BY UTHMAN BABA- NASEER,MINNA

The Chief Judge of Niger State, Justice Halima Ibrahim Abdulmalik, has ordered the transfer of twelve inmates awaiting trials at the Bida medium security Custodial Centre back to Newbussa to face their trial.

Justice Halima Abdulmalik gave the order during her annual visit to the Bida Security Medium Correctional Custody on Wednesday ,the 25th February,2026.

The twelve inmates were standing trial on various criminal charges ranging from culpable homicides and other heinous crimes which they were ordered to be remanded by a Chief Magistrate in Newbussa.

However, they were remanded on the order of the Newbussa Magistrate Court but as a result of the insecurity bedeveling the Community they were transfered to Bida Security medium correctional Custody.

The Chief Judge directed the Director of Public Prosecutor (DPP), in the Ministry of Justice Nuraini Baba Usman Esq, to facilitate their transfer to the jurisdiction where the crime was committed.

It was observed that most of inmates on awaiting trials at Bida Medium Correctional Custody were transfered from Newbussa as a result of prevailing security challenges in the area.

The Director of Public Prosecution told the Chief Judge that his office facilitated the transfer of the inmates to Bida Correctional centre due to the increasing rates of armed Banditry activities that has hitherto bedeveling Borgu community in recent times.

Findings revealed that some of the inmates were granted bail but they could not meet the bail condition as a result of the stringent nature of the bail condition which made them to be incarcerated in the custody.

During the Chief Judge visit to the custodial Centre, she reviwied some case of inmates on awaiting trials on minor offences and ordered for their summary trial and to be convicted with lesser conviction

Speaking with Journalists shortly after the visit the Chief Registrar of the Niger State High Court Hajiya Amina Laminde Musa Saidu, stated that the visit was carried out by the Chief Judge as part of the perogative of mercy to the inmates.

She explained that the Chief Judge visit to the correctional facilities across the state was aimed at the decongesting the correctional facilities to bring succour to the inmates particularly those on awaiting trials without been taken to court for trial.

Hajiya Amina Laminde Musa noted that the Chief Judge has taken it as an annual routine to embarked on visiting the correctional facilities “ so that the inmates will breath the air of freedom and also bring relief to the inmates.

Earlier the state Contrroler of the Nigeria Correctional Service (NIS), Mr. Ponyak Nandang Esq applaudaed the Chief Judge for visiting the Bida Medium Security Correctional Custody.

He stated that her visit to the Correctional facilities has helped in decongesting the centre adding that the inmates will now have a sense of belonging as result of the visit.

The Bida Medium Security Correctional Custody has a total of Seventy four inmates out of which fourty three are already convicts while the remaining thirty one are on awaiting trials

Mean while Justice Halima Ibrahim Abdulmalik, pandoned two convicts, Umar Sanda and Abdullahi Isah as a result of their good conduct while serving their jail term.

By George Mgbeleke

The National Assembly Friday , frowned at the Federal Government for paying lip service to development of Livestock Industry in Nigeria two solid years after creation of a full fledged Ministry for it .

This is even as the Minister of Livestock Development, Alhaji Idi Mukhta Maiha lamented that 65 % of animals consumed in the country on yearly basis is imported despite having potentials of red meat exportation value of N3.2billion .

Lawmakers displeasure the federal lawmakers with alleged levity handling of the livestock sector by the federal government , came to the fore during budget defence session the joint committee had with the Ministry .

The Minister had in his presentation to the Committee on performance of the 2025 budget and proposals for 2026, disclosed that out of N70billion approved as take off fund for the Ministry in 2024 , only N20billion has been released so far .

He added that even the N10billion appropriated for the Ministry as capital vote for the 2025 fiscal year , nothing was given .

Irked by the submission , members of the committee led by Senator Shehu Buba ( Bauchi South) , expressed disbelief and called on the leadership of the committee to write President Bola Tinubu on the need of urgent intervention in line with the primary aim of government of diversifying the Nation’s economy with livestock development as done in Brazil , Argentina, Belgium etc .

