Headline

Presidential Election: PDP Refuses to Sign Result Sheet, Threatens Legal Action

Published

7 years ago

February 27, 2019

Eric

The Peoples Democratic Party has said it would explore every option, including the legal process to ventilate its grievances on the declaration of President Muhammadu Buhari as the winner of the 2019 election.

The party which refused to sign the result sheet said the announcement of Buhari who sought re-election on the platform of the All Progressives Congress by the Independent National Electoral Commission was an abnormality.

But in his response, the chairman of INEC, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu said that the difference in the valid votes and cancellation were insignificant to impact on the general outcome of the election.

According to him, all the observations raised by the PDP would be needed for the future, including the 2023 elections.

While rejecting the declaration of Buhari, an agent of the PDP and former Corps Marshal of the Federal Road Safety Corps, Osita Chidoka, told journalists in Abuja at the National Collation Centre on Wednesday morning that the results that were announced do not represent the valid votes of Nigerians.

He said, “The PDP does not accept the result as representing the valid votes of Nigerians. We have made three issues: first, after all the investment in technology, we expected that INEC, after spending N27 billion in this year’s budget alone for technology, would have for the purpose of transparency, not just for law, projected to us the result of what the card reader that they used displayed about the people that went through the card reader verification. That singular act has put a dent on the image of the election.

“The second one is the issue we raised about the number of registered vis-à-vis what the chairman now calls collated voters, which means that 1.6 million people are missing in the voter register. We think that issue is substantial enough to require a resolution.

“We also believed that the difference between the accredited voters and the votes cast which came to about 750,000 is an issue to be looked at.

Finally, we believed that the cancellations that took place in the election impacting 2.7 million voters required to be looked into seriously.

“So, in our view, this election required to be reviewed, looked at again and possibly, we have a rerun. More importantly, we think that INEC should have looked consciously to the use of the card reader, the absence of card reader is a major violation in the elections, it renders that election null and void, that’s what the chairman promised us.

“So, for us in the PDP, we believe that this is a new low in Nigeria’s electoral history. Since 2015, we believe that Nigeria would have been making progress in the election, but for the violence. The issues that have arisen in this election, and lack of transparency that we saw in the election did not increase, neither did it improve the belief of Nigerians in the electoral process.

“However, the PDP remains a very lawful party, we believe in the law, we believe in the constitution of Nigeria, we are committed democrats. The PDP is a party that entrenched democracy in Nigeria, the PDP is the party that made it possible for Nigeria to enjoy the fruit and dividends of democracy.

“We will continue to support democracy in Nigeria, we will continue to promote democracy in Nigeria. But we have a good message for Nigerians, we want them to remain peaceful, we will explore all our options, including the belief that the legal process in Nigeria is one of the ways to resolve issues.”

Headline

Mary Habila’s Death: Tinubu Has Failed Comprehensively, Disgracefully – Atiku

Published

1 day ago

July 16, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

A former Vice President, and Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has lashed out at the administration of President Bola Tinubu over its prolonged silence on the death of a medical practitioner, Mary Habila, who died at the residence of the Minister of Works, Dave Umahi.

Atiku condemned the inability of the Tinubu-led government from making any pronouncements or instituting any form of probe to unravel the cause of death since the sad incident occurred on June 27, 2026, saying the administration has failed comprehensively and disgracefully.

Atiku’s remarks are contained in a statement he released on his social platforms endorsed with his regular AA.

While not casting any blame on any particular person or entity, Atiku maintained that condolences are not enough,but must be accompanied by thorough investigation into the circumstances that led to the death of the 26 years old medical practitioner in her prime.

The former Vice President therefore called for a “credible, independent, and transparent investigation” to establish the truth, noting that “it is the refusal of the Federal Government to guarantee such an investigation that constitutes the scandal before us”.

The statement in full:

I have followed with deep sorrow and mounting concern the reports surrounding the death of Miss Mary Habila, a 26-year-old Nigerian from Nok, Southern Kaduna, who died on June 27, 2026, within the private residence of the Honourable Minister of Works, Senator David Umahi, in Uburu, Ebonyi State.

First, I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Habila family. No family should have to mourn a daughter taken in the prime of her life while also fighting simply to learn the truth of how she died.

But condolences are not enough. Nigerians deserve answers, and it is on this score that the Tinubu administration has failed, comprehensively and disgracefully.

Consider the facts that are not in dispute. A young woman died in the residence of a serving Federal Minister. For nearly two weeks, neither the Minister, nor the police, nor any arm of government said a word to the Nigerian people. It took the courage of Sahara Reporters to bring this death into public view. Three weeks after her death, no autopsy has been performed. No cause of death has been established. The investigation remains domiciled in the very state where the Minister served two terms as Governor and where his influence is beyond question.

