COURT ADJOURNS PROCEEDINGS AGAIN AS FOPCHEN MAINTAINS CALL FOR MORAL REBIRTH

Proceedings in the ongoing court case involving Oyewale Olufemi Ezekiel resumed today at the High Court of Ogun State, Ota Division, following the last adjournment on July 30, but were once again adjourned.

At the resumption, the court addressed pending procedural and legal matters arising from earlier sessions. However, after brief proceedings, the presiding judge adjourned the case, citing the need for further consideration of issues before the court. The matter was subsequently adjourned till March 24, 2026, for continuation of hearing.

The case, which has continued to draw public attention, revolves around multiple counts preferred against the defendant under existing Nigerian laws. Since its commencement, the matter has witnessed a series of adjournments, largely due to legal objections, documentation reviews, and procedural deliberations.

Reacting to the fresh adjournment, the Foundation for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage in Nigeria (FOPCHEN) reiterated its position that the case underscores broader concerns about moral values in contemporary society. The organisation restated its call for a moral rebirth, urging stakeholders to look beyond the courtroom and address what it described as a growing erosion of cultural and ethical standards.
FOPCHEN emphasised that while it respects the judicial process and the right of all parties to fair hearing, society must also engage in meaningful dialogue around values, responsibility, and cultural identity.

As the court awaits the next adjourned date of March 24, 2026, the case continues to spark discussion on the intersection of law, culture, and morality in Nigeria, with observers keenly watching how the legal process unfolds.

Senate Blocks Mandatory Electronic Transmission of Election Results: Implications for Nigeria’s Electoral Integrity

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by SaharaWeeklyNG

“As the Senate rejects compulsory digital reporting of votes, Nigeria faces renewed debates over transparency, security, and public trust in its democratic processes.”

In a landmark yet controversial decision, the Nigerian Senate has voted against the compulsory electronic transmission of election results, a move that has reignited the long-standing national debate over the integrity and transparency of electoral processes. The decision, which was widely anticipated by political analysts, has drawn mixed reactions from civil society groups, election monitors, and political stakeholders. While proponents of the Senate’s stance cite concerns over security and technological readiness, critics argue that the rejection risks perpetuating inefficiencies and undermining public confidence in Nigeria’s democracy.

The Senate, acting on a bill proposed to institutionalize the electronic transmission of results as mandatory for all elections, voted decisively against making the technology compulsory. Advocates of the measure had argued that such a system would minimize human interference, reduce delays in vote counting and ensure timely dissemination of results to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the electorate. However, senators opposing the bill raised apprehensions about cybersecurity threats, infrastructural inadequacies and the potential for technological malfunctions during critical electoral exercises.

“This decision signals a cautionary approach by our lawmakers,” remarked Professor Festus Iyayi, a noted political scientist at the University of Lagos. “While the intention to secure elections through electronic means is laudable, the infrastructure and human capacity to implement it nationwide remain limited. Until these foundational gaps are addressed, mandating such a system could introduce more chaos than clarity.”

The Nigerian political landscape has historically been marked by electoral controversies, ranging from ballot manipulation to delayed result announcements. The 2023 general elections, which were plagued by logistical challenges and sporadic violence, underscored the need for reform in the transmission and verification of results. Proponents of compulsory electronic transmission contend that the adoption of secure digital channels would mitigate these recurrent challenges, increase voter confidence and align Nigeria with global best practices in electoral management.

Dr. Amina Waziri, a governance and elections expert at the Centre for Democratic Development in Abuja, emphasizes the transformative potential of technology in strengthening democratic institutions. “Electronic transmission of results is not merely a technical upgrade; it is a tool for accountability,” Waziri asserted. “Countries across Africa, including Ghana and Kenya, have adopted similar systems to significant effect. Nigeria’s rejection of compulsory electronic transmission delays its entry into this new era of transparent governance.”

Security concerns, however, remain central to the Senate’s rationale. Senators cited the potential vulnerability of digital systems to cyberattacks, manipulation and unauthorized access. In a country where political tensions often escalate rapidly, the fear that election results could be tampered with electronically is not without precedent. Moreover, rural constituencies with limited internet connectivity present additional logistical challenges, raising questions about equitable implementation across Nigeria’s 36 states.

The National Electoral Commission (INEC) has, for years, advocated for the modernization of election processes, emphasizing that technology can enhance efficiency and public confidence. INEC’s previous pilot programs with electronic transmission, although successful in select constituencies, highlighted both the promise and the challenges of scaling the system nationwide. Professor John Olorunfemi, a senior analyst at the Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies, notes, “The technical feasibility exists in urban centers and well-equipped districts. The critical question remains whether this can be replicated uniformly across remote areas without disenfranchising voters.”

Political reactions to the Senate’s decision have been sharply divided. Opposition parties and civil society organizations have criticized the rejection as a missed opportunity to institutionalize transparency and reduce electoral malpractices. “This is a step backward for Nigeria’s democracy,” declared Dr. Chinyere Okafor, spokesperson for the Nigerian Electoral Reform Coalition. “We cannot continue to rely solely on manual processes prone to human error and manipulation. The electorate deserves a system that guarantees accuracy, speed and accountability.”

