https://www.facebook.com/100192949453447/

Citizen Joseph Boaz, Uyo (2026)

04/04/2026

IS PRESIDENT TINUBU DRIVING NIGERIA TO A ONE-PARTY SYSTEM?
A Dispassionate Analysis of a Political Scientist/Lawyer

PART I

By Joseph Boaz
Political Scientist, Lawyer, Writer, and Public Affairs Analyst
Phone: 08060010034
Email: [email protected]

Introduction:
Nigeria’s contemporary political discourse has increasingly been animated by debates surrounding the growing strength of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the steady influx of politicians from opposition parties into its ranks.

Critics of the current political trajectory argue that these developments are symptomatic of a deliberate strategy by the administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu to gradually steer Nigeria toward a one-party political order.

Such apprehensions are not entirely surprising in a country whose democratic experience has historically been fragile and periodically interrupted by authoritarian rule. In emerging democracies, any sign of political dominance by a ruling party often triggers fears of democratic regression.

Nevertheless, serious political inquiry must move beyond emotive interpretations toward a more rigorous and legally grounded analysis. When examined through the lenses of constitutional law, political science theory, and comparative democratic practice, the claim that Nigeria is drifting toward a one-party state under the Tinubu administration becomes considerably less persuasive.

This first part of the essay therefore interrogates the conceptual meaning and defining characteristics of a one-party state, and examines whether Nigeria’s constitutional framework and political practice support the claim that the country is being driven toward such a system.

A One-Party State: Meaning and Characteristics:
In political science literature, a one-party state refers to a political system in which only a single political party is legally permitted to exist and exercise political authority. Under such a system, opposition parties are either expressly prohibited by law or rendered practically impossible through constitutional or institutional arrangements.

In most historical instances, one-party states arise where the constitution explicitly recognizes only one political organization as the legitimate political vehicle through which governance and political participation may occur. Electoral competition, if it exists at all, occurs only within the structures of that single party rather than among multiple parties.

The defining characteristics of a one-party state typically include the following:
1. Legal prohibition or severe restriction of opposition parties
2. Constitutional recognition of only one political party as the state party
3. Absence of competitive multiparty elections
4. Extensive state control over political organization and participation

The central point that emerges from this conceptual framework is that the classification of a country as a one-party or multiparty system is fundamentally a matter of constitutional and legal design.

A political system becomes a one-party state not merely because one party dominates the political arena, but because the laws of the state expressly establish or enforce such dominance.

Consequently, the question of whether Nigeria is evolving into a one-party state must first be examined within the context of its constitutional and statutory legal framework.

Nigeria’s Constitutional Commitment to a Multi-Party System:
Nigeria’s constitutional architecture clearly establishes the country as a multiparty democratic system. The operative legal instrument governing the Nigerian state—the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)—contains several provisions that explicitly recognize and protect the existence of multiple political parties.

Freedom of Political Association:
At the foundation of Nigeria’s multiparty democracy is Section 40 of the Constitution, which guarantees every Nigerian citizen the right to peaceful assembly and association. Crucially, this provision expressly includes the right of citizens to form or belong to any political party or political association for the advancement of their political interests.This constitutional guarantee ensures that the formation and participation in political parties remains a protected civil liberty within the Nigerian democratic framework.

Constitutional Regulation of Political Parties:
Beyond merely recognizing the right of association, the Constitution further provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for political parties in Sections 221 to 229.

Key provisions include:
Section 221
This section stipulates that no association other than a registered political party shall canvass for votes or contribute to election expenses in any election. The implication is that electoral competition must occur through political parties, thereby institutionalizing a structured multiparty system.

Section 222
This provision outlines the constitutional requirements for the formation and registration of political parties. By specifying objective criteria that associations must meet to qualify as political parties, the Constitution ensures that any group that satisfies these conditions may legitimately participate in Nigeria’s political process.

Section 228
This section empowers the National Assembly to enact laws governing the registration, regulation, and functioning of political parties.

Together, these provisions provide the constitutional basis for the role of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in registering and regulating political parties.

Statutory Reinforcement Under the Electoral Act:
The multiparty nature of Nigeria’s political system is further reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022, which elaborates the procedures governing the registration, operation, and participation of political parties in elections.

