Connect with us

News

36 Speakers back state police, final test begins

Published

on

Support for the proposed state police gathered momentum on Thursday as speakers of the 36 State Houses of Assembly, governors, the Labour Party and the Forum of APC Speakers backed the constitutional amendment passed by the Senate, raising hopes that the bill could secure the approvals needed to become law.

The endorsements came barely 24 hours after the Senate passed the Constitution Alteration Bill seeking to establish state police across the federation, a major step in Nigeria’s decades-long effort to decentralise policing and tackle worsening insecurity.

The bill must now be approved by at least 24 state Houses of Assembly before it can be transmitted to President Bola Tinubu for assent.

While many stakeholders described the proposal as a necessary response to growing cases of terrorism, banditry, kidnapping and communal violence, the Peoples Redemption Party opposed the move, questioning the motives of the Tinubu administration and urging Nigerians to reject it.

Among the early supporters was Benue State Governor, Hyacinth Alia, who commended the National Assembly for passing the bill and described the development as a landmark step towards strengthening the country’s security architecture.

In a statement issued by his Chief Press Secretary, Kula Tersoo, the governor praised lawmakers for advancing what he described as a landmark reform capable of transforming the country’s security framework.

According to him, “the passage of the bill is a courageous and timely step,” adding that he has always been a strong advocate of state policing as a necessary measure to strengthen the nation’s security architecture and enhance the protection of lives and property.

The governor said, “The House of Representatives had passed the law a few weeks ago, and the concurrence by the Senate a few days ago has confirmed the genuine intentions of national assembly members to address the problem of insecurity in the country.”

Alia further argued that state police formations would possess a better understanding of local terrain, cultures and community dynamics, thereby enabling faster and more effective responses to security threats.

He also commended President Tinubu for what he described as visionary leadership in advancing reforms that had remained trapped in national debate for years.

In Kano State, deliberations on the bill began almost immediately as the State House of Assembly convened a stakeholders’ meeting with Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf to review the implications of the proposed amendment.

The Public Relations Officer of the Assembly, Kamaluddeen Shawai, confirmed the meeting on Thursday.

“We’re at the moment in a stakeholders meeting with the State Governor, Abba Yusuf,” Shawai said.

He added that the House would make its position known after consultations.

“The House will not comment on the bill for now until after the stakeholders meeting.”

The swift engagement in Kano reflected the urgency with which many states are approaching the proposed reform, given the security challenges confronting several regions of the country.

In Gombe State, Speaker of the House of Assembly, Abubakar Luggerewo, said lawmakers would subject the bill to detailed scrutiny but disclosed that their preliminary assessment was positive.

“As soon as we receive communication from the National Assembly about the ratification of that bill, the House will receive and refer it to the committee led by the Deputy Speaker.

“They will do the needful, which involves public hearing, stakeholders’ engagement and others. They will report their findings and, based on their findings, we will make our decision,” he said.

The Speaker explained that the Assembly would carefully evaluate the bill’s provisions and assess their implications for the state before taking a final position.

“From the committee stage, the House can be certain on the clauses of the bill. We will also look at our state’s peculiarities to be sure we are protected by the bill. If it suits our activities, we will go for it, but if we find in any way there are clauses we are not comfortable with, we will vote against it,” Luggerewo stated.

Despite the planned review process, he said lawmakers were generally favourably disposed to the proposal.

“In a nutshell, our general understanding of the bill is that it’s a welcome development. We are certain it will address the lingering security challenges that are happening in various locations.

“We are hoping the bill will create an avenue for the states to invest more in security. We will make decisions in the best interest of the state,” he said.

In Akwa Ibom, Speaker Udeme Otong said lawmakers would first study the bill before taking a definitive position.

“They just finished yesterday in the Senate; we have not gone through what the Senate sent to us. We cannot just decide on anything until we look at it.

“We have to look at the bill before you know the inputs that you have. For now, we don’t have the bill in our hands. How can you know what should be amended and what should not be amended? It was passed yesterday; how can it come to Akwa Ibom today?

“We don’t work like that. This is an executive bill; we don’t work anyhow. You need to see the bill, work on it and see the areas that need some input. You then call a public hearing. The bill is for the public to make their inputs.”

Bayelsa lawmakers also indicated support for the proposal.

Chairman of the House Committee on Information, Brown Ebizi, said the Assembly was prepared to expedite consideration of the bill once transmitted.

