Counter Response to the Purported Voiding of the NAIS January 18 Election by the BoT

I write in my capacity as a stakeholder and former National President of the National Association of Itsekiri Students (NAIS), having served in deep capacity — notably producing  the association’s first-ever secretariat in its history.

This piece is a formal counter-response to the recent publication claiming that the NAIS election conducted on January 18, 2026 was 
null and void. This response is not borne out of sentiment but anchored strictly on facts, due process, and the provisions of the NAIS Constitution (2018). 

Factual Background 
An election initially commenced on January 17, 2026, but was cancelled due to disagreements and disruptions. No results were declared and no winners emerged from that process. 

Before the commencement of the January 18 election, an emergency meeting was convened involving the National Adviser, the Electoral Committee (ELECO), aspirants, and students present. The National Adviser explained that postponing the election would delay leadership transition by at least three months, as students were returning to school. 

A motion was then raised — and unanimously adopted — that all students present with valid student identification should be allowed to vote. There were no objections from aspirants, ELECO members, or the National Adviser. The election was therefore lawfully conducted on January 18, 2026, under the supervision of the National Adviser, and results were duly declared. 

Clarification on the Role and Importance of the Board of Trustees (BoT) 
This response is not intended to demean, diminish, or undermine the Board of Trustees (BoT) of the National Association of Itsekiri Students (NAIS). The BoT remains an important stakeholder body within the association, whose advisory experience and institutional memory are valuable to its growth and stability. 

However,  like all organs, bodies, and stakeholders of NAIS, the BoT is subject to the supremacy of the NAIS Constitution (2018). Its relevance and functions must therefore be exercised strictly within constitutional boundaries, and not in a manner that supersedes, contradicts, or replaces express constitutional provisions. 

Accordingly, this publication does not challenge the existence or relevance of the BoT, but rather emphasizes that constitutional authority is supreme, and all bodies—including the BoT—are bound to apply, interpret, and act in accordance with the Constitution, and not otherwise. 

On the Authority of the Board of Trustees (BoT) 

The NAIS Constitution (2018) does not recognize or establish a Board of Trustees anywhere in its provisions. 
Instead, the Constitution provides that election disputes shall be handled by the Electoral Petition Committee under Article 8, Section 22, which states: “There shall be an Electoral Petition Committee to be headed by the National Adviser…”. 

There is no article or section conferring adjudicatory powers on a Board of Trustees. 

Conclusion: Any ruling issued by the Board of Trustees lacks constitutional foundation and is null, void, and of no legal effect. 
On the Handling of Petitions 

Under Article 8, Section 22 (i–iv), the Constitution provides that: 
The Electoral Petition Committee shall entertain: 
All cases of election malpractices/irregularities (Section 22(i)), 
Whether a person has been validly elected or not (Section 22(ii)). 
All petitions must be submitted to the National Adviser within seven (7) days 
(Section 22(iii)). 
The National Adviser shall be the Chairman of the committee and shall appoint a student secretary (Section 22(iv)). 
Instead, the Board of Trustees assumed this role without constitutional backing. 

Conclusion: The petition process was procedurally unconstitutional. 
On the Validity of the Electoral Committee Chairman 

The Constitution outlines qualifications and composition of the Electoral Committee under Article 8, Section 17 (i–viii). There is no provision disqualifying a student awaiting final results or clearance. 

The individual in question has not completed clearance, has not received final results, and remains officially listed as “in school.” 

Conclusion: He remains a bona fide student and was constitutionally qualified to serve. 

On the Delegate-Based Voting System 
The Constitution provides for delegate voting under Article 8, Section 21(iii) but permits modifications under Section 21(v) with congress approval. 
A motion was raised, the congress accepted the change, and no objections were raised. 

Conclusion: The voting modification was constitutionally valid. 
On Alleged Non-Compliance with the Constitution 
All previously disqualified candidates were reinstated and allowed to contest, satisfying Article 8, Section 19. 
There was no breach of Article 8, Sections 19 or 21. 
On Violence and Hooliganism 

Any disturbances occurred during the January 17 process, which was cancelled and produced no results. 

The Constitution empowers ELECO to ensure credible elections under: 
Article 8, Section 18(iv): 
“Ensure the conduct of credible, transparent, free and fair election.” 
The January 18 election met this requirement and was orderly and supervised. 
Conclusion: Events from a cancelled election cannot invalidate a completed one. 
On Conflict of Interest 
Under principles of natural justice — implicitly recognized in Article 1, Section 1(i–ii) 
(Supremacy and rule of law) — no person should be a judge in their own case. 
The same individual who supervised the election later presided over its nullification. 
Conclusion: This constitutes a procedural conflict of interest. 
On the Nature and Effect of This Publication 
This document is issued strictly as a stakeholder publication and not as a judicial or quasi judicial ruling. 

Any declaration of nullity flows from constitutional implication, not personal authority. 

Final Conclusion 

The election of January 18, 2026 was lawfully conducted, constitutionally compliant, 
transparent, and valid. 

The duly elected officers therefore retain their legitimate mandate. 

Signed: 
Uwagbajumi Famous 
Former National President, NAIS (2023 Administration) | Stakeholder

×