Headline

End of the Road For Justice Onnoghen

Published

7 years ago

April 6, 2019

Eric

By: Ajibade Morakinyo

When the 80s boy band, Boys II Men sang the song, End Of The Road, they described a loving relationship that had gone sour but one of the parties was living in denial pleading and hoping that the relationship continues though it was teaching what was technically it’s last bus stop.

This scenario can be likened to the situation that has occurred in the life of Nigeria’s Chief Justice, Justice Walter Onnoghen.

His love affair with the judiciary which hit its zenith with him ascending the No.1 role had ended but he was holding on tight, hoping for a miracle or a turnaround of fortune but it is now obvious that it is over and he had reached the end of the road with a reported resignation.

THE GENESIS

It all started on Friday, January 11, 2019, when the presidency presented a 20 point text which revealed that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mr. Walter Nkanu Onnoghen, has committed chronic offences as alleged by a petition by a whistle blowing NGO.

The reaction was that of incredulity in some quarters while others doubted.the motive and asked if this was not a politically motivated witch hunt of Justice Onnoghen.

On Monday January 7, 2019, a petition was written by the Anti-Corruption and Research Based Data Initiative (ARDI); on Tuesday January 8, the petition was submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB); on Wednesday January 9, the petition was received by the office of the CCB Chairman; on Thursday January 10, charges against CJN Onnoghen were filed by the CCB; and on Friday January 11, the CJN was served at his official residence in Abuja.

According to the petition, Onnoghen is the owner of sundry accounts primarily funded through cash deposits made by himself up to as recently as 10th August 2016 which appear to have been run in a manner inconsistent with financial transparency and the code of conduct for public officials.

The group, in the petition, said Onnoghen made five different cash deposits of $10,000 each on March 8, 2011, into Standard Chartered Bank Account 1062650; two separate cash deposits of $5000 each followed by four cash deposits of $10,000 each on June 7, 2011; another set of five separate cash deposits of $10,000 each on June 27, 2011, and four more cash deposits of $10,000 each the following day.

Aside this, they said Onnoghen did not declare his assets immediately after taking office, contrary to section 15 (1) of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act; and that he did not comply with the constitutional requirement for public servants to declare their assets every four years during their career.

Another allegation against him was that his Code of Conduct Bureau Forms (Form CCB 1) for 2014 and 2016 were dated and filed on the same day and the acknowledgement slips were issued for both on December 14, 2016 — at which point, they said, he had become the CJN – Onnoghen assumed CJN office on March 6, 2017.

ARDI alleged that prior to 2016, Onnoghen appeared to have suppressed or otherwise concealed the existence of these multiple domiciliary accounts owned by him, as well as the substantial cash balances in them and that these domiciliary accounts were not declared in one of the two CCB Forms filed by Justice Onnoghen on the same day, 14th December 2016.

The cash balances in them were as follows: The Standard Chartered Bank dollar account 1062650 has $391,401.28 as at January 31, 2011; The Standard Chartered Bank Euro account 5001062686 has 49,971.71 Euro as at January 31, 2011; and The Standard Chartered Bank pound sterling account 5001062679 has balance GBP23,409.66 as at February 28, 2011.

THE EFCC ANGLE

As if this body punch was not bad enough, the Chief Justice got a blow yo the face from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

In the commission’s petition which no doubt cast more aspersions on Onnoghen’s intergrity, it disclosed that he refused to declare his assets upon his appointment as a judicial officer in 1989.

The EFCC also made various discoveries including hidden accounts and undeclared houses and businesses.

As a result of the weighty allegations, he was dragged before the Justice Danladi Umar-led Code Of Conduct Tribunal.

In one of the sitings, the State Prosecutor, Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN) asked that Onnoghen steps down or be suspended while the trial was going on.

The CCT had adjourned sitting but it was started that it had granted the prayer of that he should step aside.

This was challenged at a high court by Onnoghen’ s lawyers and before you could say Jack Robinson, President Muhammadu Buhari relying on the CCT recommendation suspended Onnoghen and swore in Justice Tanko Muhammed as Acting CJN.

The battle for his survival now began at the CCT

THE CCT DRAMA

At the CCT, it was discovered that the CCB had not conducted any investigation rather it was the EFCC that investigated Onnoghen.

The Commission had been contacted to investigate the petition and said Onnoghen had no evidence of ever declaring his assets until 2016 and upon his appointment as a judicial Officer in 1989 as Justice of the High Court of Cross River State.