Conversely, some legislators defended their position, arguing that rushing technology adoption without adequate safeguards could jeopardize electoral credibility. Senator Olusegun Balogun, one of the vocal opponents, stated, “We are not against progress, but we must be pragmatic. A nationwide system that fails on election day will do far more damage than benefit. Let us first address infrastructural gaps and train personnel before mandating electronic transmission.”

The decision also reverberates internationally, drawing scrutiny from election observers and governance watchdogs. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation and largest economy, often serves as a benchmark for democratic practice across the continent. As Dr. Michael Kofi, a senior analyst at the African Governance Institute, notes, “The credibility of Nigeria’s elections has regional implications. Electronic transmission is a standard adopted by several democracies to mitigate fraud. The Senate’s rejection delays Nigeria’s alignment with these global norms.”

Beyond technical and security considerations, the debate touches on broader societal and political dimensions. Electronic transmission of results is seen by many experts as a critical instrument for reducing the influence of political godfathers and local power brokers who have historically manipulated manual result collation. By ensuring immediate reporting from polling units to central servers, the system can reduce opportunities for vote inflation, result alteration and intimidation.

Yet, the Senate’s cautious stance may reflect a deeper concern over the pace of technological adoption in governance. Nigeria’s experience with digital systems in other sectors (ranging from financial services to civil registration) has been uneven, often complicated by cyber fraud, poor internet penetration and insufficient regulatory oversight. These realities underscore the complexity of introducing a high-stakes system like electronic result transmission in a politically charged environment.

Legal experts also highlight that the rejection does not entirely foreclose technological innovation in elections. INEC retains the authority to deploy electronic transmission as a voluntary or supplementary mechanism, meaning that gradual adoption remains possible. “The Senate has opted for caution, not prohibition,” explains Barrister Emeka Uche, a constitutional law specialist. “The commission can still leverage technology incrementally, allowing lessons to be learned and adjustments made before nationwide implementation becomes mandatory.”

As Nigeria prepares for upcoming gubernatorial and local elections, the Senate’s decision will likely shape both the operational strategy of INEC and the expectations of the electorate. Transparency advocates warn that without decisive reforms, public trust in electoral outcomes may remain fragile, perpetuating cycles of skepticism, protests and litigation.

Ultimately, the rejection of compulsory electronic transmission underscores the tension between ambition and pragmatism in Nigeria’s democracy. It reflects a legislature cautious of technological vulnerabilities, yet it also highlights the persistent struggle to modernize political processes in the face of infrastructural limitations. As Professor Festus Iyayi aptly concludes, “Nigeria stands at a crossroads. Embracing technology is essential for credible elections, but doing so without preparation could undermine the very integrity it seeks to protect. The path forward requires both vision and discipline.”

The decision carries profound implications for the evolution of Nigeria’s democratic practices. For citizens, it is a reminder that the fight for electoral transparency is ongoing, shaped not only by technology but also by political will, institutional capacity and civic engagement. For policymakers, the challenge remains clear: to reconcile the promise of innovation with the realities of implementation, ensuring that every Nigerian’s vote is counted accurately, efficiently and securely.

In conclusion, the Senate’s rejection of compulsory electronic transmission of election results represents both a pause and a warning. While it reflects a legitimate concern over readiness and security, it also delays the adoption of a system that could substantially reduce electoral malpractice and enhance public confidence. The coming months will test Nigeria’s ability to balance caution with reform, ultimately determining whether its democratic institutions can modernize in tandem with public expectations and global standards.

EPSTEIN FILES EXPOSE SECRETED SCHEME TO CASH IN ON LIBYA’S BILLIONS

By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by SaharaWeeklyNG

“How newly released documents reveal an attempted exploitation of Libya’s frozen wealth before and after Gaddafi — and what it means for justice, sovereignty, and global finance.”

In one of the most startling and geopolitically charged revelations of the decade, newly released documents from the Epstein Files (a vast tranche of records linked to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein) have unveiled a clandestine blueprint to profit from Libya’s immense frozen state assets during a period of political upheaval that began in 2011. More than a decade after the overthrow and death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, these records outline plans that, if carried out, risked transforming a nation’s sovereign wealth into the private windfall of global financiers, intermediaries, and former intelligence operatives. The implications extend far beyond financial opportunism, touching the core of international law, post-conflict reconstruction and the fragile sovereignty of states emerging from chaos.

Libya’s Frozen Fortune: The Lure of Billions.
At the heart of these revelations is an email dated July 2011 sent to Epstein by an associate that outlines a proposal to pursue access to Libyan state assets that were frozen abroad in the wake of the NATO-backed uprising that toppled Gaddafi. At the time, the United Nations imposed freezes on Libyan assets under Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, designed to limit the Gaddafi regime’s access to funds during the conflict. However, this freeze also created a pool of state wealth (estimated at around $80 billion, including $32.4 billion held in the United States) that was suddenly susceptible to external legal and financial manoeuvring.
According to the email, the actual value of what was described as “sovereign, stolen and misappropriated” assets could be three to four times larger than the $80 billion figure, suggesting a potential trove exceeding hundreds of billions. “If we can identify or recover just 5 to 10 percent of these monies and receive between 10 and 25 percent as compensation, we are talking about billions of dollars,” the correspondence stated, framing the operation as a lucrative business opportunity rather than a sovereign asset recovery.

The email went further, painting a picture of Libya as not only a ripe target for asset recovery but also a future hub of investment: one that, if engaged early, could “become their go-to guys” for reconstruction work. The correspondence noted projections that Libya would need to spend at least $100 billion on rebuilding its economy and infrastructure, positioning the scheme as a gateway into a multi-billion-dollar market tied to reconstruction and legal services.

Former Spies and International Networks
What transforms this from opportunistic financial speculation into a geopolitical intrigue is the involvement of former intelligence personnel. The email references preliminary discussions with former agents from Britain’s MI6 and Israel’s Mossad, and suggests that some members expressed willingness to help identify and trace Libyan assets abroad is a stark illustration of how intelligence networks can be folded into private financial projects that operate in the grey intersection of influence, law and power.

The use of former intelligence officials in legal and asset-recovery matters is not inherently illegitimate; in many cases, their expertise in tracing financial flows and navigating international systems can aid legitimate restitution efforts. However, in the context of this proposal (where the stated objective was profit extraction for private benefit unaffiliated with Libya’s legitimate government) the lines between recovery, coercion, and exploitation become perilously blurred.

Sovereignty, Asset Recovery and International Law.
The emergence of these documents has reignited a long-standing debate over sovereign asset freezes and the ethics of asset recovery. Scholars and policy experts emphasize that frozen funds belong to the people of the state in question, and that any recovery or release should serve the sovereign interests of that nation and not the private ambitions of third parties. According to analysis published by the International Crisis Group, efforts to reform sanctions and allow asset reinvestment must be conducted with “the consent of Libya’s legitimate authorities,” and designed to benefit the Libyan people rather than external interests.

The complex legal landscape surrounding frozen Libyan assets has already resulted in numerous litigations. Libya has fought cases in European courts, including against global finance giants such as Goldman Sachs, while also seeking pathways to unlock portions of its sovereign wealth for national development and economic revival. However, political fragmentation (a persistent challenge in Libya’s civil conflict) has frequently stalled progress, underscoring how easily frozen assets can become political bargaining chips rather than tools for reconstruction.

As legal expert Mohammed bin Shaaban observed in recent reporting on Libya’s asset situation, the maze of international litigation and competing claims has left much of the country’s wealth inaccessible and shifts in governance further complicate matters. Such dynamics underline the inherent risk when third parties position themselves as intermediaries in sovereign matters without clear legal mandate or ethical grounding.

Libya’s Fragile Context and Corruption Complexities
Understanding the Epstein scheme also requires acknowledging the broader context of Libya’s political instability and deeply entrenched corruption.

Transparency International consistently ranks Libya among the lowest globally on the Corruption. Perceptions Index, a stark reflection of systemic governance challenges since Gaddafi’s fall. That corruption has extended into the management of state resources and has complicated efforts to ensure that any recovered assets serve the public good rather than private pockets.
This offers a sobering backdrop to the Epstein correspondence. What might at first appear as financial opportunism can also be interpreted (in the harshest light) as a schemed attempt to exploit both the political disarray and the legal ambiguity surrounding Libya’s frozen assets for private advantage. In environments where rule of law is weak and sovereign authority is contested, external actors can, intentionally or otherwise, exert disproportionate influence over outcomes.

Ethics of Engagement and the Limits of Opportunism.
The revelations raise essential questions about ethical boundaries in international finance and asset recovery. The stated willingness of international law firms to work on a contingency fee basis (paid only upon success) reflects common practice in asset litigation. Yet the inclusion of such firms alongside former intelligence operatives underlines how humanitarian, legal and economic projects can be co-opted into efforts aimed at generating private profit under the guise of public service.

Experts argue that genuine asset recovery should be driven by transparent legal frameworks, international cooperation and unwavering commitment to justice for victimized populations. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and other multilateral bodies have long emphasized that illicit financial flows hamper development and that asset recovery must be anchored in lawful restitution not speculative gain.

The Road Ahead: A Cautionary Tale for Post-Conflict Economies.
The Epstein Files revelations about Libya serve as a potent reminder of the perils facing nations emerging from conflict: when enormous sovereign wealth is frozen or in legal limbo, it attracts not only legitimate legal claims but also those driven by speculation and profit. What should be a process grounded in restoring national wealth and dignity can become a theatre for the powerful to profit off instability.

In a world grappling with conflict-induced asset freezes (from Libya to other nations displaced by war or sanctions) the imperative is clear: international law and ethical standards must protect sovereign assets, ensure their return benefits the people to whom they belong, and guard against schemes that would commodify national misfortune into private fortune. Only through principled engagement and rigorous accountability can the promise of rebuilding shattered states be realised without handing over their priceless heritage to opportunists.