Connect with us

News

Plateau Suspended Chairmen Protest Against Suspension, Cite Threat to Democracy

editor

Published

on

Caleb Mutfwang

The suspended chairmen of the 17 local government areas (LGAs) in Plateau State have expressed their discontent with the recent suspension imposed upon them by the State Governor, Caleb Mutfwang. The chairmen argue that such action not only undermines their positions but also poses a potential threat to the democratic order.

Recall that the State Governor, Caleb Mutfwang on Thursday approved the suspension of the 17 LGA chairmen to pave the way for the investigation being carried out by the State House of Assembly.

The Special Assistant (Media) to the Governor, Gyang Bere in a statement said,

“The Executive Governor of Plateau State, Caleb Mutfwang receives a correspondent from the Plateau State House of Assembly vide letter Ref No S/PLHA/ADM/124/VOL.VI/XXX dated 1st June 2023 recommending the suspension of the 17 Local Government Areas Chairmen.

“The recommendation for the suspension was based on their inability to make available records of their income and expenditure to the House. In the light of the foregoing, His Excellency hereby approved with immediate effect the suspension of the 17 Local Government Areas structures to pave the way for the investigation being carried out by the House. Furthermore, all property belonging to the Local Government Areas should be immediately handed over to the Directors of Personnel Management, please.”

In a swift response through a press conference on Friday, the suspended Chairmen led by the State ALGON Chairman, Alex Naantuam from the Shendam LGA said,

“Our attention was drawn to a press release issued by Gyang Bere, Special Assistant Media, to the Governor, conveying the purported decision of the Governor of Plateau State, approving with immediate effect the suspension of the 17 Local Government Area Structures.

“Having painstakingly gone through the said press release, we make the following preliminary observations:
The Governor did not cite any constitutional or statutory support, enabling him to suspend what they described as ‘17 local government areas structures,” a phrase which does not lend itself to easy comprehension. If we do indeed understand the actions contemplated by the State Assembly, it was a mere resolution, which is advisory to the Governor.

“In any case, such advice will not override existing legislation establishing the Local Government Councils, as enshrined in the constitution, which is domesticated by relevant laws on the same subject matter in Plateau state. We have gone through the Plateau State Local Government Council Law and we have found out that there is no part or whole of the law donating such powers to the House of Assembly. The powers of the House of Assembly may neither be used to encumber the smooth operations of the local councils nor request or recommend the Governor to suspend or remove any local government chairman or councillor.

“The Plateau State House of Assembly is the maker of the Plateau State Local Government Council law. To act in contempt and utter disregard of the laws made by them is to devalue their functions… The dispatch with which the Governor acted on the said unconstitutional request leaves no discerning mind in any jot of doubt that the request was procured. The Governor hid behind the finger of the said request to inflict this potential damage on our democratic order.”

He added, “The resolution of the House upon which the Governor allegedly acted is said to be rooted in a petition by an unknown and unascertainable person alleging undisclosed financial improprieties or malfeasance against the 17 Chairmen and members of the Legislative Councils of the 17 Local Government Councils. The petition was not served on any of us. This is nothing but a Machiavellian ambush to achieve a premeditated goal.

“In the light of the foregoing:
In any event, the power to remove the Chairmen for any gross misconduct does not reside with the House of Assembly or the Governor. The procedure for removing a local government chairman is explicitly set out in Section 37 of the local government council law. Just like the Governor, who cannot be suspended from office because he is the chief executive of the state, it is with the chairmen of local government councils.

“Before the purported suspension, the 17 local government chairmen and the legislative councils had approached the court, invoking its interpretative jurisdiction to determine, among others, whether the governor has the power to terminate, suspend, truncate, or disturb their tenure in light of Section 7 of the constitution, which states that “The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed.”

“Under the said suit, we filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction seeking the court’s order of interlocutory injunction restraining the governor, either by himself or his privies, from disturbing, disputing, terminating, suspending, or truncating the tenure of the local government chairmen and the legislative council. The said motion was served on the Governor on June 1, 2023, at 12:43 p.m. The manifest implication of the above is that having had notice of the said motion, the Governor was under an obligation by law to await the decision of the court on the said motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.

“Instead, the Governor poked his hand into the eye of the law. He resorted to self-help. He treated the court process with disdain and went ahead to act despite it… We have no force of brute power, but we believe in the force of the law, and we believe that the force of the law will prevail. We will report this brazen affront to the law to the court, to which we had run for protection. We have abiding faith in the judiciary to invoke its disciplinary powers to overturn this unconstitutional behaviour. In the eyes of the law, we remain chairmen and councillors, respectively, until the court determines otherwise.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

News

Gift Orban Needs Three More Goals to Make Amedspor Move Permanent

info

Published

on

By

WhatsApp Image 2026 09 23 at 12.44.25 PM.jpeg

Gift Orban is three goals away from triggering a clause that could turn his loan move to Turkish club Amedspor into a permanent transfer.

The Nigerian striker has made an impressive start to the season, scoring seven goals and providing two assists in six league appearances.

Amedspor president Nahit Eren revealed on Tuesday that the club’s agreement with Hoffenheim includes a mandatory purchase clause that becomes active if Orban reaches 10 league goals.