He said, “We are in full support of the bill, and we believe that when it arrives in the state, we will work on it expeditiously. We are convinced that it is for the benefit of the state and the people.”

Support also came from the Forum of Progressive Speakers of State Legislatures under the APC.

In a statement signed by its Chairman and Speaker of the Jigawa State House of Assembly, Haruna Dangyatin, the forum described the Senate’s action as a historic breakthrough.

See also  Atiku demands release of El-Rufai before Eid celebrations, says detention unfair

“The passage of this bill is a resounding victory for effective governance and community-focused policing,” Dangyatin stated.

He added that the legislation would empower states to protect their citizens more effectively.

“For years, the clamour for a security structure that understands the local terrain has been loud.

“With this enactment, we are empowering states to better protect their people and respond swiftly to security threats.”

Dangyatin assured Nigerians that APC-controlled legislatures would facilitate ratification and establish strong oversight mechanisms.

“We will ensure state policing operates within the bounds of human rights, professionalism, and the rule of law.”

He further pledged collaboration with state executives to ensure adequate funding for training, equipment and personnel welfare.

Similarly, the Labour Party endorsed the proposed reform and urged governors and state lawmakers across the federation to support it.

In a statement issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Ken Asogwa, the party described the Senate’s action as a major milestone in efforts to strengthen internal security.

“The Labour Party commends the National Assembly, particularly the Senate, for its courage, swiftness and sense of patriotism in passing the State Police Bill recently transmitted to it by President Bola Tinubu,” Asogwa said.

He noted that Nigerians had long demanded a policing system that is closer to communities and more responsive to local security threats.

“For years, Nigerians across all regions have clamoured for a more effective and responsive policing architecture capable of addressing the growing and increasingly complex security challenges confronting the nation.

“The passage of this bill, therefore, represents a significant step towards strengthening internal security and bringing law enforcement closer to the people.”

The LP acknowledged fears that governors could abuse state police formations but argued that constitutional safeguards incorporated into the bill would minimise such risks.

“While the party acknowledges the concerns expressed in certain quarters regarding the possibility of abuse of the state police system, especially in view of our experience with State Independent Electoral Commissions and allegations of undue interference by some state governors, the realities of contemporary Nigeria make a compelling case for a decentralised policing structure,” he stated.

According to him, “The Labour Party is particularly encouraged by the constitutional safeguards embedded in the amendment bill, especially the provisions contained in section 17, which establish clear mechanisms to prevent abuse and ensure accountability in the operation of state police.

“These safeguards, if faithfully implemented, should serve as effective checks against arbitrary control or misuse of the system by any state executive.”

He further argued that no policing arrangement was flawless.

Asogwa said, “The party further notes that no policing model is perfect. However, given the evident limitations of the current centralised policing arrangement in adequately securing a vast and diverse country such as Nigeria, there is an urgent need to embrace innovative approaches and fresh ideas capable of improving security outcomes for citizens.”

The party subsequently called on governors and lawmakers nationwide to support the amendment.

“As the bill now awaits the concurrence of the State Houses of Assembly before being transmitted to the President for assent, the Labour Party calls on governors and state lawmakers across the 36 states of the federation to rise above partisan considerations and lend their support to this important constitutional reform in the overriding interest of national security and public safety.

“We believe that with proper oversight, transparency and adherence to constitutional provisions, state policing can become a vital instrument for combating crime, enhancing community security and strengthening the federation,” he stated.

The Conference of Speakers of State Legislatures in Nigeria also signalled support for the proposal.

Its Chairman and Speaker of the Delta State House of Assembly, Emomotimi Guwor, said state legislatures remained committed to giving the bill diligent consideration.

“As Speakers of the 36 State Houses of Assembly, we had earlier indicated our support for the proposed legislation because we believe that community-based policing, properly structured under law, will enhance safety and response time across our states. Security is local, and our people deserve policing architecture that understands their terrain and challenges.”

He added, “With the Bill now proceeding to the next legislative stage, the Conference assures Nigerians that State Assemblies will give it diligent consideration in line with Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution.”

Also lending his voice, former lawmaker representing Ekiti North, Senator Ayodele Arise, described the bill as a critical step towards addressing insecurity.

“It is a very welcome development. Having state police is a much-needed measure to reduce the security threats we face in the country.

“There is no way security challenges will be eliminated. But kudos to Mr President for being very proactive on this issue as we continue to battle the challenges of insecurity in the country,” he noted.