EFCC stated that further that the respondent has not ever declared his asset until 2016 when he filled annexure E and F of exhibits R 6 and R7.

In exhibit R7, the Respondent admitted that he failed to comply with the Constitutional provisions requiring him to declare asset on the ground that he forgot due to pressure of work.

“My lords, even in the conventional court where rules of evidence is applicable every admitted facts need no further prove. See Agbakoba v. SSS (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt.351) p. 475 and the case of Gov. of Akwa-Ibom State v. John Amah (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.767) 730 at 778,” the commission revealed.

Also, he was accused of depositing the sum of $1,716,000 in a United State Dollars account operated with the Standard Chartered Bank in 2009, marked as exhibit P4 C, between 2009 and 2016.

According to EFCC, Onnoghen’s earnings as a judicial officer could not satisfactorily account for the amount found in the account.

They also said the Respondent (Onnoghen) failed to declare all the accounts and funds in exhibit P4-P4D when he declared his 2014 asset in November 2016. And that he only declared his Salary account with the Union Bank exhibit P3 and failed to declare P4-P4D, which are the accounts that warehoused funds that are far above Onnoghen’s known and provable lawful income.

It stated that by the provisions of Rule 1.2 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, it is clear that because members of the public expect a high standard of conduct from a judge, Onnoghen is under the obligation to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities both in his professional and private life.

Insisting that any conduct of the Respondent that give rise to the appearance of impropriety is a judicial misconduct and same is punishable under the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.

The EFCC said that having studied the petition,

“It is our humble submission that the petitioner proved before this Honourable Panel that the Respondent was in possession of funds which are fairly not attributable to his known, provable and legitimate source of income.

“The evidence shows that my lord earned a monthly salary in the sum of N750,819.87 which is about N9,000,000.00 per annum,” the petition read.

As shown in exhibit P10A page 14 paragraph XXVI from the petition, the Respondent only earned the sum of N91,962,362.49 as salary between September 2005 and October 2016, and that the exhibit P3 is the salary account wherein his salaries are paid.

The commission further said, “the evidence before this Honourable Committee shows clearly that the Respondent opened United State Dollars account with the Standard Chartered Bank in 2009, exhibit P4 C, which was opened by Mr. Joe Agi SAN and the first cash depositor of United State of America Dollars into the said account with entry of the 29th day of June, 2009.

Responding to this, Onnoghen claimed he gave the learned SAN, Joe Agi the $30,000.00 to deposit to exhibit P4 C. Although he could not give any reasonable explanation as to source of this money, he admitted under cross-examination that the USD was not his salary and that he only received dollars as estacodes which is meant to for his official trips.

The commission also made it known that upon the opening of the USD account exhibit P4C, a lot of cash deposits in Dollars were made to this account between 2009 and 2016.

The amounts in the said account were deposited as follows: $74,200 (2009); $291,800 (2010); $340,000 (2011); $625,000 (2012); $298,000 (2013); $40,000 (2015) and $47,000 (2016). The total was $1,716,000.

The suspended CJN was quoted to have stated that: “The sources of these are from my savings from my days as foreign student and a successful private legal practitioner, as well as estacodes for annual for annual vacations, medical expenses, international conferences, my earnings as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Gambia (See Annexure “B” referenced as ZD 129/186/01/P.II/(148), among others; and the conversion of Naira to Dollars which sometimes ago was very favorable.

According to him, returns from his off-shore investments in the foreign currencies which are clearly documented by the bank with an overdraft of $500,000 approved for me in the USD Dollars account in November, 2018.

He disclosed that up till now, the proceeds from the investments are paid into the account as and at when due, and that his investments with Standard Chartered Bank also include Federal Government Bonds as can be seen from the records of dividends.

The commission however said Onnoghen’s explanation was “laughable” and that when he was a foreign student in Ghana he accumulated such amount of money but was not stated to the Panel.

It was said by the commission that the respondent who purportedly cannot afford to pay N7,000,000.00 to Joe Agi SAN in 2009 wanted the Panel to believe that he accumulated dollars to the tune of $1,716,000.00 in his house.

In addition, it was said that he never declared having $1,716,000.00 in his asset declaration form as cash in hand and was therefore inexplicable that he wanted the panel to believe that he accumulated the said sum in his house and only deposited them in the bank between 2009 and 2016 in cash.