The Act establishes detailed guidelines for party registration, internal party democracy, nomination of candidates, and electoral participation. By creating an open regulatory framework for multiple parties, the law further entrenches Nigeria’s multiparty democratic structure.

As of today, the official records of INEC indicate the existence of twenty-one registered political parties, all of which are legally recognized and permitted to participate in the country’s electoral process. This empirical reality underscores the continued vitality of Nigeria’s multiparty political system.

Judicial Affirmation of Multiparty Democracy:
Nigeria’s judiciary has also played a significant role in strengthening the multiparty character of the political system.

In the landmark Supreme Court decision of INEC v. Balarabe Musa, the Court struck down restrictive administrative guidelines imposed by INEC that had limited the registration of political parties. The Court held that once a political association satisfies the constitutional requirements outlined in Section 222 of the Constitution, it possesses the right to be registered as a political party.

This decision significantly liberalized Nigeria’s political space by affirming that the constitutional intention is to encourage broad political pluralism rather than party monopoly.

The ruling therefore stands as an important judicial safeguard against any attempt to undermine the multiparty structure of Nigeria’s democracy.

Political Defection and Democratic Competition:
The recent wave of political defections into the APC must also be understood within the broader dynamics of democratic competition. Political parties are voluntary associations, and politicians retain the constitutional freedom to change their party affiliation whenever they deem it politically advantageous or ideologically appropriate. Such movements are not unique to Nigeria; they occur in many democratic systems where political actors constantly reposition themselves within shifting political alignments.

While the increasing frequency of defections may raise legitimate concerns regarding ideological commitment and party discipline within Nigerian politics, such movements do not constitute legal evidence of the emergence of a one-party state.

Rather, defections often reflect rational political calculations by individual actors operating within a competitive political environment.

Conclusion:
The claim that Nigeria is drifting toward a one-party state under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu collapses when subjected to careful constitutional and legal scrutiny.

Nigeria’s political system remains firmly anchored in the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act, both of which explicitly establish and protect a multiparty democratic framework. The rights of citizens to form political parties, contest elections, and participate in political competition remain constitutionally guaranteed.

Equally important, no constitutional amendment, legislative enactment, or judicial pronouncement under the Tinubu administration has sought to alter this legal framework or convert Nigeria into a one-party system.

While the ruling APC may currently enjoy considerable political dominance, dominance within a competitive political environment is not synonymous with the legal establishment of a one-party state.

To properly understand the current political developments in Nigeria, attention must therefore shift from constitutional structure to the strategic dynamics of political power consolidation. It is this dimension of political analysis that the second part of this essay will examine.

03/04/2026

Political Defection in Comparative Perspective: Lessons for Nigeria’s Democratic Consolidation
Part II:

By Joseph Boaz
Political Scientist, Lawyer, Writer and Public Affairs Analyst
08060010034

Introduction:
Building on our previous discussion on political defection, this part two of our article delves into comparative perspectives, drawing lessons for Nigeria's democratic consolidation.

Although political defection often attracts criticism within Nigeria, comparative political analysis reveals that party switching is a common feature of democratic politics worldwide.

From Europe to North America, politicians have frequently altered their party affiliations in response to ideological shifts, strategic calculations, or internal party disputes.Examining examples from established democracies such as the United Kingdom and the United States demonstrates that political defection is not unique to Nigeria but rather a recurring element of democratic competition.

Political Defection in British Politics:
The United Kingdom provides several notable examples of party switching. One of the most famous cases is Winston Churchill, who defected twice during his political career. Churchill began as a member of the Conservative Party, later joined the Liberal Party in 1904 over disagreements on trade policy, and eventually returned to the Conservative Party in 1924.

More recently, political realignments during the Brexit debate led to defections from both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, resulting in the formation of the Change UK in 2019.

Recent developments under the leadership of Kemi Badenoch have also witnessed defections from the Conservative Party to other political platforms, including Reform UK, illustrating once again the fluidity of party allegiance even within mature democratic systems.

Political Defection in American Politics:
The phenomenon of party switching is also evident in the United States. A notable historical example is Strom Thurmond, who defected from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in 1964 following disagreements over civil rights legislation.Another example occurred in 2001 when Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent who caucused with Democrats, a move that altered the balance of power in the U.S. Senate.