And through all of this, silence from the Presidency. Silence from the Federal Executive Council. Silence from the Inspector-General of Police. Silence from the National Assembly. Not one word. Not one directive. Not one gesture to assure Nigerians that the life of Mary Habila matters to this government.

Instead, the Minister has been permitted to manage the narrative of a death that occurred under his own roof: issuing statements through his personal aides, deploying his private lawyers to correspond with the police, and continuing his official duties as though nothing has happened, while civil society groups, youth organisations, and the family’s own community cry out for an independent inquiry.

Let me be clear: I make no pronouncement on anyone’s guilt or innocence. That is precisely the point. Only a credible, independent, and transparent investigation can establish the truth, and it is the refusal of the Federal Government to guarantee such an investigation that constitutes the scandal before us.

A government’s first duty is the protection of life. Where a life is lost in circumstances touching a high official of state, the burden on government to act transparently is at its heaviest.

President Tinubu’s administration has instead treated this tragedy as an inconvenience to be waited out. If the death of a young Nigerian woman in a Minister’s residence cannot stir this government to act, then Nigerians must ask: whose life, exactly, does this government value?

I therefore demand the following: One, President Bola Tinubu must direct the Honourable Minister of Works to step aside immediately, pending the conclusion of investigations. This is not a punishment; it is the minimum standard of public accountability in any serious democracy. No official under this cloud should preside over a federal ministry as though it were business as usual.

Two, the Inspector-General of Police must immediately transfer the investigation from the Ebonyi State Command to Force Headquarters, with the involvement of independent forensic experts. No investigation conducted in the shadow of the Minister’s home-state influence can command public confidence.

Three, a full, independent, and internationally credible autopsy must be conducted without further delay, with the findings made public. The stalemate over the post-mortem, three weeks after this young woman’s death is an indictment of every institution involved.

Four, the family of Mary Habila must be protected from any pressure, inducement, or intimidation, and must be guaranteed unfettered access to the facts of their daughter’s death.

The measure of a nation is how it responds when the powerful are touched by tragedy and the powerless demand truth. Mary Habila was somebody’s daughter, somebody’s sister, a young professional with her life ahead of her. She was a Nigerian. Her death must not be reduced to a footnote of political convenience.

Nigeria will work again, but only when the life of every Nigerian counts, and when no one, however highly placed, stands beyond the reach of accountability.

May the soul of Mary Habila rest in peace. May her family find justice. -AA

Headline

Atiku Accuses INEC of Aiding Tinubu’s Alleged One-party State Agenda

Published

4 days ago

July 14, 2026

Eric

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of aiding President Bola Tinubu’s agenda to weaken opposition parties ahead of the 2027 polls by granting access to a factional leader of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

In a statement issued Monday by the Atiku Media Office, Atiku alleged that INEC’s actions amounted to partisanship and a violation of the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

The statement referenced a July 11, 2026 claim by Nafiu Bala Gombe, who “parades himself as National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC)”, that he had succeeded in uploading the names of his candidates on INEC’s portal.

According to Atiku’s office, uploading candidates is part of the process for the 2027 General Elections, made possible by access codes granted to political parties in line with INEC guidelines.

“Meanwhile, INEC has been mum, and has not denied or confirmed this obvious contradiction to the law and its own guidelines,” the statement said.

Atiku’s team argued that by granting an access code to Bala Gombe, INEC was recognizing a “pretender” despite having “since validated the chairmanship of the Sen. David Mark-led exco.”

“By granting access code to Bala Gombe, a pretender, laying claims to the chairmanship of the ADC, though the law is not on his side and INEC has since validated the chairmanship of the Sen. David Mark-led exco, the electoral umpire is once again manifesting its partisanship,” the statement noted.

It drew parallels with a past incident under Prof. Joash Amupitan-led INEC, alleging the commission “illegally removed the names of the duly recognised ADC exco following the judicial rascality of Justice Lifu in ignoring a superior ruling of an appellate court.”

The statement described the “so-called ‘successful’ uploading of ‘candidates’ by Nafiu Bala Gombe” as lacking legal basis.

“Nafiu Bala Gombe is not recognised as ADC Chairman. Mark is duly recognised. Can there be two recognised Chairmen of a political party? Possibly only in an INEC led by Amupitan. Can INEC grant two access codes to a political party? Certainly not,” it added.

Atiku’s office warned that the development “is a recipe for crisis and confirms that Prof Joash Amupitan was appointed to enable the weakening of the opposition parties by creating crisis even where none exists.”

Citing the law, the statement noted that Section 222 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that candidates must emerge through recognized party primaries supervised by INEC, while Section 84 of the Electoral Act 2022 requires parties to submit only one validly nominated candidate per elective office.

“Nafiu Bala Gombe and his criminal gang did not conduct any primaries. The INEC granting of access code to Nafiu Bala Gombe is unconstitutional and unlawful. The only submitted candidates known to the law are those of David Mark. Any parallel submission such as Nafiu Bala Gombe’s is null and void,” it said.

