Olaniran News Network ONN

  Atiku & Tinubu Aso Rock takes a swipe at Atiku Abubakar who holds a pessimistic view of a bleak future for Nigeria in a press conference.  Atiku Abubakar, a former Vice President and presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) had challenged his 2023 electoral loss at the Appeal and Supreme Court which eventually gave victory to Mr Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a former Nigerian senator and governor of Lagos State. In his press conference, Atiku said Nigeria is doomed with travesty of Justice in the judicial system, poorly-managed economy, insecurity and plethora of problems bedeviling the country. Bayo Onanuga Special Adviser to the President on Information & Strategy while taking Atiku to the cleaners responds that it is Atiku’s political ambition that is doomed not the country. Here’s his full statement on behalf of the presidency: TIME FOR ATIKU ABUBAKAR TO FINALLY GO AWAY AND END HIS AMBITION TO BE PRESIDENT Former Vice President and Peoples Democratic Party Presi

  Atiku Abubakar  Former Vice President and the Presidential Candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) Atiku Abubakar in his international press conference on Monday said Nigeria is doomed with travesty of Justice in the judicial system, poorly-managed economy, insecurity and plethora of problems bedeviling the country.  Here is full statement: Someone asked me what I would do if I lost my election petition appeal at the Supreme Court. In response, I said that as long as Nigeria wins, the struggle would have been worth the while. By that, I meant that the bigger loss would not be mine but Nigeria’s if the Supreme Court legitimizes illegality, including forgery, identity theft, and perjury. If the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, implies by its judgment that crime is good and should be rewarded, then Nigeria has lost and the country is doomed irrespective of who occupies the Presidential seat. If the Supreme Court decides that the Electoral umpire, INEC, can tell the

  Muhammadu Buhari  RARELY in modern times can so few have tried to take so much from so many. If Nigeria had lost its arbitration dispute with Process & Industrial Development in a London court on 23 October, it would have cost our people close to USD15 billion. We won, and all decent people can sleep easier as a result. Justice Robin Knowles said Nigeria had been the victim of a monstrous fraud. But it was a close-run thing. As the judge said: “I end the case acutely conscious of how readily the outcome could have been different, and of the enormous resources ultimately required from Nigeria as the successful party to make good its challenge.” But ordinary Nigerians never took the decisions that ended up before Justice Knowles. Had Nigeria lost, it would have required schools not to be built, nurses not to be trained and roads not to repaired, on an epic scale, to pay a handful of contractors, lawyers and their allies - for a project that never broke ground. How did it get to thi

  Adedayo  Is there any connect between law and public opinion or judgments and public opinion? Before Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad’s valedictory speech at the Supreme Court last Friday, the connect or disconnect between those two had begun to assume a life of its own. The presidential election judgment delivered by the Supreme Court the day before heightened concerted quests for the nexus or disjuncture between them. In the Dattijo valedictory, it would appear that the Learned Justice had deliberately set out to take the sail off the wind of views which divorced law from judgments and public opinion. In the valedictory, Dattijo lamented how public perceptions of the judiciary had become “witheringly scornful and monstrously critical.” He was equally worried that “the public space” had been “inundated with the tale that court officials and judges are easily bribed by litigants to obviate delays and or obtain favourable judgments.” Quoting copiously from an earlier valedictory message

  Kperogi  In response to my September 30 column titled "Thought Subsidy Was Bad. Why is Tinubu Bringing it Back?” a Facebook follower of mine by the name of Anas Mundi asked, “So why is SLS [i.e., Sanusi Lamido Sanusi] always agitating for fuel subsidy removal? I still don’t get it really!!” My curt, perfunctory, irritated response was: “Because his entire life—from birth to now—has been subsidized, so he lacks empathy. He thinks only he and his ilk deserve subsidies. He is a spoiled, bratty sadist.”  For some reason, this offhanded but accurate response, which I’ll provide evidentiary proof for shortly, resonated with a broad spectrum of people, particularly from the North. A few days ago, a friend who read my response to Mundi forwarded a news story to me titled, “Why Tinubu Shouldn’t Be Blamed for Nigeria's Economic Hardship – Sanusi Lamido” where Sanusi basically exculpated Tinubu from any complicity in the unbearably agonizing adversity Nigerians are going through now. H

  Dele Momodu & Bola Tinubu  Fellow Nigerians, once again, this is not the best of times in our dear beloved country, Nigeria. After we had thought, gladly and gleefully, that no government could be worse than the recent Buhari administration, we are now confronted by yet another monstrosity. In less than two months in power, Tinubu’s government started collapsing whatever positive legacy Buhari left behind. Yet, we would have assumed and expected a President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to be far better prepared and more visionary than Buhari and his lacklustre team was. Unfortunately, this hasn’t been the case. While I’m not about to give an overview of Tinubu’s wobbly stewardship so far, and so soon, I’m constrained to put my thoughts and unequivocal opinion on the ongoing Tinubugate on paper. I’m doing this in my personal capacity as a Nigerian citizen and as a true and truthful friend of Tinubu. I believe only a true friend can look you straight, eyeballs to eyeballs, in the face, and te

  Within a month prior to the composition and inauguration of the Lagos State government cabinet, I had cause to proactively intervene twice in this column on the affairs of the State. The interventions, misconstrued in some quarters to be a criticism of the leadership of the State, was essentially to draw the attention of the government to some aberrations that needed to be addressed urgently, and suggesting the caliber of persons required for the interventions. For the mischievous people, particularly the scavengers in the corridors of power, and as often misconstrued by them, that was a collision course with the leadership of the state. Muiz is at it again deriding the leadership of the State! Undoubtedly, that was not, and never my intention for scooping out the thoughts. As remarked above, it was just a proactive diagnosis and prognosis of the afflictions I observed in the course of my daily sojourn across the State. The good news was that the leadership of the State, as typified