A more contemporary example involves Donald Trump, who earlier in his political life was affiliated with the Democratic Party before eventually aligning with the Republican Party and becoming its presidential candidate in 2016.

These examples demonstrate that even in well-established democracies with strong party traditions, political actors sometimes alter their party affiliations.

Defection as a Global Democratic Phenomenon:
Comparative political analysis shows that party switching occurs across diverse political systems. Politicians frequently reassess their political affiliations based on ideological shifts, leadership disputes, or strategic calculations.

Within the theoretical framework proposed by Okwudiba Nnoli, this behavior becomes entirely understandable. If politics fundamentally concerns the capture and use of state power, political actors will naturally gravitate toward the institutional platforms that best advance their political objectives.

Therefore, political defection should not be interpreted solely through a moralistic lens but rather as a rational response to the incentives embedded within democratic competition.

Conclusion:
The experiences of the United Kingdom and the United States demonstrate that political defection is not an anomaly limited to emerging democracies. Rather, it is a recurring feature of democratic politics across the world.

The persistence of party switching across political systems reinforces the argument that defection is part of the broader struggle for political power that defines democratic competition.

Lessons for Nigeria’s Democratic Consolidation:
Several lessons emerge for Nigeria from comparative political experience:

1. Institutional strength matters: Mature democracies manage defections more effectively because political institutions are stronger and more stable.

2. Ideological clarity stabilizes party systems: Parties with clearer ideological identities experience fewer opportunistic defections.

3. Democratic norms must guide political conduct: While defection may be lawful, political actors should balance ambition with respect for electoral mandates.

4. Legal frameworks must be enforced: Constitutional provisions regulating defections should be applied consistently to maintain democratic credibility.

Ultimately, Nigeria’s democratic consolidation will depend not on eliminating political defections entirely but on building resilient political institutions capable of managing political competition within stable democratic norms.

02/04/2026

POLITICAL DEFECTION AND THE STRUGGLE FOR STATE POWER IN NIGERIA

By Joseph Boaz
Political Scientist, Writer, and Public Affairs Analyst
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 08060010034

Introduction:
Political defection, a phenomenon characterized by the migration of politicians from one party to another, has become a ubiquitous feature of Nigeria's democratic landscape. While often stigmatized as a manifestation of political opportunism, defection is, in fact, a calculated response to the structural realities of Nigeria's competitive democratic system.

This article examines the underlying dynamics of political defection, its implications for democratic consolidation, and proffers recommendations for mitigating its destabilizing effects.

Understanding Political Defection
Political defection refers to the act of an elected official or politician abandoning their party affiliation for another, often in pursuit of enhanced political opportunities. This phenomenon is driven by various factors, including ideological dissonance, internal party conflicts, strategic realignments, and personal ambition. In Nigeria's presidential system, defections can significantly influence electoral outcomes, legislative coalitions, and the overall configuration of political power.

Okwudiba Nnoli's operational definition of politics as "all those things directly and indirectly concerned with the seizure or capture of state power, the consolidation of state power and the use of state power" provides a useful framework for understanding defection. Politicians, as rational actors, seek to maximize their access to state power, and defection becomes a strategy to achieve this goal when their current party affiliation is deemed unviable.

The Phenomenon of Political Defection in Nigeria:
Nigeria's post-1999 democratic trajectory has been marked by frequent party defections, driven by weak party ideology, personalized politics, and electoral calculations. The absence of robust ideological anchors has rendered party switching a low-cost, high-benefit strategy for politicians seeking to enhance their prospects.

The formation of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in 2013, for instance, triggered widespread defections from the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP), ultimately leading to the historic opposition victory in the 2015 general elections. Similarly, the 2020 defections from the APC to the PDP and other parties underscore the fluidity of party allegiance in Nigeria.

Furthermore, the current wave of defections from the PDP, Labour Party, and other opposition parties to the ruling APC is reshaping Nigeria's political landscape ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Recently, 27 members of the House of Representatives switched parties, with the APC gaining 14 new members and losing two. This move has strengthened the APC's position in the Green Chamber, with its membership rising to about 280 out of 360 lawmakers. The defections are driven by internal crises, leadership disputes, and protracted court battles within the opposition parties.