Specifically , the Whip of the Senate , Senator Tahir Monguno ( Borno North), in his comments said poor funding being experienced by the Ministry was totally at variance with the motive that brought it into existence .

” Establishment of the Ministry of Livestock Development in 2024 was driven by the gospel of diversification of the Nation’s economy.

” It is therefore to my surprise and disgust that we are paying lip service to the livestock sector now .

” We need to drum it into the ears of the Executive that it is inherently contradictory to create to create the Ministry and woefully failed to fund it”, he said .

In his own comments , Senator Abdul Ningi ( Bauchi Central ) , alleged sabotage for the poor funding which according to him, may not be known to President Tinubu .

He therefore , appealed to the Minister and top management staff of the Ministry , to voice out various challenges being faced by them for required amplification by the federal lawmakers to appropriate quarters .

” This is a Ministry that must be supported and well funded by the federal government . I am suspecting sabotage on the zero capital allocation because Mr President meant well for the Livestock Development.

” The leadership of this committee , should as a matter of urgent national importance , write or meet Mr President for urgent intervention “, he said .

In his closing remarks , the Chairman of the Committee , Senator Buba Shehu said Mono sector economy doesn’t help any country , the very reason according to him, the committee will do everything possible to ensure adequate funding for the Livestock Development Ministry for required economic diversification trajectory .

By Rt.Hon Eseme Eyiboh mnipr

In the evolving story of Nigeria’s democratic consolidation, few issues have provoked as much intensity as electoral reform. The signing into law of the Electoral Act (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill 2026 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu marked another chapter in this journey, drawing applause, skepticism, and fierce debate in equal measure.

At the centre of this moment stands Godswill Akpabio, President of the Senate, who has consistently articulated a position that blends institutional caution with reformist intent. His assertion that the National Assembly met “the aspirations of Nigerians, not a few people who make noise” reflects not merely rhetorical flourish, but a deeper philosophy of lawmaking anchored in constitutionalism, legislative procedure, and national peculiarities.

To understand Akpabio’s positioning, one must situate the reform within Nigeria’s broader democratic trajectory. Since the country’s return to civilian rule in 1999, electoral reforms have often oscillated between technological optimism and structural reality. The 2026 re-enactment does not discard innovation; rather, it recalibrates it. In defending the new Act, Akpabio emphasized that the National Assembly undertook a “painstaking” and “thorough” process, mindful of the country’s infrastructural limitations, judicial precedents, and the ultimate objective of preventing disenfranchisement.

A key flashpoint in the debate was the question of electronic transmission of results. For many reform advocates, real-time electronic transmission became symbolic of transparency. Yet Akpabio’s argument was not against technology; it was against rigidity detached from capacity. He consistently maintained that technology must serve democracy, not endanger it. In a country where broadband penetration is uneven, where insecurity disrupts network infrastructure across multiple states, and where power supply remains inconsistent, embedding inflexible “real-time” mandates into statute could, in his view, expose elections to avoidable litigations and invalidation.

This perspective aligns with the constitutional role of the legislature. The Senate does not conduct elections; it makes laws. The responsibility for operational modalities rests with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which applies the law within its administrative and technical capacity. By leaving room for INEC to determine timing and modalities of transmission, the Act reflects a respect for institutional boundaries. Akpabio’s defense of this approach underscores his insistence that Parliament legislate for posterity, not for transient political advantage.

At the State House signing ceremony, President Tinubu reinforced this institutional clarity. He observed that Nigeria’s elections remain “essentially manual.” Ballots are cast manually, counted manually, and declared by human beings. While electronic viewing enhances transparency, the core process remains human-centered. Tinubu’s caution about broadband readiness and cyber vulnerabilities echoes Akpabio’s reasoning. Together, their statements project a governance philosophy that privileges clarity and feasibility over performative reform.

