justice, peace and the sanctity of human life, values that stand in direct opposition to the activities of criminal groups,” the statement partly read. Quoting Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Holy Qur’an, which states that “whosoever kills a soul… it is as if he had slain mankind entirely,” the community stressed that Islam places a high premium on the protection of human life and urged security agencies to intensify efforts to rescue those in captivity. The Muslim community, under the aegis of the Chief Imam of Ibadanland and Grand Chief Imam of Oyo State, Sheikh Al-Imam Abdul-Ganiyy Abubakar Agbotomokekere, also announced a special prayer for the speedy and safe return of abductees, scheduled for Sunday at Yidi Agodi Praying Ground, Ibadan. Thousands of Muslims are expected to gather to pray for the safe release of the captives.

READ ALSO:

A traditional ruler in one of the affected communities, the Eleshi of Esiele, Oba Tajudeen Abioye, appealed to both the Federal and Oyo State governments to do everything possible to secure the release of the abducted teachers and pupils. According to the monarch, the communities are aware that the abductors have made demands, but they lack the capacity to handle the situation on their own. “We are ordinary villagers. We do not have the resources or the firepower to confront these heavily armed men,” the Oba was quoted as saying. He urged the government not to relent until every captive is rescued safely, warning that failure to act decisively could lead to more attacks on schools in the region. The traditional ruler also called on the government to deploy more security personnel to the border communities between Oyo and Kwara states, which he described as porous and vulnerable to terrorist infiltration.

According to a full list of victims published by local media, the 46 abducted individuals include seven teachers and 39 students and pupils drawn from the three affected schools. The victims range in age from young children in primary school to teenagers in secondary school. The names of the victims have been withheld by authorities to protect their privacy and avoid jeopardizing ongoing rescue efforts. The abducted teacher, Mr. Michael Oyedokun, who was beheaded by the terrorists, was a beloved educator described by colleagues as dedicated, patient, and deeply committed to his students. His death has cast a pall over the entire community, with residents describing the killing as senseless and barbaric. The attack has also had a significant economic impact on the Oriire LGA, with many businesses closed and parents too afraid to send their children to school. The state government has deployed trauma counselors to the affected communities to provide psychological support to families and survivors.

The United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Nigeria, Mohamed Malick Fall, has called for the immediate and safe release of the schoolchildren and teachers, describing the incidents as a grave threat to education and child protection. “The UN Resident Coordinator is deeply saddened that these school children and their teachers are still being held by armed groups. Schools must remain safe havens for learning and not places of fear. Children should never be a target,” Fall said in a statement. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) also condemned the abductions, calling them a violation of international law and a direct attack on the right to education. The international community has offered support to Nigerian security agencies, though the nature and extent of that support remain unclear.

As of the latest reports, the case remains unresolved. The government is in a holding pattern, unwilling to negotiate yet equally hesitant to mount an assault that could lead to casualties among the children. The terrorists are reportedly using the growing public outcry and protests to pressure the government into conceding to their demands. The Federal Government has authorized the recruitment of 1,000 forest guards to strengthen security presence across vulnerable communities and forests within Oyo State, but this is a medium-term solution at best. For the families of the 46 captives, every hour feels like an eternity, and only time will tell whether the government can secure their release without compromising national security. Special prayers are scheduled for Sunday at Yidi Agodi Praying Ground, Ibadan, where thousands of Muslims will gather to pray for the safe return of the abductees. People of other faiths have also been urged to pray and offer support to the affected families.

For readers seeking a quick summary of the key details, the following information has been confirmed. The attack occurred on May 15, 2026, in Oriire LGA, Oyo State, targeting three schools in the Esinele, Yawota, and Alawusa communities. A total of 46 people — seven teachers and 39 students and pupils — were abducted. One teacher, Mr. Michael Oyedokun, was beheaded by the abductors. The kidnappers are demanding the release of Ansaru commanders Mahmud Usman and Mahmud al-Nigeri, along with a ransom payment, two Hilux vehicles, and the enforcement of Sharia law in Oyo State. The Muslim community in Oyo State has rejected the Sharia demand, declaring that the terrorists do not represent Islam. The IGP has visited the affected communities and intensified rescue operations. A special prayer for the captives is scheduled for Sunday at Yidi Agodi Praying Ground, Ibadan. The United Nations has called for the safe release of the hostages.

Oyo Kidnappers Demand Release of Ansaru Terrorist Commanders in Exchange for Schoolchildren

Loading

Continue Reading

Trending