By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

The beginning of the campaign season for Nigeria’s presidential election in 1979 was dramatic. Michael Ani, then chairman of the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO), ushered in the season by announcing the disqualification of two of the five presidential candidates.

Nnamdi Azikiwe of the Nigerian Peoples’ Party (NPP), and Aminu Kano of the People’s Redemption Party (PRP), he said, were disqualified because of irregularities in their tax returns. Both men, Ani continued, “are not fit to run the country.”

While their peers and competitors in the other parties were off campaigning, Nnamdi Azikiwe and Aminu Kano detoured to the courts to determine their eligibility to be on the ballot.

The judicial verdict in favour of Azikiwe’s candidacy came down in the penultimate week of July 1979, a mere three weeks to the scheduled vote on 11 August. The decision permitting Aminu Kano to be on the ballot came down on 1 August 1979, with just 10 days to spare.

The uncertainty about whether either candidate would be on the ballot all but doomed the ambitions of Azikiwe and Aminu Kano in 1979. It was the first proof that courts were significant actors in determining the destination of the ultimate political prize in Nigeria.

As Nigeria enters yet another presidential campaign season, the nature of both political campaigns and the judicial role in them has very much evolved since 1979. The digital ecosystem has become a major site and market for political campaigns. For the first time, Artificial Intelligence will be a major factor in the 2026/27 campaign season.

Despite these new and exciting developments, the most significant evolution in political campaigns in Nigeria in the nearly five decades since 1979 is that the judiciary has become both a major public for political campaigns and the ultimate determinant of the destination of political power.

Democracy may be about choices and decisions by citizens in theory. As practised in Nigeria, however, citizens are mostly spectators. They do not decide winners and losers. Nigeria’s judges alone have the final votes. Politicians who do not play to the judicial gallery in Nigeria find that they do not have a snowball’s chance in hell of sniffing a path to office or power.

How so? It used to be that every election cycle comprised two seasons: pre-election and post-election season. In 2007, the Supreme Court effectively up-ended this dichotomy.

In the party primaries to select its candidate ahead of the governorship election in Rivers State in that year, Rotimi Amaechi, the Speaker of the State House of Assembly, emerged winner. However, the party hierarchy in Abuja led by the president, Olusegun Obasanjo, chose to disregard the outcome and substituted him with a defeated aspirant, Celestine Omehia.

On 26 January 2007, Amaechi sued. While his case worked its way up the hierarchy of the courts, the country went to vote. When the vote took place, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, declared Celestine Omehia of the PDP the winner of the governorship ballot in Rivers State. On 29 May 2007, he took his oath to assume office as the new governor of the State.

Nearly five months later, on 25 October 2007, the Supreme Court decided that the PDP acted unlawfully when they replaced Rotimi Amaechi with an aspirant whom he had defeated in the primaries. Even more consequentially, the court held that when citizens vote in elections, they do not vote for candidates; they vote for parties. Since Amaechi was the rightful candidate of the PDP in the election, the court continued, he was the inheritor of the mandate conferred on Celestine Omehia.

In the immediate term, the court installed as elected a person who was not even on the ballot (admittedly, for reasons not of his own making). But there was an even more far-reaching consequence. The Court collapsed the distinction between pre-election and post-election season. This distinction had served three functions previously.

First, it enabled candidates and the INEC to calibrate the deployment of their assets, budgets, and messaging through the variable contours of the electoral season.

Second, it was understood that pre-election disputes went to the regular courts of the country, and that only election tribunals could decide post-election disputes. This was a very fundamental distinction. A single judge at first instance could decide a pre-election dispute but an election petition tribunal had to be constituted by a minimum of three judges working to very finite timelines.

Third, until the Amaechi case, pre-election disputes were not supposed to determine the votes of the citizens or decide the outcome of the election. If there was a pre-election dispute, it affected the parties and determined the eligibility of the candidates to be on the ballot. By contrast, the post-election season consequences resonated in terms of the outcome of the election. Only duly constituted election petition tribunals could decide that.

The Amaechi case ended the monopoly of election petition tribunals on the capacity to determine the lawfulness of an election outcome.

In 2019, for instance, the Supreme Court decided well after the votes had been cast and counted to retrospectively “waste” the votes credited to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and hand victory in Zamfara State to candidates who had clearly been rejected by the people of the state. In 2023, the Court of Appeal did the same thing in Plateau State. It took the Supreme Court to save the state governor by the skin of his political teeth.

Since the Amaechi case in 2007, therefore, the courts have conflated the political season into one prolonged obstacle course ending not in the ballot box but in courtroom theatre. In turn, this has forced politicians to re-calibrate their attitudes to political staffing, financing, and campaigning.

