By Tambaya Julius, Abuja 

Former Assistant Director of the Department of State Services (DSS), Dennis Amachree, has challenged Major Hamza Al-Mustapha (retd.), former Chief Security Officer to late Head of State, Gen.

Sani Abacha, to provide concrete evidence to counter the account of Abacha’s final hours contained in his memoir.

Amachree made the call while reacting to Al-Mustapha’s criticism of his book, DSS@40, insisting that disputes over historical events should be resolved through verifiable documents or electronic evidence rather than personal attacks.

The former DSS officer maintained that his memoir was not simply a personal recollection but a publication that underwent the agency’s internal review and approval process before it was released.

According to him, the book received official endorsement as part of activities marking the 40th anniversary of the DSS. He added that the agency’s support was demonstrated through his invitation from the United States to attend the public presentation of the memoir.

He said the event was attended by senior security officials, state directors of the DSS and members of the diplomatic community, describing the occasion as evidence of institutional backing for the publication.

Amachree dismissed Al-Mustapha’s criticism of the memoir as unfounded, arguing that anyone challenging its contents should provide documentary or electronic proof to support their claims.

“If Al-Mustapha says my account is false and claims to know exactly what happened during Abacha’s final hours, then he should produce the CCTV footage or any other credible evidence to prove his version,” Amachree said.

He also rejected Al-Mustapha’s description of him as “a boy,” saying his professional achievements and years of service in the intelligence community demonstrate his experience and competence.

“I was seven years old when Nigeria gained independence. I retired from the DSS as an Assistant Director, a rank equivalent to a Brigadier in the military, while Al-Mustapha retired as a Major,” he stated.

Amachree further argued that his memoir was based on his professional experience and should be judged on the strength of evidence and facts rather than personal disagreements.

By Tambaya Julius, Abuja

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has declined to receive a special envoy sent by South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, following renewed concerns over persistent xenophobic attacks targeting Nigerians and other African nationals in South Africa.

The South African delegation, led by the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola, arrived in Abuja, with what was described as a “very important message” for President Tinubu, according to a source familiar with the development.

The visit came less than 24 hours after the reported killing of a Nigerian national, Chika Ibe, who was allegedly picked up from his residence at Parksig Villas Complex in Bellville, Cape Town, and tortured to death by personnel of the South African Police Service (SAPS).

Nigeria has consistently condemned xenophobic and Afrophobic attacks against its citizens in South Africa, with the Federal Government demanding stronger measures to protect Nigerians and other Africans living in the country.

At the 69th Ordinary Session of the Authority of Heads of State and Government of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), held in Lungi, Sierra Leone, Vice President Kashim Shettima, who represented President Tinubu, condemned the attacks and pledged that Nigeria would push for stronger action against xenophobia at the African Union.

Shettima, while addressing recurring Afrophobic attacks against African nationals in South Africa, called for a united continental response to protect the rights, dignity and safety of Africans across the continent.

He disclosed that the Federal Government had evacuated 1,490 Nigerians affected by previous xenophobic violence and reaffirmed Nigeria’s commitment to working with regional and continental institutions to tackle the crisis.

diplomatic sources said the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, advised against President Tinubu receiving the South African envoy at this time, citing continued attacks on Nigerians, their businesses and properties in South Africa.

According to the sources, the minister maintained that the delegation could not secure a meeting with the President without a prior appointment and clear commitments from the South African government.

She was also said to have requested that Pretoria provide a signed copy of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Early Warning Mechanism (EWM), which was signed by both countries in Abuja on October 22, 2025.

The Early Warning Mechanism was established to strengthen cooperation between Nigeria and South Africa by improving information sharing, monitoring potential threats, protecting citizens and addressing consular concerns.

The agreement also provides communication channels to prevent the escalation of tensions, criminal activities, reprisals and xenophobic attacks against citizens of both countries.

Officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the mechanism could have helped address compensation claims for Nigerians whose businesses and properties were destroyed during previous xenophobic attacks in South Africa.

