​Ex-Head of State, Abubakar, Dangote, Onaiyekan hail Jonathan for Conceding Defeat

The Peace Accord Committee has congratulated President Goodluck Jonathan for conceding defeat and congratulating his opponent, the All Progressives Congress’s candidate, Muhammadu Buhari.

The chairman of the committee and former Head of State, Abdusalami Abubakar, who spoke to journalists after a closed-door meeting with the President, said the committee was spellbound when Mr. Buhari informed them that Mr. Jonathan had called to congratulate him.

“We were at the middle of a meeting with the international observers to try to see how we can still water the tension down, when gladly I called Gen. Buhari that we are going to see him,” Mr. Abubakar said. “He told me that Mr. President has called him at about 5:15 p.m. and congratulated him and conceded defeat.

“We were spellbound and the reason we have come here is to thank President Jonathan for this statesmanship. In the history of Nigeria​,​ I think this is the first time where a contestant has called his rival to congratulate him and through this point, President Jonathan maintained a point that the blood of Nigerians is not worth his presidency and by his action he has proved that.

“He has proved that he is a man of his word‎ because during our interaction on this peace committee he has always maintained that he is going to accept the result of the elections whichever way it is done. And he has proved this.”

He further appealed to politicians to accept the state of things as the president has already conceded defeat.

“I think we need Nigerians, all of us, to join hands in making sure we assist him in the peaceful handing over,” Mr. Abubakar said. “And I will appeal to all politicians;​ ‎those who are celebrating and those who are sorrowing to please give peace a chance​;​ to be moderate. In any contest there is always going to be a winner and President Jonathan has accepted that he lost and we want to thank him.”

Ha thanked the President on behalf of Nigerians “for being the statesman that he is”​.​

“He has approved that he is a statesman and he has the love of this country in his heart,”Mr. Abubakar said. “So Nigerians should please help him to ensure this is real.”

He urged aggrieved Nigerians to seek redress through the law.

“The electoral laws have procedures for ​seeking re-address,” he said. “So if anybody has ‎any grievance he should apply through the law. I appeal again to our youth, to everybody to please give peace a chance and accept that the chief contestant himself has accepted. So nobody please go and raise any eyebrow and cause any destabilization of this country.”

Others at the meeting include: Ubitu Ukiwe, former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Priscilla Kuye, Catholic Archbishop, John Onaiyekan, Primate of Anglican Communion, Nicholas Okoh and Aliko Dangote.

The peace committee had previously met with the President as well as the APC candidate, before the elections and had ensured that both parties sign a peace accord, to ensure peace in the event of defeat on each side.


Now available on

  Premium Times Android mobile applicationPremium Times iOS mobile applicationPremium Times blackberry mobile applicationPremium Times windows mobile application

TEXT AD: Revealed!!! The Only Way Left of Getting an Extra Large Manhood and also Last Up to 38Mins+. Get the Insider Secret Here

TEXT AD: This NAFDAC APPROVED Solution Will Make You Stay Longer Than 40Mins In Bed Tonight And Help Your Erection. Click Here To Read The Free Reports

All rights reserved. This material and any other material on this platform may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, written or distributed in full or in part, without written permission from PREMIUM TIMES.

  • Omababa

    Thank God for this day. Team Jega and Team Abdusalami Abubakar deserve commendations for their respective roles to sail Nigeria through this turbulent waters. Truely, they have shown their love for a united Nigeria. And I prayed we do not see a President that will not promote oneness among us again in this country.

    • fela


    • levels

      You must be very wrong to make such an irresponsible Statement. Be careful with your words Omobaba!!

    • Olusegun Olawonyi

      Please acknowledge what Jonathan has done. All the Abdulsami and co times twenty would have been able to do nothing if Jonathan had rejected the polls and called out his dogs from the creeks. But he chose the path of honor and at the most critical moment when it mattered most, he rose up to the occasion. His action has stemmed the tide of bloodshed that usually accompany elections like this. We cannot take away from the noble act of Mr. President. A beg!

  • edith

    this is wonderful…..meanwhile…..Good evening people, are you looking for a genuine investment opportunity that will upgrade your financial status? Invest And Enlarge (WEALTHZONE) is the right company, a company located in Kano where you invest and get a monthly interest according to the amount you invest and also get a referral bonus interest the more people you refer which is my aim of this advert,I live here in Abuja, I read about them sometime last year on facebook and i contacted them via email and that was how i became an investor with them, I just got my 4th interest payment so I am convinced of their activities, if you are interested you TEXT your EMAIL address to their customer care line 08021341784 and they will get back to you with details. please do not forget to tell them Mrs Edith Sambo referred you, remain blessed.

  • guvnor1

    That is the difference between a Christian and a Muslim. Even though President Jonathan is the dumbest president ever in Nigeria history, He is a man of peace. He was an accidental president. He was never in charge, the people in charge were; Okonjo Iweala, Diezani, David Mark and of course His wife Madame Patience. I strongly feel Jonathan is a happy man, he was tired already, all the abuses, insults can end. Then he is free to divorce and be with the woman he loves(not Patience). He does not have to look over his shoulder, All over the world His star power will Rise through the roof. He will be respected out of office more than he is now. So from the bottom of my hearth Thank You God and Thank you president Jonathan. Congratulation and enjoy your freedom.

    • Jinadu Bola

      Bros. in as much as i cherish this ur post but ur 1st statement is wrong. many muslim would av hand over peacefully like our president, GEJ, has done

    • Onike24

      This sort of bigotry makes a mockery of what we have achieved today, on one has monopoly of virtue of vice. So please let the bigoted posts end with the Jonathan administration, we have no place for it

    • Rommel

      I’m sure you are a blood relative of Godsday Orubebe,the grand patron of touts in Nigeria

  • Uzoma

    If there is one loser in the whole of Nigeria today, considering the way things have turned out today, I’d argue it is Obasanjo because everyone else is emerging as a statesman.

  • Olusegun Olawonyi

    Without making light of Buhari’s victory, Jonathan and Nigeria emerged the big winners in this presidential poll. GEJ concession of defeat is a bigger news than Buhari’s victory. With his rather surprise move, GEJ has opened up a new chapter in the annals of this country. It is the era of smooth transition from an incumbency to an erstwhile opposition party. This is a new day. I was glad when Buhari won, but even more excited when Jonathan conceded defeat. He is now a statesman. I am proud of him and wish him well. I have personally wiped away all his “flaws” from my memory bank…History would be kind to him.

  • GusO

    I’m a Southerner and I totally agree with this proposal that the best structure for Nigeria is the twelve state structure designed before the civil war in 1967. The Gowon regime was not corrupt as so many subsequent regime became. His Federal Executive council comprised of heavyweights who advocated Nigeria’s independence such Awolowo, Enahoro, Aminu Kano, JS Tarka, Shagari, etc., who had input into the creation of the original 12 States. Subsequent additional state creations were corrupt

  • Tola

    This is good. May be the best option

  • Azuka

    Why did the north in 1991 need an individual from the south [Enahoro] to collaborate with them a group if the goals are not, among other unseens, to capture and co-opt the old journalist and politician? Reflecting now, Enahoro should have pointed out the unethical, even dubious, tactics of the northern group before launching his MNR. For this new northern group to fail to see this in context, and then proceed to lash Enahoro, suggests a note of self-righteous grandstanding that attempts to tarnish their otherwise brilliant and even very progressive proposals

  • Remi

    Yes, while it may be true that we
    have been restructuring since 1914, however, that should not preclude any further restructuring. There is also the
    need to critically examine why, in spite of over a hundred years of
    restructuring, we are yet to achieve a (political & fiscal) structure that is acceptable to everyone.

    First off, Nigeria in all her
    metamorphosis under colonial rule was , and had never been created with Statehood
    in mind, at any point in time. If anything, the idea of Statehood came as a colonial afterthought, in the face of
    strident agitations for independence, by
    the nationalists. In reality, Nigeria – in all her metamorphosis prior to
    independence – was created for reasons of imperial power projection and pride, trade and economic
    exploitation, and never Statehood. Thus it was that the British created Nigeria
    alright, but failed to create Nigerians; and, rather unfortunately, the political
    structures they left behind made the creation
    of Nigerians difficult.

    Whereas, the restructuring of:
    1914 was merely a “bookkeeping necessity” ; 1938, was for administrative convenience and 1951, was
    out of political expediency; none of these restructurings addressed the
    fundamental imbalance in the federation, created by the flawed assumption of a tripartite ethnic
    federation. Neither, in spite of demands to the contrary, did this
    restructurings address the glaring skew
    in the federation, which made it possible for one component unit (the North), and the least
    democratic one at that, to be so large
    that it could conveniently dominate all the others. Sadly, and in spite of the
    intellectual clout behind it, this write up is informed by the “One North, One People”
    mind-set and persists in lumping everyone in the North together, despite the
    obvious ethnic and religious divisions, nay animosities, apparent in that region nowadays.

    Though, the most democratic so far, the1963 restructuring
    was undermined by the apparent and hidden insincerity that informed it.
    While it was touted as a support for the long-standing demand for self-determination
    by the ethnic minorities, however, those who initiated and supported it never granted a
    similar dispensation to the ethnic minorities in their own regions. Depending on whose perspective it is viewed
    from, the hidden political motive of this restructuring was political vendetta,
    gerrymandering and an attempt to “fish
    in troubled waters”. Unarguably, the restructuring of 1967 was carried out by
    an undemocratic regime, in order to sabotage a secession. Hence, while in some ways, the 1967
    restructuring solved the extant problem of political asymmetry by creating a “rough
    equality of strength among the federating units ; however, it introduced fiscal
    asymmetry due to the unitarist nature of
    the restructuring agents. Thus, sowing the seeds of economic
    unviability in the federating units that
    were to be created subsequently.

    While it is possible to discern or deduce the logic
    that drove all the restructurings up to 1967, nonetheless, same could not be said of all restructurings post-1967. However, one
    could safely assert that economic viability and, according to the philosopher, J.S.
    Mills, “sufficient mutual sympathy “of …, language, religion, and, above all,
    of political institutions, as conducing most to a feeling of identity of
    political interest”; were, in most
    instances, not factors on the minds of
    the predominantly northern Military officers who arbitrarily created the
    post-1967 federating units.

    Finally on this point, while it is true that we have been restructuring
    since 1914, nevertheless, reality is that we have not been doing so for the right reasons, namely, to create a balanced federation, where no one (or groups
    acting together) can dominate the others. If anything, all the restructurings to date have been carried out to
    maintain, and reinforce, the skewed political structure that we inherited from
    the British at independence. And this leads me to the second point of this
    article that I intend to contest, specifically that, the strength of the regions in the second
    republic led to the failure of that
    republic. This is simply an
    untrue and incorrect reading of history. A federal structure, so skewed that it
    was possible for the federating unit with the least democratic credentials, to
    eternally dominate the two others either alone or in alliance, was bound
    to create problems at some point. Besides building instability into the political
    system, a further implication of such an
    arrangement is that the dominant unit
    can only be removed through a coup or
    dissolution of the federation. And both options did not tarry in coming: first
    with the alleged Action Group (AG) Coup of 1962; the first secessionist bid of the Eastern Region
    in 1964, following disagreements with their alliance partners over Census figures and culminating in the
    bloody coup of January 15 1966, which eventually sent the whole edifice

    Finally, I will say yes to restructuring, but it should be done in such a
    manner that ensures that no one
    federating unit or groups of units acting in a block, can dominate other
    federating units. And in creating such federating units, the advice of the
    philosopher J.S. Mills (1806 – 1873) is pertinent here. In his 1861 treatise on “Representative Government” Mills asserted,
    among other “necessary conditions” (for federalism) that each federating unit
    should have : “sufficient mutual sympathy “of race, language, religion, and,
    above all, of political institutions, as conducing most to a feeling of
    identity of political interest”.

  • Funso Famuyiwa

    Though one may question some of the assertions and assumptions made in this Declaration, one cannot but commend and indeed applaud the reasonableness of their final Recommendations which is remarkably devoid of any self serving Ethnic agenda.
    These Recommendations are worth putting on the Table for serious consideration and debate. I also commend the Intellectual vigor that underlies the report. It is Not the work of lazy, noisy rabble rousing minds. Kudos.

  • Remi

    Just two observations :

    On Our Never-Ending Restructuring

    Two factors have always tainted our restructuring attempts to date. Namely, that: they have largely always been
    carried out in a top-down fashion, with little or no consultations, by
    unelected leaders with vested interests; and they have always been done for the
    wrong reasons – to perpetuate, maintain and/or reinforce an exploitative colonial order or our
    inherited structural asymmetry. For example, the restructuring of: 1914 was
    merely a “bookkeeping necessity” ; while those of, 1938 and 1951 were
    respectively borne out of, (colonial) administrative convenience and political
    expediency. Depending on whose perspective it is viewed from, the restructuring
    of 1963 could be said to be borne of political vendetta, gerrymandering or an attempt to “fish in
    troubled waters”. Unarguably, the restructuring of 1967 was hurriedly carried
    out to sabotage a secession. The motives that drove all the restructurings,
    post 1967, were as opaque as they were arcane; and the fact that all these exercises were carried out by military regimes dominated by northern
    military officers, helped to reinforce the feeling of their unfairness.

    Consequently, these restructurings have failed to address
    the congenital structural imbalance in the federation , while also
    creating systemic fiscal weaknesses and
    skewness. Hence, the need to now restructure in a bottom-up and comprehensive

    On the Strength of the Regions in the First Republic

    popular fallacy that the strength of the regions in the second republic led to it’s
    failure is simply untrue and an incorrect reading of history. At independence,
    the British curiously bequeathed a federal
    structure, so obviously lopsided, in spite of demands to the contrary, that it
    was possible for one federating unit – and the one with the least democratic
    credentials – to eternally dominate the two others either alone or in alliance.
    Thus, it was very clear that this
    (in)advertence on the part of the British was bound to create problems at some point in time. Because, besides blatantly violating the
    established cannons of federalism, it built instability into the political
    system, with the further implication that,
    the dominant unit can only be removed
    through a coup or a dissolution of the federation. And both options did not
    tarry in coming: first with the alleged Action Group (AG) Coup of 1962; the
    first secessionist bid of the Eastern Region in 1964, following
    disagreements with their alliance partners
    over Census figures and culminating in the bloody coup of January 15
    1966, which eventually sent the whole edifice crashing.

    Hence, this
    again compels the restructuring of our polity, in order to re-balance it and ensure
    the “equality of strength” among the
    federating units, such that no one, or groups of federating units will be able
    to dominate the others.