Every serious politician knows now that it is not enough to have their favorite people in both the INEC and the security services; they must also have their intimates in the highest possible echelons of the judiciary.

Judicial appointments have become so serious that, increasingly, they are now abandoned to politicians and their senior judicial clients alone. The politicians know that they need to be represented in the room when the haggling for the dispositive judicial votes are done.

This also means that the political campaign season is effectively perennial. Every politician in office knows they have to make good with the judiciary. Senior politicians seek to out-do one another in sundry donations to judges from cars to houses; hospital bills; and even dollars for overseas school fees for their children.

Everyone knows that the final call on winners and losers will be made in bargains with and by judges. Niger State Governor, Mohammed Bago, holds the record with over 100 vehicles doled out to judicial officers in one sitting. Every State governor is an active competitor in this Olympiad of judicial charity. FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, takes the prize as Nigeria’s judicial Bob-the-Builder.

It must be more than a coincidence that as INEC flagged off its version of the campaign season at the end of last month, the judiciary in Nigeria was off on its annual vacation. They will be entitled to one more vacation at the end of the year.

In the end, every election cycle in Nigeria is now a never-ending campaign season of four quarters. There is a quarter dedicated to political charity for the judiciary. This can seem perennial. The party-political campaign season interrupts. That season belongs mostly to the parties, the politicians, and godfathers but many judges keep more than a watching brief.

The voting season is brief. It is the season for the security agencies, thugs, and lower-level staff of INEC to make hay. Thereafter, matters shift to the courts for the dispute resolution season, which belongs to the lawyers (mostly Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs) and judges. All four seasons are separate but inter-dependent.

Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a lawyer, teaches at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and can be reached through chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu.

By Isaac Asabor

The recent incident involving a media professional and a representative of the Federal Capital Territory administration has raised important questions about the safety, dignity and independence of broadcasters in Nigeria.

At the heart of the matter is not simply an exchange between an individual broadcaster and a public official.

It is a broader question of how the media should respond when attempts are made to dictate the circumstances under which broadcasters perform their professional duties.

Broadcasters have a responsibility to stand in solidarity with one another when the independence of the press comes under pressure, particularly when attempts to dictate who can question public officials threaten to become accepted practice.

The Independent Broadcasting Association of Nigeria (IBAN), a national body representing private television and radio broadcasters across Nigeria, exists to advance excellence, fairness and innovation in the media industry. Its role underscores the importance of protecting an independent broadcasting sector capable of serving the public without undue interference.

Independent broadcasters are central to Nigeria’s media pluralism. They provide diverse perspectives that reflect the country’s rich mix of cultures, languages and communities. They also create platforms through which grassroots voices can be heard and communities can engage with issues that directly affect their lives. That role makes editorial independence particularly important.

Unlike state-controlled media, independent broadcasters have a responsibility to maintain editorial freedom and local relevance. Their strength lies in their ability to provide space for different perspectives, including views that may sometimes challenge those in positions of authority.

It is against the foregoing background that the incident deserves broader consideration. One of the most troubling aspects of the matter is the apparent attempt to determine which journalist should be allowed to ask questions while an official was being represented. Public officials are accountable to the public, and journalists serve as one of the channels through which citizens demand that accountability.

A public official cannot reasonably expect to determine which journalist or broadcaster rather is qualified to ask questions simply because the questions may be uncomfortable.

Broadcasters may differ in style, experience and approach, but the right to ask legitimate questions should not depend on whether those questions are convenient to the person being interviewed.

Allowing public officials to select only journalists they consider friendly or acceptable would create a dangerous precedent. It could gradually turn press engagements into controlled public-relations exercises rather than opportunities for scrutiny.

That is why broadcasters should regard any attempt to undermine the independence of a colleague as a matter that concerns the wider profession.

Another concern arising from the incident is the apparent shift from addressing substantive questions to criticizing the journalist asking them.

Questions surrounding public land, government resources or the conduct of public officials are matters of legitimate public interest. They deserve clear answers, not personal attacks against the journalist who raises them.

A journalist’s personality, background or perceived disposition should not become a convenient distraction from the issue being investigated.

This does not mean journalists should be immune from criticism. They can, and should, be held accountable where they breach professional standards. But criticism should be based on facts and established journalistic principles, rather than being used as a weapon to intimidate journalists into silence.

When personal attacks become the preferred response to legitimate scrutiny, the larger casualty is public accountability.

Broadcasting is a profession that must defend its boundaries. This is particularly important because the incident comes against a background of recurring friction between government authorities and sections of the broadcast media.