For instance, Senator Peter Jiya defected from the PDP to the APC, citing "unresolved internal conflicts" within his former party. Similarly, Governor Sheriff Oborevwori of Delta State and other PDP governors have joined the APC, citing the need for development and political survival.

The implications of these defections are significant, with some analysts warning of a potential one-party state. However, others argue that this trend is a reflection of democratic choice and the need for politicians to adapt to changing circumstances.

Several structural factors contribute to this phenomenon:

1. Weak Party Ideology: Nigerian parties often lack clear policy orientations, making it easier for politicians to switch allegiance without ideological qualms.

2. Personalization of Politics: Politics in Nigeria is often centered on personalities rather than institutionalized party structures, allowing influential politicians to command loyal followings across party lines.

3. Electoral Survival: Defection is often a survival strategy, as politicians seek alternative platforms to pursue their ambitions when faced with unfavorable internal party dynamics.

4. Coalition Realignments: Nigeria's shifting political coalitions create opportunities for politicians to reposition themselves, often with significant implications for electoral outcomes.

The Blame Game: Politicians or Party Factions?
When entrenched interests precipitate intractable internal crises within parties, defection becomes a rational response for politicians seeking to secure their political futures. Rather than attributing blame to individual politicians, it is essential to acknowledge the structural deficiencies that drive this phenomenon. Warring factions within parties often create an environment where politicians feel compelled to defect, rendering it unfair to solely blame the defecting politician.

Moreover, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and other regulatory bodies often struggle to effectively address the complexities surrounding party defections, highlighting the need for clearer guidelines and institutional frameworks.

Implications for Democratic Consolidation:
Political defection can have both positive and negative implications for Nigeria's democratic consolidation. On the one hand, defection can:

1. Promote inclusivity: By allowing politicians to join other parties, defection can foster greater inclusivity and diversity within parties.

2. Enhance competition: Defection can inject fresh ideas and talent into parties, promoting healthy competition and innovation.

On the other hand, defection can also:
1. Undermine party cohesion: Frequent defections can erode party loyalty and undermine the development of robust party institutions.

2. Destabilize electoral outcomes: Large-scale defections can disrupt electoral processes and undermine the legitimacy of election outcomes.

Conclusion
Political defection in Nigeria is a symptom of deeper institutional weaknesses, rather than a moral failing of individual politicians. By recognizing this reality, policymakers can embark on meaningful reforms to strengthen party institutions, promote internal democracy, and foster a more stable democratic environment.

Recommendations
1. Institutionalize Internal Party Democracy: Parties must establish transparent, inclusive, and participatory processes for candidate selection, leadership succession, and conflict resolution.

2. Develop Clear Ideological Identities: Parties should define distinct policy platforms, enabling voters to hold them accountable and reducing the propensity for opportunistic defections.

3. Strengthen Party Institutions: Robust, autonomous, and accountable party structures can promote loyalty, discipline, and long-term commitment among members.

4. Enhance Voter Accountability: Citizens must prioritize performance-based evaluation of politicians, discouraging defections driven by personal interests rather than public good.

5. Regulatory Frameworks: Policymakers should establish clear regulations governing party switching, including provisions for recall, by-elections, and sanctions for defectors.

6. Electoral Reform: INEC should develop guidelines for handling party defections, ensuring that electoral outcomes reflect the will of the people.

7. Intra-Party Dialogue: Parties should establish mechanisms for resolving internal conflicts, reducing the likelihood of defections.

By addressing these structural weaknesses, Nigeria's democratic system can mitigate the destabilizing effects of political defection, promoting a more resilient and accountable party system.

APC CONGRESSES/NATIONAL CONVENTION AND THE POLITICS OF CONSENSUSBy JOSEPH BOAZEmail: joeboazdaniel@gmail.comPhone: 08060...

30/03/2026

APC CONGRESSES/NATIONAL CONVENTION AND THE POLITICS OF CONSENSUS

By JOSEPH BOAZ
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 08060010034

The recent congresses of the All Progressives Congress (APC)—from the ward to the zonal levels, culminating in the National Convention held on 27 March 2026—have once again revived an enduring debate within Nigerian political discourse: the politics and legality of consensus as a method of leadership selection.