The former lawmaker argued that local policing would improve intelligence gathering and enable quicker responses to threats.

Addressing concerns about possible abuse by governors, Arise said constitutional checks and balances should be strengthened.

He said, “Many of the objections are legitimate concerns, but most of the federal states we know around the world, like the United States and Canada, have this multi-layered policing system that has worked for them over the years.

“So, the challenges are there, especially now that we are just trying to experiment with it.

“It is our responsibility to ensure that we put a few checks and balances here and there to curtail the excesses of any governor who intends to use the Police against the people of his state.”

The Plateau State House of Assembly also pledged support for the reform.

Speaker Naanlong Daniel said the legislature was prepared to prioritise the bill when transmitted.

“The Assembly believes state policing will contribute significantly to ending the prolonged insecurity affecting parts of Plateau State and other regions of the country.”

He added that lawmakers had consistently advocated its establishment and assured stakeholders of the Assembly’s readiness to provide the required legislative backing.

In Ondo State, Speaker Olamide Oladiji similarly backed the proposal, describing it as a necessary response to Nigeria’s security challenges.

See also  Governors demand greater powers for state police

“Insecurity issue in the country now, I think it’s very, very important that the government come up with this state police creation, and from the look of things, virtually all the states are keyed into it.”

Oladiji dismissed fears that governors would weaponise state police against political opponents.

“I want to disagree on that aspect. Look at our Amotekun here; it has been created for some time now. Did you hear any negative comments? There is no negative comment, even from the opposition, that the government of the day uses it against any of their political opponents, journalists or activists,” he said.

He cautioned politicians against undermining the reform.

“We should not politicise the issue of the state police. We should not allow even the so-called politician to politicise it in such a way that it will not allow it to come to fruition,” he said.

However, the PRP strongly criticised the initiative and urged Nigerians to reject it.

In a statement by its National Chairman, Dr Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, the party questioned the credibility of the current administration to oversee such a major restructuring of policing.

The statement read, “The Peoples Redemption Party is deeply concerned over plans by President Tinubu’s administration to procure state police through constitutional amendment at a time when its credibility and competence are at an unprecedented low level in our democratic history.”

The PRP argued that while constitutional procedures might ultimately facilitate the amendment, the administration lacked the public trust required for such a far-reaching reform.

“This administration lacks the moral assets and the trust of Nigerians to undertake a major shift in the policing structure of the country. The APC administration has failed to manage our security structure and institutions. “ It’s a plan to engineer the emergence of state police that is suspicious, and it should be rejected,” it stated.

The party advised that the issue should be deferred until after the next general election.

“The PRP advises that the forthcoming election should be a threshold which should be crossed with credibility and popular acclaim before the nation decides on important issues such as state police structures,” he said.

Despite the opposition, momentum appears to be building behind the amendment as state assemblies prepare to begin formal consideration of the proposal.

The Senate had on Wednesday approved the constitutional amendment after a clause-by-clause review of the report presented by the Senate Committee on the Review of the Constitution, chaired by Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin.

The legislation seeks to create a dual policing structure under which state governments can establish police services within their jurisdictions while the Nigeria Police Force retains responsibility for national security issues such as terrorism, border protection, cybercrime, arms trafficking and other federal offences.

Lawmakers inserted several safeguards aimed at preventing abuse, including provisions prohibiting state police authorities from targeting individuals or groups solely for criticising governments and allowing federal intervention in cases involving breakdown of public order, human rights violations or threats to national security.

The Safeguards

Meanwhile, an analysis of the bill by our correspondent on Thursday showed that the proposed constitutional amendment seeking to establish state police services across Nigeria could create far-reaching restructuring of the country’s policing architecture.

This includes the expansion of the National Police Council to accommodate representatives of the Nigerian Bar Association, the Nigeria Labour Congress, the National Human Rights Commission and all state attorneys-general.

The proposal, contained in 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, seeks to create a broader oversight mechanism for policing while balancing state control with federal safeguards.

In the bill, the National Police Council would become one of the most diverse security oversight bodies in the country, bringing together legal practitioners, labour leaders, human rights advocates, retired senior police officers and state representatives.

The council would be chaired by a chairman appointed by the President and confirmed by the National Assembly.