Eren said Amedspor paid €500,000 for the loan and would pay €3 million for the permanent transfer if the 10-goal target is reached. (Punch Newspapers)

Orban’s latest goal came in Amedspor’s 3-2 victory over Beşiktaş, where he also provided an assist.

With seven goals already, the 24-year-old now needs just three more to reach the target that could secure his permanent stay in Turkey.

For now, Orban’s focus will be on maintaining his scoring form as Amedspor continue their campaign in the Turkish Süper Lig.

Continue Reading

Business

NMDPRA approves 830,000-tonne petrol imports amid Dangote legal battle

info

Published

on

By

428683862 796449282514152 6787495153779598606 n e1733992153588.jpg

The Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) has approved petrol import permits covering about 830,000 metric tonnes for multiple companies ahead of the fourth quarter of 2026, PREMIUM TIMES has learnt.

George Ene-Ita, spokesperson for the authority, confirmed the development to PREMIUM TIMES on Tuesday.

“Yes, petrol import permits were approved for Q4 2026 to ensure there’re no supply gaps heading into the critical end-of-year period,” Mr Ene-Ita said.

Companies reportedly granted the permits include Matrix Energy, A.A. Rano, AYM Shafa, NIPCO, Pinnacle Oil and Bono Energy.

The approvals were reportedly issued on 18 September, although details of the individual allocations to the marketers were not immediately available as of the time of filing this report.

The latest approvals come amid an ongoing legal dispute between Dangote Petroleum Refinery and the regulator over the continued issuance of petrol import licences.

PT WHATSAPP CHANNEL
Dangote Refinery AD

They also come as heightened tensions in the Middle East continue to disrupt global energy markets, keeping crude oil prices elevated and raising concerns about the cost of petroleum supplies.

Dangote’s legal challenge

In May, PREMIUM TIMES reported that Dangote Petroleum Refinery filed a fresh lawsuit against the Attorney-General of the Federation, challenging fuel import licences issued to oil marketers and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd).

In the suit, the refinery argued that the licences granted to some marketers threatened its operations and were contrary to provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA).

The refinery contended that fuel import licences should only be issued when domestic supply is insufficient to meet national demand.

Nigeria has historically depended heavily on imported petrol, largely because of the poor performance of its state-owned refineries.

The $20 billion Dangote Refinery, owned by businessman Aliko Dangote, was expected to reduce the country’s dependence on imported refined petroleum products by supplying the domestic market.

With an installed capacity of 650,000 barrels per day, the facility is Africa’s largest single-train refinery and was projected to significantly reduce the foreign exchange burden associated with fuel imports.

However, petrol imports have continued as the refinery ramps up production and distribution, while some industry operators maintain that domestic output has yet to fully meet national demand.

Regulatory dispute

Since commencing operations in 2024, Dangote Refinery has repeatedly pushed for local marketers to source petroleum products from domestic refineries rather than rely on imports.

The former NMDPRA leadership under Farouk Ahmed resisted measures that it considered capable of creating a monopoly, arguing that allowing a single refinery to dominate the market could undermine competition and create risks for Nigeria’s energy security.

The disagreement contributed to a public dispute between Mr Dangote and Mr Ahmed.

Mr Dangote subsequently accused the former regulator of corruption and alleged that the NMDPRA was colluding with international traders and fuel importers to frustrate local refining by continuing to issue import licences.

He also raised questions about Mr Ahmed’s lifestyle and alleged that four of his children attended expensive secondary schools in Switzerland, claims that formed part of the broader controversy over the regulator’s conduct.

Mr Ahmed later resigned as NMDPRA chief executive.

Previous lawsuit

In 2024, Dangote Refinery instituted a separate suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, seeking N100 billion in damages against the NMDPRA over the issuance of import licences to some marketers and the subsequent importation of petroleum products.

The marketers named in the suit included NNPC Ltd, Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited and 2015 Petroleum Limited.

In the suit dated 6 September 2024, the refinery’s lawyer, Ogwu Onoja, asked the Federal High Court to declare that the NMDPRA violated Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act by issuing licences for the importation of petroleum products.

Dangote Refinery argued that such licences should only be issued where a shortfall in domestic petroleum supply exists.

The refinery also asked the court to declare that the NMDPRA failed in its statutory responsibility under the PIA to encourage domestic refining.

However, in a counter-affidavit dated 5 November 2024 and filed by Ahmed Raji (SAN), the marketers asked the court to dismiss the refinery’s claims.

They argued that competition was essential to the health of Nigeria’s economy and the viability of the petroleum sector, insisting that they were qualified to receive import licences under Section 317(9) of the PIA.

READ ALSO: NMDPRA speaks on petrol price rise, regulatory action

The defendants further accused Dangote Refinery of attempting to monopolise the petroleum industry by seeking sole control over fuel supply, distribution and pricing.

In July 2025, Dangote Refinery discontinued the lawsuit challenging the import approvals. The refinery did not publicly state its reasons for withdrawing the case.

Meanwhile, the Dangote Refinery’s current case challenging the continued issuance of petrol import licences is scheduled for further hearing on 7 October.

Asked on Tuesday for an update on the legal dispute with Dangote Refinery, Mr Ene-Ita declined to comment, citing the ongoing court proceedings.

“The Dangote case is still in court. I cannot say anything in a court case,” he said.


Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Trending