Nigerians seeking to correct their date of birth on the National Identification Number (NIN) database will now pay N28,574, following a major upward review of service charges by the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC).

The new fee represents a 75 per cent increase from the previous charge of N16,340, making it the most expensive data modification service under the Commission’s revised price regime.

The change is part of a broader review of NIMC’s service fees, which the agency says is necessary to reflect current economic realities, including a national inflation rate of 32.70 percent, rising operational costs, and the need for self-sustenance.

Under the new structure, corrections to other personal details such as names, addresses, and gender now cost N2,000 per modification — up from N1,522, a 31 percent increase.

Re-issuance of the NIN slip, previously pegged at N500, will now attract a fee of N600.

Meanwhile, premium services offered at select enrollment lounges and visa centers will cost N20,000 for NIN enrollment, and N3,500 for re-issuance of slips.

For Nigerians in African countries, NIN enrollment now costs $50 for adults and $30 for children.

Data modifications cost $55 for date of birth changes, and $10 for other fields. Outside Africa, name corrections are charged at $60, with other data fields remaining at $10 per change.

In an executive summary accompanying the new pricing list, NIMC stated that the adjustments followed consultations across its departments and benchmarking against charges by other government agencies like the Nigeria Immigration Service and the Federal Road Safety Corps.

“For over a decade, our service charges remained stagnant despite expanding our infrastructure and service offerings.

This new price regime ensures we can maintain our systems, support national revenue goals, and align with global identity management standards,” the Commission said.

NIMC also cited its role in broader policy objectives such as tax unification, social interventions, and digital identity expansion.

While the Commission insists the fee hike is necessary, many Nigerians have expressed concern about the affordability of the new charges, particularly the high cost of correcting date of birth — an error that often arises from initial registration challenges in rural or crowded centers.

For instance, a fruit seller at Ojota, Lagos, Adaku Okafor, said an error was made in her daughter’s date of birth on the NIN slip.

While she had initially ignored it, the mistake has become critical as her daughter, now in SSS 2, prepares to sit for WAEC and JAMB.

“I am now forced to cough out almost N29,000 just to correct a simple mistake. This is so unfair, especially with the harsh economic reality we are all facing,” she lamented.

Two dispatch riders were confirmed dead on Sunday following a crash involving two Mack trucks on the Eko Bridge inward Alaka, Lagos.

According to preliminary reports, one of the trucks—identified by registration number T-10357 LA—was reportedly moving at high speed when the driver, suspected to have been dozing, lost control and rammed into another truck ahead, marked KJA 107 XM.

The impact caused a 20-foot container to detach and fall, crushing the two dispatch riders who were on the route at the time.

Officials of the Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA), who were on routine monitoring duty under the bridge, responded quickly and rescued one injured truck driver.

He was transported to the hospital by a Lagos State Government ambulance. The other two truck drivers fled the scene, and efforts are ongoing to locate them.

In a statement, the General Manager of LASTMA, Olalekan Bakare-Oki, expressed condolences to the families of the victims.

He called the incident tragic and underscored the need for caution and alertness, particularly among drivers of articulated vehicles.

“Drivers must ensure they are fit to drive and that their vehicles are roadworthy before embarking on any journey,” he said, noting that LASTMA continues its public awareness campaigns to promote safety, especially among operators of heavy-duty trucks.

To prevent additional accidents, LASTMA officers cordoned off the affected section of the bridge and diverted traffic through the Costain Roundabout toward Alaka and the Stadium.

Other emergency responders at the scene included the Lagos State Emergency Management Agency (LASEMA), Lagos State Fire and Rescue Services, Lagos Neighbourhood Safety Corps, the State Environmental Health Monitoring Unit, and officers from the Iporin Police Division. Investigations into the incident are ongoing.

You cannot cross examine him based on the document,” Daudu SAN argued. Enitan SAN added that he had the right to draw the attention of the court to some specific paragraphs in the document.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the hearing of the alleged money laundering case instituted against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to June 26, 27 and July 4 and 5 for ruling on the request by the prosecution to “cross-examine” the 3rd witness and for continuation of trial.

Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the hearing after listening to addresses by the prosecution and defence counsels on the Prosecution’s move to initially cross-examine the witness, a position that was rejected by the Defendant’s Counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN.

When the matter was called for continuation of cross-examination, the Defendant’s counsel asked the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, whether he had testified in other courts with respect to the issue of school fees paid by the Bello family to AISA, he said yes.

But the witness, an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja, said he could not mention the exact courts.

He admitted testifying in a similar charge involving Ali Bello but added that he never said anything adversely against former Governor Yahaya Bello just as he had not said anything negative or adversely against him in the instant charge.

After Daudu SAN concluded the cross-examination of the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, the EFCC’s lawyer, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, moved to also cross-examine the Commission’s witness on Exhibit 19.

He told the court that he was not re-examining the EFCC’s witness, but cross-examining him because the document was admitted in evidence.

“I am not re-examining him, I am cross-examining him because they brought this document,” he said.

The Defendant’s lawyer, however, drew the court’s attention to the fact that the prosecution counsel’s position was unknown to law, in line with the Evidence Act.

“If you want to cross-examine your own witness, you have to first declare him a hostile witness. You cannot cross examine him based on the document,” Daudu SAN argued. Enitan SAN added that he had the right to draw the attention of the court to some specific paragraphs in the document.

At this point, the judge asked: “Do you have any provision of the law to support this?””I will draw your lordship attention to Section 36 of the Constitution.

They sought to tender this document, we objected and the court granted their prayer. Fair hearing demands that the complainant too has the right to examine this because Section 36 of the Constitution talks of fair hearing,”

Enitan responded. “We are not saying that they cannot re-examine the witness. That is what Section 36 under the law says about fair hearing. But if it is to cross-examine him, he will have to show us the law that backs that.

“He cannot come under the guise of fair hearing to want to cross-examine the witness,” the Defendant’s lawyer maintained. The judge, at the end of the arguments, refused to allow cross-examination of the witness by the EFCC lawyer.”

Under the procedure, the witness gives evidence in chief and the defendant cross examines, then the prosecution re-examines.

“With due respect, what I will do is if you people are so skewed to continue with this, it is better to address me on this and I will take a position,” he stated.

At this point, the prosecution counsel agreed to re-examine the EFCC’s witness and the judge gave him the go-ahead.”You can re-examine him on that but not to ask questions that will show cross examination,” Justice Nwite said.

However, when the prosecution lawyer proceeded to re-examine the witness, and his questions pointed at cross-examination, as observed by Daudu SAN, the judge insisted that the parties had to address him on the specific issue.

The Defendant’s Counsel, in his address, maintained that the position was unknown to law.

“My lord, the procedure that is being sought by the prosecution by refering the witness to the document tender in Exhibit 19 and by asking him to read paragraph 1, without drawing his attention to the issue on how the document affected his evidence in chief, the question asked in cross-examination, and the ambiguity, which needs clarification, amounts to a strange and unknown procedure not covered by the Evidence Act,” he stated.

Enitan SAN, disagreed, saying that in the case of Amobi Amobi referred to by the defendant’s counsel, the Supreme Court held that the learned trial judge ought to have allowed a re-examination of Exhibit E.

He said when the defendant sought to introduce the document, the prosecution team “submitted that this document was not made by the witness and as such, he should not be allowed to speak to it under cross examination or allowed to be confronted with it.”

“Having brought it in now, during the case of the prosecution, particularly during the cross examination of PW-3, your lordship should not allow them to shut us out as that would amount to the court allowing them to blow hot and cold,” Pinheiro SAN said.

Justice Nwite thereafter adjourned to June 26, 27 and July 4 and 5 for ruling and continuation of trial.

The 3rd prosecution witness had, at the last hearing on Thursday, said there was no wired transfer of fees from the Kogi State Government or any of the local Governments in the state to the account of the American International School, Abuja.

He also read out a part of a previous Federal Capital Territory High Court judgment that said there was no court order for AISA to return fees to EFCC or any judgment declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.