Other members would include the Attorney-General of the Federation, a serving police officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector-General representing the Federal Police Service, attorneys-general of all states, six retired police officers representing the six geopolitical zones, a representative of the National Human Rights Commission, a representative of the Public Complaints Commission, a representative of the Nigeria Labour Congress, a representative of the Nigerian Bar Association and a secretary appointed by the President.

According to the bill, the council would be responsible for coordinating national policing policies, strengthening cooperation between federal and state police services, recommending appointments and removals of police chiefs and supervising the activities of policing institutions across the federation.

Part of the bill read, “The National Police Council shall comprise the following members: a Chairman to be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the National Assembly; Attorney-General of the Federation; a serving police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Inspector General of Police to represent the Federal Police Service; the Attorney-General of each State of the Federation.

“Others are six retired police officers not below the rank of Commissioner of Police representing each of the geo-political zones of the country to be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the National Assembly; one representative of the National Human Rights Commission; one representative of the Public Complaints Commission; a representative of the Nigeria Labour Congress to be nominated by the President of the Nigerian Labour Congress; a representative of the Nigerian Bar Association to be nominated by the President of the Nigerian Bar Association; and the Secretary to the Council to be appointed by the President.”

The functions of the National Police Council shall include the organisation and administration of the Federal Police Service and all other matters relating thereto, recommending to the President on the appointment and removal of the Inspector-General of Police, recommending to the Governor of a State on the appointment and removal of the Commissioner of Police, coordinating national policing policy and inter-governmental cooperation between the Federal Police Service and State Police Services, and supervising the activities of the Federal Police Service and State Police Services.”

See also  Iran walks out after Trump’s ‘annihilation’ threat at UNGA, read details

The proposed composition appears designed to address long-standing concerns about political interference and inadequate civilian participation in police oversight.

By bringing state attorneys-general, labour representatives, lawyers and human rights advocates into the council, the amendment seeks to establish a broader accountability framework capable of monitoring both federal and state police operations.

The bill also introduces constitutional safeguards aimed at protecting state commissioners of police from arbitrary suspension or dismissal by governors.

Under the proposal, a state commissioner of police can only be suspended or removed for stated reasons, after a fair hearing, on the recommendation of the National Police Council and with the approval of not less than two-thirds of members of the state’s House of Assembly.

The bill provides, “A Commissioner of Police of a State shall not be suspended or removed except for stated cause, in accordance with a fair hearing, on the recommendation of the National Police Council and subject to approval by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds majority of members of the House of Assembly of the State.”

The provision is expected to address concerns raised by critics of state policing who fear governors could transform state police services into political tools.

The amendment equally bars governors from issuing operational directives targeting specific individuals, political parties, associations or groups.

According to the bill, no governor shall direct a commissioner of police to arrest, detain, investigate or refrain from investigating any named individual except in accordance with the law.

It further prohibits directives that could result in unlawful actions, violations of fundamental rights, suppression of lawful political activity or discrimination on ethnic, religious or political grounds.

While the bill grants states the authority to establish and operate their own police services, it also preserves federal powers to intervene under exceptional circumstances.

According to the proposed amendment, the Federal Police Service may temporarily assume operational responsibility over a state police service where public order has broken down, where a state police service becomes incapable of functioning, where there is evidence of systematic human rights abuses, or where national security is threatened.

Specifically, federal intervention may occur where there is an actual or imminent breakdown of public order that a state police service is unable or unwilling to contain; where a governor formally requests intervention; where serious administrative or financial incapacity threatens public safety; where there is substantial evidence of partisan intimidation, ethnic or religious persecution; or where threats transcend state boundaries and endanger national security.

The proposal, however, imposes strict conditions on such interventions.

It states that any intervention must be authorised in writing by the President and must clearly state the grounds, territorial scope, functions and duration of the intervention.

The bill further requires that the governor, the State House of Assembly, the National Police Council and the National Assembly be notified within 48 hours of the commencement of any intervention.

It reads, “An intervention under this section shall be authorised in writing by the President and shall state the grounds, territory, functions and duration of the intervention; and notice of the intervention shall be given to the Governor of the State, the Speaker of the House of Assembly of the State, the National Police Council and the National Assembly within forty-eight hours of the start of any intervention.”

The proposal also provides that any intervention extending beyond the period prescribed by law must receive Senate approval and remain subject to judicial review.

It further states that no intervention shall dissolve a state police service or suspend elected institutions of a state except as provided by the Constitution.

Another notable provision in the bill is the attempt to insulate police service commissions from political influence.