Such disagreements are not unusual. Journalists and public officials will inevitably clash from time to time, particularly when reporters pursue difficult questions. What matters is how both sides respond to those disagreements.

For broadcasters, professionalism must remain paramount. Questions should be fair, relevant and supported by facts. But professionalism should not be confused with submission.

A journalist can be respectful without surrendering independence. A broadcaster can maintain decorum without abandoning difficult questions. And a media organization can cooperate with government institutions without becoming an extension of them.

This is where the importance of independent broadcasting becomes even more evident. Independent broadcasters serve as an essential pillar of Nigeria’s media pluralism because they provide platforms for voices that may otherwise struggle to gain visibility. Their local reach enables them to bring community concerns, public grievances and issues of accountability into national conversations.

If broadcasters are intimidated into avoiding difficult questions, the damage goes beyond individual journalists or individual media organizations. It weakens the diversity of voices available to Nigerians and ultimately limits citizens’ access to information.

Therefore, solidarity among broadcasters should not be interpreted as a demand that journalists be protected from legitimate scrutiny.

Rather, solidarity should mean defending the principle that journalists must be allowed to perform legitimate professional duties without intimidation, humiliation or arbitrary restrictions.

If one journalist is targeted today because of an uncomfortable question, another could face the same treatment tomorrow. Silence in the first instance can therefore become an invitation for the practice to continue.

The Nigerian media has a duty to protect its professional space. That duty is particularly important at a time when public confidence in institutions, accountability and democratic governance remains fragile.

Broadcasters should therefore resist attempts to personalize legitimate journalistic scrutiny. They should insist that disagreements with journalists be addressed through facts, evidence and established professional channels.

The press does not exist to please public officials. Its responsibility is to inform citizens, scrutinize those who exercise public authority and bring issues of public interest into the open.

Independent broadcasting is indispensable to that responsibility. By reflecting the diversity of Nigerian society and providing platforms for grassroots and community voices, independent broadcasters help ensure that public discourse is not controlled by a single authority or viewpoint.

That responsibility becomes meaningless if journalists are allowed to ask questions only when those in power approve of the questions, or approve of the journalists asking them.

The strength of Nigerian broadcasting lies not merely in the number of television and radio stations operating across the country, but in the freedom of those platforms to interrogate power, amplify citizens’ concerns and contribute to an informed society.

Broadcasters should therefore call for solidarity, not because journalists are above criticism, but because the independence of the press is too important to be left vulnerable to intimidation, personal attacks or attempts to dictate who gets to ask the questions.

Solidarity, in this context, is not about protecting individuals from accountability. It is about protecting the professional principle that makes accountability possible in the first place.

By Sumaila Ogbaje

Undoubtedly, the steady flow of illegal weapons is keeping Nigeria’s security crisis alive.

From rural communities to active conflict zones, an underground trafficking network feeds criminal elements, directly enabling widespread terrorism, kidnapping, and banditry.

While security forces confront armed groups and recover weapons, the Federal Government is increasingly looking beyond the battlefield to disrupt the supply chains sustaining violence.

At the forefront is the National Centre for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (NCCSALW), under the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA).

The centre’s strategy is expanding from weapons recovery to understanding where illicit arms originate, how they move, where they are diverted and how circulation can be stopped.

The National Security Adviser, Malam Nuhu Ribadu, has described illicit weapons as “a deadly threat to the safety of our people”.

According to him, their proliferation sustains banditry in the North-West, communal conflicts in the North-Central and terrorist operations in the North-East.

The NSA said the government’s response was anchored on stronger inter-agency collaboration, disruption of criminal financing networks, enhanced border security and international partnerships.

At the recovery end, NCCSALW has continued to remove weapons permanently from circulation through transparent destruction exercises.

In its latest exercise, the centre destroyed 2,819 illicit, decommissioned and unserviceable weapons, bringing the number destroyed by the centre to about 19,000.

Ribadu said the exercise demonstrated the government’s commitment to ensuring recovered weapons never return to criminal hands.

“Recovering weapons alone is not enough. Public, transparent and verifiable destruction guarantees that these recovered weapons can never again be used against any Nigerian,” he said.

Yet, destruction addresses weapons already recovered. The bigger challenge is preventing replacement firearms from continuously entering the illicit market.

This has placed greater emphasis on securing legitimate weapons, strengthening armouries and preventing diversion from official stockpiles.

NCCSALW Director-General, retired DIG Johnson Kokumo, identified poor armoury management and diversion of government-owned weapons as major proliferation drivers.

He said porous borders, illicit local production and leakage from official stockpiles were among the major sources of illicit weapons.

“The most concerning source of proliferation remains the leakage of weapons from illicit stockpiles held by government agencies.’’