Nigerian officials said South African authorities have yet to compensate victims of such attacks.

As of the time of filing this report, Presidency sources said President Tinubu had not agreed to meet with the South African delegation.

The outcome of a telephone conversation reportedly initiated by President Ramaphosa with Tinubu over the weekend also remained unclear.

Observers believe South Africa’s diplomatic outreach may have been influenced by concerns over the possible impact of strained relations on South African investments and businesses operating in Nigeria, as well as Nigeria’s growing campaign for stronger continental measures against xenophobia and Afrophobic attacks.

Reports suggested that President Tinubu had changed his position and agreed to meet with the delegation.

However, a source quoted the President as saying: “The President woke up and said why does he need to meet with them when their people are killing Nigerians. The President stood his ground and did not grant them audience.”

By David Torough, Abuja

The Lekki Local Council Development Area (LCDA) has intervened in the lingering dispute over the vacant stool of the Onise of Ise, convening a mediation and reconciliation meeting that ended with a renewed commitment by stakeholders to maintain peace and allow the courts to determine the substantive issues surrounding the succession.

The mediation session, organised by the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Department of the Legal Unit of Lekki LCDA, was held on June 10, 2026, at the council secretariat in Lagos to address security concerns arising from disagreements over the selection of a new traditional ruler for Ise Community.

The meeting was chaired by the Executive Chairman of Lekki LCDA, Hon. (Engr.) Rasaki Bamidele Kasali, and attended by the Council Manager, Mr. Asokere Sejuro, Deputy Director of Legal Services, Mrs. Afolake Fumilayo Senami Roberts, traditional rulers, representatives of the four ruling houses, kingmakers, and professional mediators.

Speaking at the opening of the session, Mrs. Roberts said the council convened the meeting in line with its statutory responsibility to promote peace, public order and communal harmony following reports from security agencies, traditional institutions, community leaders and residents indicating rising tension over the succession to the Onise of Ise stool.

“This mediation was convened solely to promote dialogue, reduce tension and preserve peace in Ise Community. It is not intended to determine legal rights or interfere with matters already before the court,” she said.

She stressed that the mediation was not intended to determine legal rights or interfere with pending court proceedings, particularly Suit No. ID/107169CM/2026 between Prince Taibu Adewale Ogunbanjo and another against the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Lagos State, and four others.

According to her, the objectives of the meeting were to encourage dialogue among stakeholders, reduce tension within the community, promote reconciliation and preserve peace pending the determination of the matter by the court.

However, the council noted that it had received multiple petitions and correspondences from members of the Okuoye Ruling House nominating different individuals for the stool, including Prince Barr Babatunde Ekindayo Esualana, Prince Ibrahim Adebowale Saliu and Prince Seun Ahmed Owoseni.

Stakeholders expressed concern that the existence of multiple nominees had raised uncertainty and heightened tension within the community.

Questions were also asked over the absence of documentary evidence, including minutes of the meeting purportedly held to nominate a candidate, with several participants maintaining that such records were necessary to demonstrate compliance with customary and procedural requirements.

Some members of the Okunoye Ruling House further challenged the process through which Prince Ibrahim Adebowale Saliu reportedly emerged as the nominee, alleging that the exercise lacked broad consultation and did not reflect the consensus of the family.

Similarly, Adekunle Biobaku, Esq., PP: LAW PHARM LP. and solicitors to Head and Principal members of Adegoroye Royal Family in a petition dated 13th April 2026 challenged the “purported selection of one MR. IBRAHIM SANGODEYI SALIU as the Oba Onise of Ise Elect.

The misconceived reliance on the declaration made under Section 6 (2) of Obas and Chiefs Law Cap 138, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 1994 Regulating Selection to the Stool of Onise of Ise in Epe Local Government Area; Approved on the 16th day of August, 1999 and Registered on the 18th day of August, 1999 is said to be the “fundamental distortion of history and customary law, including the wrongful creation and structuring of ruling houses in relation to the Onise of Ise Chieftaincy.”

This matter, the petitioners averred “raises grave issues affecting customary law, historical facts, equity and public order.”

According to them, “The cumulative effect of the above is that non-royal lineages have been elevated to royal status, a single lineage has been split into three for advantage and the legitimate royal family has been marginalised and placed at a disadvantage. This is a clear violation of the native law and custom governing the stool.

“And the purported emergence of Mr. Ibrahim Sangodeyi Saliu is therefore based on an inapplicable declaration, founded on a distorted ruling house structure, contrary to customary law and historical reality and is consequently ultra vires, unlawful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.”

They however, demand the “Nullification of the purported selection of Mr. Ibrahim Sangodeyi Saliu as Oba Onise of Ise and “Affirmation of the Adegoroye Royal Family as the sole legitimate ruling house to the Oba Onise of Ise Stool.”

The case which is now before the High Court Of Lagos State in the Epe Judicial Division with permanent suit number EPD/15252GCMW/2026 has Prince Alhaji R. Ogunbajo Adegoroye; Prince Adefowope Adenupebi Adegoroye; Prince Adebola Nureni Shittu Adegoroye; Prince Adelaja Salisu Adegoroye (Suing for themselves and on behalf of the Adegoroye Royal Family of Ise Kingdom) and the Attorney-General of Lagos State; the Commissioner, Ministry of Local Government, Chieftaincy Affairs and Rural Development, Lagos State; the Executive Chairman, Lekki Local Council Development Area; the Executive Chairman, Epe Local Government Area. Defendants; Mr. Ibrahim Sangodeyi Saliu; Mr. Alidu Ligali (For himself and on behalf of Okunoye Family of Ise), Mr. Onti Adebisi Simon (For himself and on behalf of Olukoko Family of Ise); Alhaji H. I. Quadri (For himself and on behalf of Shebitan Family of Ise) as defendants.

The case has however been adjourned to Thursday 29th October, 2026.

Meanwhile, other stakeholders raised issues regarding the interpretation and validity of the extant Chieftaincy Declaration, but the council declined to comment on those concerns because they are already before the court.

Representatives of the Olukoko Ruling House clarified that they were not laying claim to the vacant stool but attended the mediation to support peace, stability and due process within the community.

Addressing the gathering, the Executive Chairman and the traditional rulers commended participants for their peaceful conduct and urged all parties to place the unity, peace and cultural heritage of Ise Community above personal interests.

“No individual interest should be allowed to jeopardize the peace and unity of Ise Community. We urge all stakeholders to allow lawful processes to take their course,” Chairman Kasali said.

The royal fathers also appealed for restraint, reminding stakeholders that the credibility of traditional institutions depends on public confidence as much as custom and law.

“The legitimacy of any traditional institution rests not only on law and custom but also on the confidence and acceptance of the people. Dialogue and restraint remain essential,” the traditional rulers said.

The council further urged stakeholders to avoid inflammatory statements, acts of provocation and all forms of self-help that could escalate tensions in the community.

At the end of the meeting, the council reaffirmed its neutrality, stating that it would not determine the validity of any nomination or candidate for the stool.

“The council remains neutral on the chieftaincy dispute and will continue to support every lawful effort aimed at maintaining peace and security,” Kasali added.

Stakeholders were unanimously urged to maintain peace, continue dialogue where necessary, and pursue all grievances through lawful channels while awaiting the outcome of the pending litigation.

In a mediation report signed by chartered mediators David Kupolati and C.N. Nga, the panel observed that although divergent views remained over the succession process, stakeholders demonstrated a collective commitment to preserving peace and respecting judicial proceedings.

According to the report, the mediation achieved its immediate objective of fostering dialogue, reducing tension and securing commitments from all parties to refrain from violence, intimidation and any conduct capable of disrupting public peace in Ise Community while the legal process runs its course.