The Nation Newspaper

Tag: INEC office

  • ‘Hold APC responsible if anything happens to Ekiti INEC office’

    ‘Hold APC responsible if anything happens to Ekiti INEC office’

    The Ayo Fayose Campaign Organisation (AFCO) has urged Nigerians, including the security agencies, to hold the All Progressives Congress (APC) responsible should any havoc be done to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) offices in Ekiti State and the materials used during the June 21 governorship election.

    Reacting to allegation of plan to burn the INEC office made by the APC AFCO, while said in a statement by its Director General, Chief Dipo Anisulowo,said: “APC people should not be allowed to burn the INEC office in Ado-Ekiti the way they burn down the INEC office in Ido-/Osi Local Government during the 2009 rerun governorship election.”

    Anisulowo said the security agencies must not treat such allegation with levity.

    “If they are saying that plans are being hatched to have ‘strange fire’ occurrence at the INEC office in Ado Ekiti and all the materials relating to the just concluded governorship election will get burnt, security agencies must ask questions.

    “This is more so that the APC Spokesperson, Mr Segun Dipe, who issued the statement yesterday, also knew that the fire incidence would be blamed on some faulty power surge, he (Segun Dipe) must be made to give further details on the alleged plot,” Anisulowo said.

    While saying that there could actually be plans by the APC to burn the INEC office, the AFCO Director General said: “The modus operandi of the APC and its devilish members is to accuse others of planning to do what they have already set machinery in motion to do.

    “Most importantly that it is obvious that the APC as a party has tried unsuccessfully to discredit the June 21 governorship election by inventing various ridiculous arguments, including claim that the election was ‘photocromically rigged.’

    “If the party is now coming up with allegation of plan to burn the INEC office, it could be a pointer to a sinister plot by the APC people to burn the INEC office so as to be able to sustain their argument that the election was rigged and that they would have succeeded in upturning the election results at the tribunal if INEC office had not been burnt.

  • Suleja bombing suspects have case to answer – Court

    Suleja bombing suspects have case to answer – Court

     

    A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday ruled that the six persons charged for bombing of the Independent National Electoral Commission office in Suleja, Niger State on April 8, 2011 have a case to answer.

    No fewer than 16 persons died in the blast.

    Justice Bilikisu Aliyu ordered the accused persons to call their witnesses to prove their innocence, if they so wish.

    The accused who are facing a five-count charge bordering on sundry acts of terrorism are Shuaibu Abubakar, Salisu Ahmed, Umar Babagana Umar, Mohammed Ali, Musa Adam and Umar Ibrahim.

    They had claimed that there was no sufficient evidence to support the charge.

    Dismissing their no-case submission, the judge held that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the suspects.

    She said, “After going through all the arguments, it must be noted at this point that the court is to look at all the evidence presented to decide if they are enough to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons in order to warrant them to enter a defence.

    “The evidence of the prosecution has disclosed a prima facie case against the accused persons – the accused persons should enter their defence to give explanations if they so wish.

    “The no-case submission has been dismissed,” she said.

    Before adjourning till March 12 and 13, Justice Aliyu ordered the prison authorities to allow the defence counsel to interact with the accused persons.

    At the last sitting, Counsel to Abubakar, Umar and Ali, Mr. Kelvin Okoro argued that the evidence against the accused did not support the charge.

    Besides, he contended that there is no sufficient evidence to support the charge.

    Counsel to Ahmed, Adam and Ibrahim, Nureini Suleiman said the evidence against his clients were hearsay. “This is in admissible in law”, he added.