While supporters of the process argue that consensus promotes unity and organizational cohesion within political parties, critics question whether the practice sometimes conceals elite bargaining and elite imposition under the guise of democratic agreement.

Yet, beyond the immediate partisan contestations, the debate raises deeper theoretical and legal questions. What exactly is consensus? Is it consistent with democratic principles? Does it have philosophical justification? And does Nigerian law recognize it as a legitimate method for selecting party leaders and candidates?

Addressing these questions requires a careful exploration of the concept of consensus, its philosophical roots in political theory, its political implications in party organization, and its legal status within Nigeria’s electoral framework.

The Meaning of Consensus:
Consensus, in its simplest sense, refers to a collective agreement reached by a group without the necessity of a formal competitive vote. It denotes a situation in which members of a political community or organization voluntarily accept a particular individual or decision as representing the collective will of the group.

In political practice, consensus is often achieved through negotiation, consultation, persuasion, and compromise among stakeholders. Rather than relying solely on numerical superiority, consensus emphasizes broad acceptance and the avoidance of divisive contests. It therefore represents a form of decision-making that prioritizes unity, harmony, and collective endorsement.

Within political parties, consensus typically occurs when aspirants voluntarily step down for a single candidate who emerges as the preferred choice of party stakeholders. Such an arrangement is usually ratified by party members through affirmation mechanisms such as voice votes, ballots, or acclamation.

Thus, consensus is not necessarily the absence of democracy; rather, it is a method of decision-making grounded in collective agreement rather than competitive contestation.

The Politics of Consensus:
Consensus politics is not a novel phenomenon. Its intellectual foundations can be traced to classical political philosophy, particularly the Social Contract Theory articulated by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

According to these thinkers, human society evolved from a hypothetical state of nature, a condition in which individuals existed without organized government or formal authority. While these philosophers differed in their interpretation of the state of nature, they agreed that political authority ultimately derives from the collective consent of individuals.

Hobbes and the Leviathan:
In his seminal work Leviathan (1651), Hobbes argued that life in the state of nature was characterized by insecurity and conflict—a condition he famously described as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To escape this chaos, individuals mutually agreed to surrender their natural powers and rights to a central authority capable of guaranteeing order and security.

This collective transfer of authority resulted in the creation of a sovereign—what Hobbes called the Leviathan—whose legitimacy derived from the unanimous agreement of the people. The emergence of this authority was therefore based on a form of consensus among individuals seeking peace and stability.

Locke and the Consent of the Governed:
Locke, writing later in the Second Treatise of Government (1689), also grounded political authority in the consent of the governed. However, unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that the social contract created government primarily to protect natural rights—life, liberty, and property.

Locke’s theory emphasized that legitimate governance arises from voluntary agreement among individuals who choose leaders to represent their collective interests. Thus, the formation of political authority itself is rooted in a consensual decision among members of society.

Rousseau and the General Will:
Rousseau further developed the idea of collective agreement through his concept of the general will—the shared will of the people directed toward the common good. In Rousseau’s framework, legitimate authority arises when individuals subordinate personal interests to the collective will of the community.

Consensus, in this sense, reflects the alignment of individual preferences with the broader interest of the community.

Consensus as a Politically Justified Method of Leadership Selection:
The philosophical foundations laid by early political theorists reveal that consensus is deeply embedded within the origins of political organization itself. The transition from the state of nature to organized society was predicated upon collective agreement among individuals to establish authority.

In modern political systems, elections represent one institutionalized expression of this consent. However, consensus represents another method through which collective agreement may be expressed. Rather than measuring support through numerical votes alone, consensus seeks to achieve unity by aligning the preferences of stakeholders around a single candidate.

Within political parties, consensus can serve several practical political purposes:
- Promoting Party Unity: Competitive primaries often generate internal divisions. Consensus arrangements can reduce factional conflict and promote cohesion.

- Reducing Cost and Logistical Complexity: Conducting large-scale primaries can be financially and administratively demanding. Consensus provides an alternative mechanism for candidate selection.