The amendment proposes that both the Federal Police Service Commission and State Police Service Commissions should be empowered to make rules regulating their procedures without requiring presidential or gubernatorial approval.

According to the proposal, state police service commissions shall function independently and may confer powers and responsibilities on officers necessary for carrying out their constitutional duties without interference from governors.

The bill noted that the provision is aimed at strengthening institutional autonomy and ensuring professionalism in recruitment, promotion and disciplinary processes.

The bill formally replaces the existing constitutional framework, establishing a single Nigeria Police Force with a dual policing system comprising the Federal Police Service and State Police Services.

Under the arrangement, the Federal Police Service would retain responsibility for federal crimes, terrorism, cybercrime, organised crime, arms trafficking, border security, protection of federal institutions and policing within the Federal Capital Territory.

State police services, on the other hand, would be responsible for enforcing state laws, maintaining public safety and order, protecting lives and property and carrying out other local policing functions prescribed by state laws.

However, no state police service would commence operations until it has been established by a law passed by the state’s House of Assembly and certified as meeting national minimum standards prescribed by the National Assembly.

The debate over state policing has intensified in recent years amid rising insecurity, including banditry, kidnapping, communal conflicts and terrorism across various parts of the country.

Supporters argue that state police would improve intelligence gathering, enhance community policing and enable quicker responses to local security threats.

Opponents, however, have expressed fears that governors may abuse state police structures to intimidate political opponents and suppress dissent.

The constitutional amendment seeks to strike a balance between these competing concerns by granting states policing powers while establishing layers of federal oversight, legislative checks, judicial review and civilian participation through an expanded National Police Council.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Belgian parliament to legislate to allow police to enter homes to facilitate undocumented migrant removals

Published

on

Belgian police will soon be able, in conjunction with the Immigration Office (DVZ), to enter the homes of undocumented migrants who pose a threat to public order or national security. This is set out in a bill drafted by the Belgian Asylum and Migration Minister, Anneleen Van Bossuyt (Flemish nationalist N-VA), and Justice Minister Annelies Verlinden (Flemish Christian democrat CD&V), which has now been approved by the House Home Affairs Committee. The proposal still needs to be OKed during a plenary session of the lower house of the Belgian parliament.

Home searches like these are controversial. The aim is to make it easier to deport people residing here illegally and who persistently refuse to cooperate with efforts to facilitate their return.

The new law will make this possible. Following entry into the home, the police may place the person in question – that is, the individual who poses a threat to public order or national security – under administrative detention. However, prior authorisation from an investigating judge is required to enter the home.

Speaking to press agency Belga, Minister Van Bossuyt referred to this as “an historic breakthrough” and had previously said that this “is the final piece in a firm but humane return policy”.

“This is not a witch-hunt against people who have international protection or are simply in the country illegally (..) The law sets out clear conditions, and a search of a home can only take place with the authorisation of an investigating judge.”

(Overly) broad definitions

The bill did, however, attract a great deal of comment and was extensively discussed in parliament.

See also  Dangote reveals ADNOC, govts, other investors interested in refinery

The opposition, the federal police, investigating judges and lawyers alike were highly critical. They believe that the exact meaning of ‘a threat to public order or national security’ has not been defined clearly enough.

“It will be up to the investigating judge to determine whether someone poses a threat to public order or national security,” says Van Bossuyt. “The judge will independently assess whether that person poses such a threat. That is a crucial test.”

Minister Van Bossuyt finds the debate strange: “The concepts of public order and national security feature in many parts of our legislation. Nowhere is a specific list provided of what they entail.” What is more, according to Van Bossuyt, the Council of State, which vets Belgian draft legislation, has explicitly stated that it is not desirable to define these concepts, as they may evolve over time.

“When the Justice Minister drafts new legislation, she isn’t asked how judges should apply that law, is she?” Van Bossuyt notes.

Van Bossuyt has also tabled an amendment to her own bill: “We have given investigating judges more time to reach a decision, from 5 days to 7.”

She emphasises that their role is not merely reduced to that of a ‘rubber-stamp judge’: “The investigating judge will absolutely not be a rubber-stamp judge, precisely because they play such a crucial role in assessing whether someone poses a threat or not. They will have access to the full case file.”

What about minors?

Another point of criticism concerns the rights of minors. According to critics, these are not sufficiently safeguarded. Government party Les Engagés (Francophone centrist) was only prepared to vote for the bill if greater protection for minors was provided.