The statement called on the INEC Chairman to stop “fomenting crisis in the ADC and the other opposition parties and by so doing helping President Bola Tinubu’s agenda of total State capture.”

Headline

Appeal Court Upholds Judgment Ordering INEC to Derecognise Mark-led EXCO

Published

4 days ago

July 13, 2026

Eric

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja on Monday affirmed the judgment restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the Senator David Mark-led caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The appellate court decision was a split of two-to-one.

A three-member panel of the appellate court, in a lead verdict delivered by Justice Okon Abang, said it found no reason to set aside the restraining order the Federal High Court in Abuja had issued against the Mark-led ADC on April 29.

It further upheld the order of trial Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, which restrained the Mark-led executives from interfering with the tenure and functions of the party’s elected state executives.

The appellate court concurred that responsibility for conducting state congresses of political parties rests with elected state executive committees, not with the national leadership.

While Justices Abang and Donatus Okorowo gave the majority verdict barring the electoral body from acknowledging the outcome of congresses held by the Mark-led leadership of the ADC, the head of the appellate court’s panel, Justice Abba Mohammed, gave a dissenting judgment.

In his minority decision, Justice Mohammed held that the case that precipitated the restraining order bordered on a non-justiciable internal affair of a political party.

He held that the trial court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal judgment may jeopardise the presidential candidacies of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other candidates who emerged through the national congress organised by the Mark-led faction of the ADC, ahead of the 2027 general elections.

It will be recalled that the High Court had, in its judgment, held that the four-year tenure of the ADC’s State Working Committees and State Executive Committees remained valid and subsisting, pending the conduct of properly constituted congresses and the convocation of a national convention.

The judgment followed a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2026, lodged before the court by aggrieved members of the ADC.

Those behind the suit are Don Norman Obinna, Johnny Tovie Derek, Obah C. Ehigiator, Hon. Olona Yinka, Dr. Charles Idowu Omideji, Samuel Pam Gyang, and Obianyo Patrick, who told the court that they sued for themselves and on behalf of all State Chairmen and State Executive Committees of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

Listed as defendants in the matter are the ADC; Sen. David Mark; Sen. Patricia Akwashiki; Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; and Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor (sued on behalf of the Caretaker/Interim National Working Committee); and INEC.

The plaintiffs had, among other things, challenged the decision of the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC to constitute committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

They challenged the validity of appointments made by the Mark-led caretaker committee, arguing that planned state congresses slated for April 2026, if conducted under the supervision of the said caretaker committee, would constitute a gross violation of the party’s constitution.

It was further the position of the plaintiffs that only duly elected party organs recognised under the party’s constitution possess the power to conduct congresses.

While agreeing with the plaintiffs, Justice Abdulmalik held that neither the 1999 Constitution, as amended, nor the Constitution of the ADC empowered the caretaker/interim National Working Committee led by Senator Mark to appoint committees for the purpose of conducting state congresses.

The court held that the claims brought before it by the plaintiffs were valid and deserving of judicial consideration, citing an alleged breach of constitutional and statutory provisions.

It held that Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates political parties to conduct periodic elections based on democratic principles, adding that Article 23 of the ADC Constitution also provides that national and state officers shall hold office for a maximum of two terms spanning eight years.

Justice Abdulmalik stressed that although courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties, they nonetheless intervene where there is a clear allegation of violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Political commentary articles

She held that evidence before the court established that the tenure of the state executive committees of the ADC remained valid and must be allowed to run its full course without interference.

The court stressed that only those elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses, and it accordingly nullified any process initiated by the Senator Mark-led caretaker leadership.

Earlier, the court dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction to entertain it.

It held that the subject matter of the plaintiffs’ action pertained to the affairs of INEC and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

The court also waved aside the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before instituting the action.

It held that the plaintiffs had the requisite locus standi (legal right) to file the suit.

The appellate court, while upholding the restraining order, said it had a duty to intervene so as to “prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

It cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in the leadership crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to hold that the ADC case could not be classified as a domestic affair of a political party.

“Once a complaint before the court is anchored on a constitutional infraction, the shield of internal affairs drops and the veil is lifted for judicial intervention,” Justice Abang added in the majority judgment.

Consequently, the panel dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/608/2026, which the ADC lodged in order to set aside the high court judgment.

It held that congresses and the national convention conducted by the Mark-led ADC amounted to a nullity as they were held in disobedience to a subsisting order that the High Court made on April 14.

Having resolved the case against the ADC, the appellate court awarded a cost of N10million against the party.

Shortly after the judgment, the ADC, which was represented by its National Welfare Secretary, Mr Nkem Ukandu, said the party would take the case before the Supreme Court.