- Encouraging Negotiation and Power Sharing: Consensus processes often involve negotiations among party leaders, regional blocs, and interest groups, thereby facilitating inclusiveness within party structures.

- Preventing Fragmentation: In contexts where party unity is critical to electoral success, consensus can prevent the emergence of rival factions that weaken the party’s electoral strength.

However, consensus politics also presents challenges. Critics argue that when improperly managed, it may lead to elite manipulation, marginalization of grassroots members, and the perception of imposed leadership.

Consequently, democratic safeguards are necessary to ensure that consensus reflects genuine agreement rather than coercion.

The Legality of Consensus in Nigerian Electoral Law:
Beyond political theory and practice, the legality of consensus as a method of leadership selection within political parties in Nigeria is firmly grounded in statutory law.

Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act provides that:“The procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for various elective positions shall be by direct primaries or consensus.”

This statutory provision recognizes consensus as one of the legally permissible methods through which political parties may nominate candidates for elective offices. As the principal legislation regulating the conduct and activities of political parties in Nigeria, the Electoral Act provides the legal framework within which parties operate.

By expressly including consensus among the acceptable nomination methods, the law affirms that political parties possess the autonomy to adopt this process where it is deemed appropriate.

The Constitutional Framework within the APC:
In addition to statutory recognition, consensus is also expressly provided for within the internal constitutional framework of the APC.

Article 20(1)(a) of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress (APC) provides that: “All Party posts prescribed or implied by this Constitution shall be filled by democratically conducted elections at the respective National Convention or Congress subject, where possible, to consensus; provided that where a Candidate has emerged by consensus for an elective position, a vote of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ by ballot or voice shall be called, to ensure that it was not an imposition which could breed discontent and crisis.”

This provision is particularly significant because it establishes a procedural safeguard designed to preserve internal democracy. While the party encourages consensus where possible, it requires a ratification mechanism—either by ballot or voice vote—to confirm that the consensus candidate enjoys genuine acceptance among party members.

The requirement of a “yes” or “no” vote therefore serves as a democratic validation mechanism intended to prevent imposition and ensure legitimacy.

Reconciling Consensus with Democratic PrinciplesThe central challenge in the debate over consensus lies in balancing two democratic values: participation and unity. Competitive elections emphasize participation and choice, whereas consensus emphasizes agreement and cohesion.

In practice, modern political parties often combine both approaches. Consensus may be pursued where stakeholders can reach broad agreement; where such agreement proves impossible, competitive elections provide the alternative.Thus, consensus does not necessarily undermine democracy.

Rather, it represents one of several mechanisms through which democratic consent may be expressed within political organizations.

Conclusion:
The controversy surrounding the recent APC congresses and National Convention reflects broader tensions within democratic politics between competition and consensus. While critics fear that consensus may sometimes mask elite dominance, its intellectual origins and legal recognition demonstrate that it remains a legitimate method of leadership selection.

Historically, consensus finds philosophical justification in the Social Contract tradition advanced by thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, who argued that political authority itself arises from collective agreement among individuals.

Legally, the practice enjoys explicit recognition under Nigeria’s Electoral Act and the Constitution of the APC, both of which authorize consensus as a permissible method for selecting party leaders and candidates, subject to democratic validation.

Consequently, the question is not whether consensus is lawful—it clearly is—but whether it is applied in a manner that genuinely reflects the collective will of party members. When implemented transparently, inclusively, and in accordance with established legal safeguards, consensus can serve as a valuable instrument for promoting unity, stability, and effective leadership within political parties.

In this sense, consensus remains both a historically grounded political principle and a legally recognized democratic practice within Nigeria’s evolving party system.

By Joseph Boaz

- BSc. Political Science and Public Administration (University of Uyo)

- MSc International Relations and Diplomacy (University of Nigeria, Nsukka)

- LLB (Hons) (University of Uyo)

- Public Affairs Analyst cm Political Commentator

- Email: [email protected]

- Phone: 08060010034

Address

Uyo
520101

Telephone

+2348060010034

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Citizen Joseph Boaz posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Organization

Send a message to Citizen Joseph Boaz:

Citizen Joseph Boaz