See also  Wike - If you want to destroy PDP, bring Obi

“When authorising a search of a home, the investigating judge must determine all the conditions under which that search may take place,” explains Van Bossuyt. “If, for example, children are present, the investigating judge can stipulate that the search must take place during school hours. In that case, the likelihood of children being present is very low.”

The investigating judge may also, for example, require a psychologist to be present during the search, says Van Bossuyt. “So, the possible presence of minors has certainly been taken into account.”

The minister also points to the responsibility of the person who poses a threat to public order or national security: “It is that person who is making life difficult for those children,” says the minister.

Desperately needed, according to Van Bossuyt

Government party, Les Engagés, did not secure all the amendments it had requested, so MP Xavier Dubois boycotted the second reading. However, his group leader, Aurore Tourneur, did defend the amendments in the House Home Affairs Committee.

This enabled the majority to approve the bill after all, with the support of the Flemish liberal opposition party Anders. Although they, too, called for further amendments.

The left-wing opposition parties voted against. The far-right Vlaams Belang abstained. According to MP Francesca Van Belleghem, the law has been “so watered down by coalition negotiations that it will have virtually no effect in practice”.

‘This was a sensitive bill for several government parties: that’s no secret. In practice, there was an absolute need for this,’ concludes Van Bossuyt.

The bill must now be put to a vote during a plenary session, where the law can be definitively approved.

See also  FG receives Benin bronzes repatriated from US

Speaking to Belga, the minister warned local authorities that have already announced they will not permit home visits, such as Leuven. “Be fully aware of what that choice means. If you refuse to implement this law and things go wrong, do not point the finger at the federal government afterwards. Because then you will be jeopardising the safety of your own residents” she said.

Source: VRT.BE

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

News

Trump rules out new Iran attack before US midterm elections

Published

on

President Donald Trump ruled out Thursday attacking Iran before the US midterms on November 3, saying Washington was holding “productive discussions” with Tehran.

Trump’s announcement on his Truth Social platform followed a surge in oil prices driven by media reports suggesting potential new US strikes prior to the elections.

“I want to make it clear to everybody that, while Iran is in very bad condition, both economically and militarily, and while the Blockade will remain in full force and effect…we will not be attacking Iran at any time prior to the Midterm Elections,” he wrote.

“We are having productive discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he added.

The Atlantic magazine reported on Wednesday that the White House had asked the Pentagon to develop options to strike Iranian targets that could be used before the midterms.

The New York Times said Thursday the plans were being developed despite Trump’s “ambivalence.”

The surge in crude oil prices has also been fueled by persistent tensions in the Strait of Hormuz — a strategic chokepoint for the global oil trade — as well as hostilities between Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis and Saudi Arabia.

Polls suggest American voters are strongly dissatisfied with fuel prices, which have soared since US-Israeli strikes against Iran on February 28 triggered the conflict.

Brent North Sea crude, the international benchmark, rallied to as high as $105.88 a barrel on Thursday before retreating to $104.28.

– Putin vows to help –

Russian President Vladimir Putin promised Thursday to “do everything” to help end the Middle East war when he met Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian for talks ahead of a regional summit, Russian media reported.

See also  Wike - If you want to destroy PDP, bring Obi

“We are ready to do everything that is in our power to contribute to the settlement of this situation,” Putin said after arriving in Turkmenistan for a summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) that starts Friday in the Caspian Sea resort of Avaza.

He added that Iran had made “real efforts to end the war,” according to Russian news agencies.

Russia and Iran have reinforced diplomatic and military links since Russia launched its offensive in Ukraine in February 2022, becoming increasingly reliant on each other.

Trump has repeatedly insisted in recent weeks that the United States has effectively won the Iran war, despite ongoing unrest and a recent security threat that forced the withdrawal of American bombers from a base in England.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted Tehran was “engaged in dialogue, but every time we negotiate with the United States, they attack again”, Iranian state media quoted him as saying at the talks with Putin.

Pezeshkian said the Islamic republic wanted to see a “final framework” to end the war.

But he accused the United States of “trying to impose its policies and views on all countries”.

“If the United States insists on pursuing a unilateral approach, a resolution will not be possible,” he said, according to state media.

– Approaching election –

The midterm elections will shape the final two years of Trump’s presidential term as his Republican Party risks losing its current grip on Congress.