Perhaps the most celebrated innovation in the new Act is the formal legal recognition of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) result viewer, commonly referred to as IReV. This recognition represents a significant milestone. For the first time since independence in 1960, electronic viewing of polling unit results is explicitly grounded in statutory authority. Under the amended framework, results transmitted electronically—even if delayed due to connectivity issues—must ultimately reflect on the IReV portal once network is restored. This creates a verifiable digital trail that citizens, observers, and parties can scrutinize and interrogate.

Akpabio described this as a landmark safeguard against a historic problem: tampering between polling units and collation centres. By ensuring that Form EC8A—the primary polling unit result form signed by presiding officers and party agents—feeds into a publicly accessible portal, the law strengthens accountability without discarding manual collation procedures validated by courts.

The Supreme Court’s pronouncements in post-2023 election litigation had clarified that IReV, as previously configured, was not the definitive legal record of results. Rather than ignore this judicial interpretation, the legislature responded by integrating electronic viewing into statutory text while preserving the evidentiary primacy of signed result forms. This harmonization of law and jurisprudence illustrates legislative maturity.

Critics, including the opposition parties, alleged that the Act’s signing reflected partisan fear. Civil society voices such as Yiaga Africa described the reform as incremental where transformation was needed. Yet even among critics, a pragmatic thread emerged.

The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre and the Transition Monitoring Group urged acceptance of the law while focusing attention on demanding credible conduct from INEC. This convergence suggests that while disagreements persist about optimal reform design, there is recognition that institutional strengthening is iterative.

Akpabio’s stance during earlier debates further illuminates his approach. On February 8, at a public presentation of Senator Effiong Bob’s book in Abuja, he cautioned against hasty conclusions about an amendment process still underway. His insistence that commentators wait until Votes and Proceedings were finalized before passing judgment reflects a proceduralist ethos.

Legislative drafting is iterative. Clauses are debated, amended, harmonized between chambers, and only then crystallized into final text. By defending this process against what he termed premature media trials, Akpabio positioned himself as a guardian of institutional integrity.

His critique of “retreat politics” is equally telling. Consultative retreats, he argued, are valuable but not binding. Final authority rests on the Senate floor, where clauses are debated and voted upon. This distinction reinforces parliamentary sovereignty within Nigeria’s constitutional framework. It also shows a deeper democratic principle: advocacy informs lawmaking, but elected representatives deliberate and decide.

Another noteworthy provision in the amended Act concerns internal party democracy. By empowering party members to vote directly for candidates during primaries, the law dilutes the dominance of small delegate blocs. In theory, this broadens participation, reduces transactional politics, and enhances legitimacy. Akpabio’s highlighting of this reform signals an understanding that electoral integrity begins within parties, not merely at polling units.

The Act also addresses scenarios where leading candidates are disqualified by courts. By mandating fresh elections in such circumstances, it prevents outcomes where significantly lower-polling candidates assume office by default. This provision closes a loophole that had generated controversy in past cycles. In doing so, the legislature strengthens the moral authority of electoral outcomes.

The reduction of statutory notice for elections from 360 days to 300 days, may appear technical but carries practical implications. It allows scheduling flexibility, including the possibility of avoiding sensitive religious periods such as Ramadan and Lent. This demonstrates legislative sensitivity to socio-cultural realities—a recurring theme in Akpabio’s rhetoric about Nigeria’s peculiarities.

Opposition criticisms deserve engagement. The PDP characterized the signing as hurried and partisan. Yet the legislative timeline reflects deliberation across chambers, conference committee harmonization, and eventual executive assent. Moreover, the principle of the legislative-executive cooperation is intrinsic to constitutional governance. The swift assent by President Tinubu can be interpreted not as haste but as responsiveness to parliamentary consensus.

Support from figures like Nyesom Wike reinforces the perception that the reform commands cross-sectional backing within the governing architecture. Wike’s description of democracy as a “work-in-progress” aligns with Akpabio’s incrementalist philosophy. Reform, in this view, is evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

Central to Akpabio’s defense is the rejection of absolutism. Mandating real-time electronic transmission in a context of infrastructural fragility could render entire states’ results vulnerable to nullification due to network outages. He invoked comparative examples, including electoral disputes in advanced democracies, to illustrate that even technologically sophisticated systems encounter anomalies. The lesson he draws is humility: laws must anticipate worst-case scenarios.

This caution is not synonymous with conservatism. By embedding IReV recognition in statute, the Act advances transparency beyond previous frameworks. It creates a hybrid model—manual voting and collation complemented by electronic visibility. Such hybridity may represent a uniquely Nigerian pathway, blending global best practices with domestic constraints.

Akpabio’s rhetorical framing—distinguishing “noise” from lawmaking—has attracted attention. While critics may interpret it as dismissive, it also speaks to a tension in contemporary democracies: the amplification of vocal minorities through media ecosystems. Legislative legitimacy, however, derives from electoral mandate and constitutional procedure. By emphasizing the “generality of Nigerians,” Akpabio situates himself within a majoritarian democratic theory tempered by rule of law.

The question of disenfranchisement further illuminates his position. If technological failure in insecure or rural areas invalidated results, marginalized communities could bear disproportionate impact. By allowing delayed electronic uploads once connectivity is restored, the Act seeks to reconcile inclusivity with transparency. This compromise reflects distributive sensitivity.

In evaluating Akpabio’s stewardship, one must also consider his broader legislative philosophy. He repeatedly asserts that laws must outlast individuals. This intergenerational perspective discourages tailoring statutes to immediate partisan contests. Whether one agrees with every clause, the emphasis on durability highlights a statesmanlike orientation.

The reactions from civil society, though critical, implicitly acknowledge the dynamic nature of reform. Calls to continue advocating improvements indicate that the 2026 Act is part of an ongoing process. Akpabio himself has stated that doors remain open. This openness suggests confidence rather than defensiveness.

Ultimately, the measure of electoral reform lies not only in statutory text but in implementation. INEC’s capacity, political party behavior, judicial adjudication, and citizen vigilance will shape outcomes. Yet legislation provides the framework within which these actors operate. By integrating electronic viewing, clarifying collation hierarchies, strengthening internal party democracy, and closing disqualification loopholes, the National Assembly has recalibrated that framework.

In positioning Akpabio in a favorable light, it is important to avoid hagiography. Democratic leadership entails contestation. However, his consistent themes—respect for process, infrastructural realism, institutional boundaries, and posterity—form a coherent narrative. Rather than capitulate to populist maximalism or resist reform altogether, he charted a middle course.

Nigeria’s democracy, like many across the globe, navigates between aspiration and capacity. Technological for determinism offers seductive simplicity; constitutional prudence demands complexity. In the crucible of electoral reform, Akpabio has presented himself as a custodian of that prudence. Whether history ultimately vindicates every provision of the 2026 Act will depend on future elections. But as of its enactment, the legislative record reflects a deliberate attempt to harmonize innovation with stability.

The broader democratic project requires precisely this balance. Transparency without feasibility breeds litigation. Feasibility without transparency breeds distrust. By embedding electronic visibility within a manual backbone, the Act seeks equilibrium. In championing this architecture, Akpabio aligns himself with a vision of reform that is incremental yet substantive, cautious yet forward-moving.

As Nigeria approaches future electoral cycles, the real test will be whether citizens experience greater confidence, fewer disputes, and clearer outcomes. Should that occur, the painstaking deliberations defended by the Senate President may be remembered not as noise, but as necessary groundwork. In that sense, Akpabio’s insistence that lawmaking differ from clamor may prove less a rebuke than a reminder: democracy flourishes not only through passion, but through patient construction of rules capable of enduring the storms of politics. Nigeria’s Electoral Future shall have Senator Godswill Akpabio positively mentioned in its repository.

Rt Hon Eseme Eyiboh mnipr
Special Adviser on Media/Publicity and official Spokesperson to the President of the Senate