By Our Correspondent

A United Kingdom-based Nigerian lawyer, Otunba Dayo Babalola, has said that some protesters who confronted the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan, outside Chatham House in London were paid to stage the demonstration.

Babalola, who said he was physically present at the event on Thursday, also dismissed claims that the protesters represented Nigerians in the diaspora, describing them as a small group of between 10 and 15 individuals.

The lawyer in a statement described reports and videos circulating on social media about the incident as a “gross misrepresentation” of what transpired, insisting that the demonstrators did not reflect the views of Nigerians living in the United Kingdom or the wider diaspora community.

“Diaspora Nigerians? Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said.

“I was physically present at Chatham House yesterday, and I can state categorically that the narrative being circulated on social media is a gross misrepresentation of what actually transpired.

“Those involved in the incident were not a representation of Nigerians in the diaspora, nor were they a reflection of the audience that attended the event.”

Amupitan had attended a Chatham House engagement titled, “Nigeria’s 2027 Elections: Democratic Trajectory and Regional Stability Beyond the Ballot,” where he spoke on Nigeria’s democratic future, the electoral process and preparations for the 2027 general elections.

Reports of the protest emerged after a group of demonstrators gathered outside the venue as the INEC chairman was leaving, reportedly blocking his vehicle and demanding that he address allegations of irregularities in the voters’ register.

The protesters were also reported to have called for his resignation, accusing the electoral commission of compromising its independence.

But Babalola said the demonstration took place after the formal engagement and should not be presented as an interruption or disruption of the event.

According to him, Amupitan made an insightful contribution during the discussion and responded to questions from participants.

He said: “I was physically present throughout the incident and witnessed the recording of several videos that are now being circulated. Some of those involved were wearing Peter Obi-branded memorabilia.

“The situation eventually attracted the attention of Chatham House security, and when the police were called, the individuals dispersed.”

The lawyer alleged that he encountered some members of the group later on Jermyn Street, where he claimed to have witnessed a man wearing New Democratic Congress (NDC) memorabilia paying them.

Recounting his encounter with the individuals, Babalola said they hurled insults at him after recognising him.

“When they saw me they threw a few insults at me and I smiled and simply said at least you guys have now made some small pounds to pay your bills for a few days even as I walked past them,” he said.

Babalola also challenged accounts suggesting that the Chatham House engagement was poorly attended, saying the venue was filled with close to 200 participants, mostly Nigerians who had registered for the event.

He said that about 374 people registered and joined the programme online, adding that the physical and virtual participation reflected the level of interest generated by the engagement.

He said the protesters were outside the premises and did not participate in the programme.

“I was actually visible in the circulating video between approximately 2:22 and 2:45, standing by the main entrance of Chatham House, dressed in a suit and holding my muffler. I mention this simply to establish that my account is not based on hearsay,” he said.

The lawyer insisted that Amupitan was not disgraced or interrupted during the engagement, adding that the INEC chairman fully discharged his responsibilities as a panelist.

“What happened outside the venue afterwards should not be deliberately conflated with the quality, substance or outcome of the official engagement,” he said.

He, however, acknowledged the right of Nigerians to express political opinions and protest against public office holders, but cautioned against portraying the actions of a few individuals as the position of an entire community.

“People are entitled to their political opinions. They are equally entitled to peaceful protest and to demand accountability from public office holders.

“However, political disagreement must not become an excuse for misinformation, sensationalism or the deliberate distortion of events. A handful of individuals cannot legitimately be presented as the voice of the entire Nigerian diaspora,” Babalola said.

He said his intervention was intended to correct misleading account of the incident and not to defend any political party.

“I find it particularly disappointing that some social media commentators have chosen to amplify a misleading caption without establishing the facts or understanding the context of the incident.

“There is a clear distinction between a legitimate protest and an attempt to manufacture a narrative for political propaganda,” he said.

Babalola added: “Let the facts speak for themselves: Professor Amupitan attended Chatham House, made his presentation, answered questions and participated in the panel discussion.

“A small group subsequently staged a demonstration outside the venue. Those two events should not be misrepresented as one, nor should the actions of a handful of individuals be attributed to Nigerians in the diaspora.”

The controversy comes amid scrutiny of INEC’s preliminary voters’ register ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The commission had disclosed that it removed 1,608,660 invalid registrations following a review of the 2025/2026 Continuous Voter Registration exercise, in addition to 873 records of deceased persons, bringing the total number of deleted records to 1,609,553.

INEC also identified 54 persons across 10 states over alleged registration infractions.

By George Mgbeleke
President cannot preach peaceful elections while alleged political enforcers operate beyond the reach of the law, says rights group

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has dismissed President Bola Tinubu’s latest declaration against political violence as an exercise in political rhetoric, insisting that Nigerians will not be deceived by presidential assurances that are unsupported by decisive action against political thuggery, illegal arms possession and the alleged proliferation of private armed groups.

HURIWA says the President must understand that condemning political violence in a statement is not the same as dismantling the structures, networks and political patronage systems that sustain it.

Nigerians have heard enough promises about peaceful elections. What the country needs now is evidence that the President is prepared to confront political violence even when those implicated are allegedly connected to powerful political interests.

The association warns that the 2027 general elections must not become an opportunity for political warlords, armed loyalists and hired thugs to determine who campaigns, who speaks and who exercises the constitutional right to contest for public office.

President Tinubu’s declaration that political violence will not be tolerated is welcome in principle. However, HURIWA considers it unconvincing without immediate action against individuals and groups repeatedly mentioned in allegations concerning politically motivated armed activities.

TINUBU MUST CONFRONT THE ALLEGED PRIVATE ARMIES

HURIWA demands an immediate and transparent investigation into allegations surrounding the possession of firearms and the operations of private armed groups allegedly associated with Dokubo-Asari and Sunday Igboho.

The association specifically challenges the President to direct the relevant security and regulatory authorities to review all applicable firearms licences, investigate the legality of weapons in their possession and revoke any licences found to have been obtained or retained in violation of the law.

HURIWA is deeply concerned by allegations that individuals associated with these armed formations could be mobilised as political enforcers in Rivers State, Abuja and parts of the South-West ahead of the 2027 elections.

These concerns become even more troubling against the backdrop of reported political boasts that the APC intends to win Rivers State by whatever means necessary.

HURIWA demands to know what those statements mean and whether security agencies have commenced investigations into the individuals making such declarations.

The association warns that Nigeria must not permit the emergence of political militias under any guise. No individual, political godfather or party leader should possess the capacity to deploy armed men to intimidate opponents and undermine electoral competition.

If the President is genuinely committed to peaceful elections, he must demonstrate that nobody enjoys immunity from investigation simply because of political connections or proximity to the Presidency.

STOP TURNING THE NURTW INTO A POLITICAL WAR MACHINE

HURIWA also demands immediate compliance with the relevant Court of Appeal and National Industrial Court judgments concerning the leadership crisis in the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW).

The association insists that the rule of law cannot be selectively applied to ordinary Nigerians while politically influential individuals allegedly disregard judicial pronouncements without consequences.

The President must ensure that the legally recognised and elected leadership of the union is allowed to assume its rightful position in accordance with the applicable court decisions.

HURIWA is particularly alarmed by the possibility of transport union structures and motor park networks being exploited as instruments of political intimidation.

For years, allegations have persisted that some politicians recruit motor park operators, transport union members and other informal groups to disrupt opposition activities, intimidate voters and unleash violence during elections.

The NURTW must not become a political recruitment centre for electoral violence.

The President must stop any attempt to use political influence to undermine the autonomy of trade unions or circumvent judicial decisions.

ALL IS NOT FAIR IN POLITICS: PRESIDENT MUST APOLOGISE

HURIWA also demands a public apology over the President’s reported assertion that “all is fair in politics”.

That statement, if accurately reported, is dangerous in a country struggling to contain political intolerance, electoral violence and the growing culture of impunity.

All is not fair in politics. There are constitutional boundaries, electoral laws and fundamental human rights that must never be sacrificed on the altar of political ambition.

Political competition is not warfare. Opposition candidates are not enemies of the state, and supporters of rival political parties are not legitimate targets for armed attacks.