Although Trump is not on the ballot, he is holding numerous rallies in an attempt to limit the damage or even turn the political tide.

See also  Iran walks out after Trump’s ‘annihilation’ threat at UNGA, read details

Trump has warned he faces a possible third impeachment if Democrats retake the House of Representatives, and the White House is preparing for a slew of investigations into corruption and abuse of power.

The US president also sought to calm a furor on Thursday over his comments at a rally earlier this week that Iran could “take out” the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego.

The 80-year-old blamed the “fake and artificial news” for misinterpreting the remarks, which Democrats pounced on.

“In actuality, what I was talking about was that a temporary increase in the price of Gasoline is a small price to pay for Iran not having a Nuclear Weapon and, if you want to see a big price, can you imagine what it would be like if they bombed San Diego and/or Los Angeles?” Trump said on Truth Social.

AFP

Source: punchng.com

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

News

INEC displays voter register, begins PVC distribution ahead of 2027 elections

Published

on

The Independent National Electoral Commission has commenced the display of the preliminary register of voters and distribution of Permanent Voter Cards across states as part of preparations for the 2027 general elections.

The seven-day exercise, which begins on Friday and runs through October 15, will allow registered voters to verify their details, raise claims and objections, and collect PVCs from the first phase of the Continuous Voter Registration conducted between August and December 2025.

In Plateau and Sokoto states, the respective Resident Electoral Commissioners announced that the exercise would take place at Registration Area centres, with PVC collection continuing at INEC offices at the local government level after the display period.

In a statement by the Plateau REC, Prof. Sam Egwu, made available to journalists in Jos on Thursday, the commission said the exercise was pursuant to Section 19(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, which mandates it to display the voter register not less than 90 days before the general elections.

He said, “The Independent National Electoral Commission, Plateau State, wishes to inform the good people of Plateau State that the commission will commence display of the Preliminary Register of Voters, attend to the hearing of claims and objections as well as collection of Permanent Voters Cards (PVCs) simultaneously in all the 207 Registration Areas in the state, from the 9th to 15th of October 2026 (7 days and weekends inclusive). Time is 9 am -3 pm daily.”

The statement asked all registered voters to take advantage of the opportunity to check their details.

See also  FG issues compliance directive to MDAs on equipment leasing procedures

“All registered voters are encouraged to take advantage of this opportunity to carefully check information they provided, such as their names, photographs, date of birth, polling units and other relevant registration details to make necessary claims and objections within this stipulated period as an accurate voter register is important for free and credible elections,” the REC said.

He further disclosed that PVCs from the first phase of the CVR exercise conducted from August 18, 2025 to December 10, 2025, would be available for collection during the exercise.

In Sokoto, the REC, Umar Garba, while briefing journalists on the commission’s preparations for the 2027 general elections, said the exercise was part of INEC’s activities ahead of the 2027 elections.

Garba, who was at the Nigeria Union of Journalists Press Centre, said the commission was committed to ensuring that eligible voters were given the opportunity to verify their registration details and collect their PVCs.

“The Independent National Electoral Commission will commence the display of the preliminary register of voters for claims and objections, as well as the distribution of Permanent Voter Cards from the 9th to the 15th of October 2026,” Garba said.

He said PVCs relating to lost or damaged cards, transfers, updates and registrations conducted during the second and third phases of the CVR were not yet ready for collection.

Garba said the commission would announce when the affected PVCs became available.

He added that after the exercise at the Registration Area level ended on October 15, distribution would continue at INEC offices in the 23 local government areas of the state.

See also  Trump’s statement opportunity to end killings in Nigeria — Northern CAN

“This will enable eligible voters who could not collect their cards at the Registration Area level to do so,” he said.

On security, Garba said INEC had continued to take the advice of security agencies into consideration throughout the voter registration process.

“Throughout the registration of voters held recently, the commission took the advice of security agencies very seriously. This contributed to a safe process without any casualties,” he said.

He assured eligible voters that INEC would work to ensure that PVCs were distributed across the state.

On internally displaced persons, Garba said the commission was engaging security agencies to establish the number of IDPs in Sokoto and determine how they could participate in the 2027 elections.

“The commission is always talking with security agencies to ascertain the number of IDPs in the state. We are working to ensure that they vote once they are in official and recognised camps,” he said.

The REC also said INEC would release the total number of registered voters in Sokoto State at the appropriate time.

Source: punchng.com

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending