The embattled Executive Secretary of the Border Communities Development Agency (BCDA), Dr Dakorinama Alabo George, has said that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s directive to appointees, who aspired for elective positions, to resign ahead of primaries, “does not stand.”
Tinubu had directed all his appointees, who intended to contest elective offices in 2027, to resign on or before March 31, 2026, reports Daily Trust.
George, who was Commissioner for Works in Rivers State during the administrations of former Governor Nyesom Wike and Governor Siminalayi Fubara, had reportedly resigned from the BCDA to contest the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship primary in the state.
He, however, withdrew from the contest held on May 21, 2026 at the last minute.
The presidency had announced his replacement with a former spokesperson of the House of Representatives, Abdulrazak Sa’ad Namdas, in a statement dated June 26, by a presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga.
But nearly one month after the announcement, George has remained in office as the head of the agency, insisting that Namdas’ appointment was an error and that he never resigned.
“The presidency through the office of the SGF will be in a better place to answer you pls,” he had said in a now-deleted WhatsApp response.
Onanuga had faulted George’s claim in a terse response to Daily Trust, saying, “Not true. Namdas stays.”
He has not responded to an inquiry on why George remains in office, despite the new appointment.
Amid the impasse, George continues to hold official engagements as the BCDA head, among which was a recent meeting with the Minister of Finance and the Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Mr Taiwo Oyedele, in Abuja, where he appealed for timely budget releases to the agency.
Sources had told our correspondent that George was being backed by some persons within the presidency and powerful individuals, including the Federal Capital Territory Minister, Wike.
Efforts to get the minister’s comment on the claim were unsuccessful as his spokesperson, Lere Olayinka, did not respond to an inquiry sent to him.
Last Tuesday, a day after publication on the matter, George reached out to one of our correspondents via WhatsApp, commenting on the report.
“I have my appointment letter to the office and no one else does so there’s no dual leadership,” he wrote, adding a subtle threat. “Just be careful about your misleading stories so it doesn’t end in litigation.”
“This will be my last discussion with you on this subject matter,” he noted.
When asked if he resigned before he picked nomination forms for the governorship primaries, he said, “Don’t you know where to find out? Don’t chat me up again.”
Directive doesn’t stand, law does – George
A few minutes later, George sent another WhatsApp text to Daily Trust, citing Section 88(1) of the Electoral Act, ostensibly to justify his stay in the office despite the president’s directive.
“On a final note, just to educate you, let me help you with this: Section 88(1). Key Points on Resignation Timing: This provision effectively requires political appointees to resign before participating in primaries (as aspirants or delegates) to avoid violating the law. However, it does not mandate a specific timeline like ‘at least 30 days’ or ‘one day before,’” he wrote.
He further argued that legal interpretations — including from lawmakers — and expert commentary indicated that resignation can occur anytime before the primaries, “including potentially the day before or ensuring they are no longer in office on the day of the event.”
George said the law is particular about not holding the appointment during participation on the day of the primaries.
“So if you withdraw from contesting a day before the primaries, you don’t need to resign. But if you’re really contesting you must resign at least a day before the primaries. The law didn’t say resign before picking forms. The law is the law and anything outside the law (even a directive) does not stand.
“So technically there was no vacancy. Someone erroneously misinformed the Presidency that there was a directive and an announcement was made but when they found out that there was no resignation it was quickly corrected,” he stated.
Presidential directive overrides Electoral Act – Lawyers
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Salman Jawondo, who spoke to our correspondent, said though Section 88(1) of the Electoral Act does not prescribe a specific timeline within which a political appointee must resign before seeking elective office, the president retains the constitutional power to appoint and remove his appointees at any time.
According to him, the Electoral Act only requires that a political appointee resign before participating as an aspirant or contestant in a party primary, adding that the law does not create or protect the appointment itself.
He argued that once the president appoints another person to the office, the tenure of the previous occupant automatically comes to an end, irrespective of whether the appointee had tendered a resignation.
“The Electoral Act says you cannot be a delegate, an aspirant or a contestant at a party primary unless you have resigned your appointment. It does not stipulate any time frame.
What is important is that at the time of the contest, you must have resigned.
“So, in that respect, he is correct. But the president is equally correct. Whether he resigns or not, the President can replace him with another person. By appointing another person, the president has dispensed with his services. He has the right to appoint and the right to remove.”
Jawondo further said there was no legal basis for the former appointee to continue occupying the office after a replacement had been announced.
“Having appointed another person, that is the end of his appointment because he holds office at the pleasure of the President.
“I am surprised that he is still functioning in that office and that members of staff are still attending to him. They ought not to be doing so.
“My take is that he should stop parading himself as the occupant of that office. In the interest of his integrity, he should accept the President’s decision and leave. If he refuses, the state may have to invoke its lawful coercive powers to remove him because what he is doing is unlawful.”
The SAN also dismissed the argument that the Electoral Act could be relied upon to justify remaining in office after a replacement had been made.
“The Electoral Act only says that if you want to contest, you must resign. It does not create the office he is holding. The office was created by law and the President has the power to appoint its holder.
“If the president appointed him and has now appointed another person, then the latter is the lawful appointee. He cannot take refuge under the Electoral Act.”
Another lawyer and human rights activist, Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, in an interview with our correspondent, said: “The applicable law here is the Interpretation Act. The principle is simple: the person who has the power to appoint also has the power to remove.”
According to him, the president, having appointed the agency’s chief executive, retains the discretionary authority to terminate the appointment at any time.
“The presidency appointed him (George) and has the discretionary power to also say his services are no longer required. It is just like a president appointing a minister or a governor appointing a commissioner. Once the appointing authority asks the appointee to leave, the appointee cannot refuse.
“This is not an elected office. If it were an elected office, then we would be talking about the Electoral Act and the procedures governing elected public officers. But this is an appointive office and the power to hire includes the power to fire.
“If the presidency has shown the intention for him to leave, he cannot insist on remaining in office. The presidency has the power to terminate that appointment.
“When somebody is asked to leave office and refuses, there are procedures available to enforce that directive. The President is the Chief Executive of the Federation and law enforcement agencies can be deployed to enforce lawful executive decisions,” he said.
CISLAC, CDHR seek legal resolution
Speaking on the issue, Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) and Head of Transparency International Nigeria, Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, urged all parties involved in the leadership dispute at the BCDA to seek judicial interpretation rather than engage in actions that could undermine the rule of law and institutional integrity.
Rafsanjani said the CISLAC was concerned by reports that the executive secretary of the agency had declined to vacate office despite a presidential directive, relying on Section 88(1) of the Electoral Act to justify his continued stay in office.
“If he genuinely believes that Section 88 or any other applicable law protects his tenure or restricts his removal under the present circumstances, he has every constitutional right to seek judicial interpretation.
“The rule of law guarantees that disputes over the interpretation of statutes are resolved by competent courts, not through administrative standoffs or competing public pronouncements,” he said.
Rafsajani urged all parties to exercise restraint and allow legal and constitutional processes to determine the matter, while calling on the Presidency to ensure that directives on appointments and removals are implemented in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws.
“The presidency should equally ensure that all directives concerning appointments and removals are implemented in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution and relevant statutes, thereby avoiding unnecessary institutional conflicts.
“The appropriate forum for resolving contested legal interpretations is the judiciary, whose decision should be respected by all parties,” he said.
The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) called on the Presidency to immediately clarify the leadership crisis at the BCDA, saying the lingering silence over the controversy is fueling uncertainty and undermining public confidence in government institutions.
The CDHR President, Debo Adeniran, said the dispute could only be resolved through documentary evidence, insisting that the Presidency must make public the relevant records relating to George’s resignation from the agency and the appointment of his alleged successor.
Adeniran also questioned the silence of key government institutions, including the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, saying Nigerians deserved an official explanation.
Efforts to reach the SGF proved abortive as messages sent to both the Director of Press, Christopher Ugwuegbulam and the Personal Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Yomi Odunnuga, were not responded to as at the time of filing this report.
APC chieftain raises concerns
Also speaking, an APC chieftain, Nuruddeen Hammanyero, questioned the delay in the transmission of Namdas’ appointment letter, saying the development raised concerns over administrative processes within the Presidency.
Speaking on Trust TV’s DayBreak, Hammanyero said the delay had raised questions about whether the President’s directive was being implemented.
“If the president has approved the appointment, on whose mandate is the SGF standing? If the President tells him to do something and he keeps the letter instead of giving it to Abdulrazzaq Namdas, then there are serious questions to answer,” he said.
He argued that the Chief of Staff to the President should be aware of the development, particularly following reports surrounding the appointment.
“I think if in the last two weeks he was not aware, with what has happened in the last three to five days, he should know that Hon. Abdulrazzaq Namdas has not received his appointment letter,” Hammanyero said.
The APC chieftain also referred to reports claiming that the appointment had been reversed, noting that the Presidency had publicly denied such claims.
“There was fake news that George would remain in office, but Bayo Onanuga debunked it. That means the Chief of Staff is aware. The question is whether they are working to implement the president’s approval or something else,” he said.