HURIWA insists that every political party and candidate must enjoy unrestricted constitutional freedom to campaign across Nigeria without intimidation, harassment, physical attacks or deliberate disruption.

No political party should be permitted to deploy armed loyalists to invade campaign venues, attack opponents or frighten citizens into abandoning their political choices.

WHERE ARE THE ARRESTS OVER THE EKITI ATTACK?

HURIWA also demands urgent answers over the reported attack on Modupe Maren in Ekiti State.

The association wants the Nigeria Police Force to explain what investigations have been conducted, who has been identified as a suspect and why those allegedly involved have not been brought to justice.

The government cannot claim to be confronting political violence while attacks against political actors remain unresolved.

Every unanswered political attack emboldens perpetrators and reinforces the dangerous perception that political connections can provide protection from prosecution.

The Inspector-General of Police must ensure that investigations into politically motivated attacks are transparent, professional and free from partisan interference.

HURIWA: TINUBU MUST PROVE HIS WORDS WITH ACTION

HURIWA declares that the 2027 elections cannot be secured through presidential speeches, political assurances and carefully worded statements.

The President must dismantle the atmosphere of impunity by ensuring impartial investigations into allegations of private armies, enforcing firearms regulations, respecting court judgments and prosecuting individuals responsible for political violence.

Security agencies must also demonstrate that they serve the Nigerian Constitution and not the electoral interests of the ruling party.

The association warns that the greatest danger to the credibility of the 2027 elections is the possibility that political actors may conclude that violence, intimidation and the deployment of armed loyalists are acceptable routes to electoral victory.

President Tinubu must prove that his commitment to peaceful elections applies equally to members of the APC and opposition parties.

He cannot demand peaceful campaigns from opposition politicians while allegations of politically connected violence remain uninvestigated.

Nigeria is not a private estate belonging to any political party, and its security institutions must never become instruments of partisan warfare.

HURIWA will not accept presidential declarations as substitutes for constitutional responsibility.

The President must act now. Nigerians deserve an election in which votes, ideas and the freely expressed will of citizens determine political leadership, not guns, political godfathers and hired enforcers.

14th November, 2026

By George Mgbeleke
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has faulted the decision of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against lawyer and politician, Kalu Kalu, over his remarks concerning Justice Peter Lifu, warning the Association against allowing itself to be drawn into the political fight against the opposition.

In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC said while it agrees with the principles of productive engagement, temperance and respect for institutions, which the party has consistently advocated, it finds the NBA’s sudden indignation curious.

“Why is the NBA only now finding its voice because a politician, who also happens to be a lawyer, has said something that some people find uncomfortable? What has Kalu Kalu said about Justice Peter Lifu that the Court of Appeal has not already said?

“In its June 2026 ruling, the Court of Appeal described Justice Lifu’s conduct as the ‘highest form of judicial impertinence’ and invoked a Supreme Court precedent characterising such conduct as judicial rascality and rendering a judge unfit for the Bench. Where was the NBA when the judiciary itself was expressing such grave concerns about the conduct of one of its own?

“We respect the NBA for its noble history in the defence of democracy and the rule of law. However, the Association must be careful not to allow itself to be perceived as throwing its hat into the political ring on the side of a ruling party that already boasts openly of hijacking our judicial institutions and the Nigerian Bar.

“It is not Kalu’s words that smear the judiciary. What discredits the Bench and the Bar is the conduct of conscienceless judges like Lifu and equally conscienceless lawyers who are alleged to operate a network of client judges in the service of conscienceless politicians in power. It is this conduct that mortgages the rule of law and erodes public confidence in the administration of justice.

“This is what should concern the NBA, rather than victimising a brave lawyer like Kalu for expressing his political views.

“The NBA is not a political party. It must, therefore, not be seen to be behaving like a member of a political coalition against the opposition, whose demand is simply that justice be done, that the rule of law be protected and that democracy be preserved.

“The NBA cannot demand respect for the judiciary while appearing indifferent to conduct that brings the judiciary into disrepute. Respect for the courts must never become a requirement for silence in the face of injustice.

“We agree that lawyers must exercise restraint. But there is no respectful way to address evil, and the NBA cannot teach us one.”