He warned that weapons procured for national security could become instruments of insecurity when weak controls and accountability gaps allow them to reach criminal networks.

Consequently, NCCSALW has intensified capacity development for personnel responsible for arms and ammunition management across security institutions.

The training focuses on record-keeping, storage standards, physical security, accountability and weapons tracking.

A recent programme organised with the HALO Trust and supported by the Netherlands sought to strengthen physical security and stockpile management.

Kokumo urged participants to apply the knowledge acquired, describing them as agents of change in improving arms management.

“You are returning as agents of change. Nigeria is counting on you to enforce accountability and professionalism in arms management.”

However, stronger armoury controls and weapons destruction cannot fully address the problem without knowing its current scale, sources, routes and patterns.

Nigeria’s last national baseline survey on illicit small arms and light weapons was conducted in 2016 and released in 2021.

A decade later, NCCSALW says the data can no longer adequately capture the country’s changing security environment.

Kokumo said Nigeria was preparing a new national baseline survey to provide updated statistics for planning and policymaking.

“The 2016 survey can no longer address the current pattern of proliferation of small arms and light weapons in Nigeria.”

He said the proposed survey would be Nigerian-owned and conducted primarily by Nigerian experts, with technical assistance from international organisations.

“We want to have an arms survey conducted by Nigeria for Nigerians and owned by Nigerians,” Kokumo said.

According to him, updated statistics will help the government develop appropriate policies and improve national security planning.

Dr Adedeji Ebo, Director and Deputy High Representative of the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), said the available data was outdated.

“It is not that there is no data. There was a baseline survey conducted on small arms circulation in Nigeria in 2016.”

“That was a decade ago. Imagine Nigeria’s security landscape a decade ago and the security landscape today. A lot has changed.”

Ebo said changes had occurred in arms sources and routes, storage, tracing and marking, as well as activities of non-state armed groups.

“If government is going to have accurate national security planning, they need accurate data.

“So, what we have now is literally out of date, out of context.”

The new survey is expected to examine the nature, scale, distribution, sources and drivers of illicit arms proliferation across Nigeria.

UNODA and the Small Arms Survey in Geneva are expected to provide technical support and train Nigerian experts through a training-of-trainers approach.

Ebo said the process would enable Nigeria to build indigenous expertise capable of conducting future surveys and supporting similar exercises across Africa.

But data gathering alone cannot stop weapons proliferation. The information must translate into policies and interventions capable of closing identified vulnerabilities.

“The survey is not itself the end. It is a means to an end. So we need to have a policy that will flow from that survey.”

Beyond government and international partners, NCCSALW is also widening the response to include civil society organisations and communities.

At a recent roundtable, NCCSALW and UNODA engaged CSOs on strengthening community participation in arms-control efforts.

Ebo described CSOs as uniquely positioned to connect government policies with communities affected by illicit arms proliferation.

“Civil society is the bridge between the state and society,” he said.

He said traditional and religious leaders, women, youths, farmers, fishers and survivors of armed violence should contribute to the survey process.

Representing the National Arms Registrar, retired Maj.-Gen. Bamidele Shafa said CSOs’ proximity to communities provided valuable information on illicit weapons.

He said CSOs would play central roles in designing, validating and disseminating findings from the forthcoming baseline survey.

The EU also identified awareness creation, early warning, conflict prevention, policy advocacy, rehabilitation and reintegration among areas where CSOs could contribute.

The approach reflects a growing recognition that illicit arms proliferation is not merely a security-agency problem, but a national challenge requiring community ownership.

Nigeria’s challenge is further complicated by the transnational character of arms trafficking, making regional and international cooperation indispensable.

UNODA is supporting Nigeria through technical assistance, arms tracing and marking, policy development and implementation of international arms-control instruments.

At home, NCCSALW’s collaboration with the Armed Forces, police, intelligence services, Customs and other agencies remains crucial to disrupting illicit arms networks.

The ultimate objective is to prevent illicit weapons from becoming fuel for violence.

The success of the campaign, therefore, should not be measured only by the number of guns seized or destroyed.

The greater victory will come when Nigeria can identify supply lines, close loopholes and make it increasingly difficult for illegal weapons to reach criminal hands.

That is the battle beyond the battlefield — fought through intelligence, accurate data, secure armouries, effective borders, responsible communities and sustained national coordination.

For NCCSALW and its partners, choking the illicit arms pipeline could prove as important to Nigeria’s security as defeating those who wield the weapons.

Analysts say every trafficking route disrupted, armoury secured, weapon traced and firearm permanently destroyed represents another link broken in the chain of violence. (NAN)