Also Onnoghen attempted to suggest to the panel that the $1,716,000.00 cash deposit in exhibit P4C was earned by him upon his part-time appointment as Justice of the Supreme Court of Gambia, but was accepted because he was appointed on the 22nd day of November 2012.

On the face of his appointment letter, it is clear that Onnoghen was entitled to the Five Thousand pounds Sterling (5,000 GBP) and Twenty Thousand Dalasis which is payable per session to be determined by the Chief Justice of Gambia in line with the Rules of the Supreme Court of Gambia.

However, he failed to show the panel that consequent upon his appointment in November 2012 and the assumption of that office in 2013 the number of sessions he sat as a member of the Supreme Court of Gambia.

Onnoghen also failed to state how much he earned from Gambia, how he was paid whether cash or through his account.

The petition concluded that if Onnoghen is to earn any fee from Gambia it will be GBP and not USD, and that he has failed to show with credible evidence how he legitimately earned the sum of $1,716,000.00 which is far above his lawful and provable income.

The Prosecution went on with his case declaring that it was going to call six witnesses.

The prosecution presented three witnesses before closing its case against the suspended judge.

Witness 1

The first persecution witness, James Akpala, an investigative officer with the bureau, told the court that the CCB received the petition against Mr Onnoghen from a petitioner, Denis Aghanya, on January 9.

Mr Akpala, whose testimony was given on March 18, said he was asked to investigate the content of the petition from Mr Aghanya, a member of the All Progressives Congress, on January 10.

With Mr Akpala in the witness box, the lead prosecution lawyer, Aliu Umar, admitted six documents said to have been investigated by the first prosecution witness.

The documents included Mr Aghanya’s petition, which gave rise to the six count charge against Mr Onnoghen, and two of Mr Onnoghen’s asset declaration forms, which were both filed by Mr Onnoghen in December, 2016.

The other documents admitted were Mr Onnoghen’s Supreme Court identity card, his traveling passport and a Standard Chartered Bank document which all made up Mr Onnoghen’s account opening package.

Also admitted in evidence was Mr Onnoghen’s handwritten statement taken by a team of investigators at his office on January 11.

According to the witness, one of the declaration forms submitted by Mr Onnoghen had two bank accounts while the other had seven bank accounts.

He said the bank accounts included two Union Bank details and five others with Standard Chartered Bank.

Mr Akpala was asked during cross examination to read out the dates written on the charge sheet earlier submitted at the tribunal.

The information read out by Mr Akpala proved a point made by the defence that the charge sheet was prepared before the investigation team visited Mr Onnoghen at his office.

That submission was not objected by the prosecution.

Asked whether the charge sheet was filed within 24 hours of commencement of investigation, Mr Akpala responded in the affirmative.

Mr Akpala declined comments when asked to speak on the reason the bank statements shown to Mr Onnoghen by the CCB was addressed to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC).

Witness 2

During his testimony, the second witness, Awwal Yakassai, also a staff of the bureau, testified that the asset declaration forms submitted by Mr Onnoghen were yet to be verified by the Code of Conduct Bureau.

Mr Yakassai was presented before the tribunal on March 21.

He reiterated a point made by Mr Akpala that the forms were both submitted the same day by Mr Onnoghen, and also confirmed that the forms were the basis upon which the charges against the suspended Chief Justice were filed.

Mr Yakassai was the CCB officer who collected the forms when they were filed by Mr Onnoghen in December 2016.

During cross examination, Mr Yakassai was shown the portion of the forms expected to have been signed as a measure of verification by the CCT. The portion shown to Mr Yakassai were confirmed blank by the witness.

Mr Yakassai also admitted, when confronted with a submission by the defence, that the content of the petition written against Mr Onnoghen was a ‘practical duplication of the details entered by Mr Onnoghen in his asset declaration forms.’

Witness 3

In her testimony, the third prosecution witness, Ifeoma Okagbue, a staff of the Standard Chartered bank who was also presented on Thursday told the tribunal that Mr Onnoghen did not have as much as $1million or £1 million in all the bank accounts, a denial of a major plank upon which the charges against him were built.

Ms Akagbue, who told the tribunal that she started to manage Mr Onnoghen’s account in 2015, added that all five accounts mentioned in the charges had the Bank Verification Numbers.

The witness also told the tribunal that the various accounts were domiciliary, not foreign. It was after this that it said it was not calling any other witnesses and decided to close the case.

Defense counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), led in evidence one Lawal Busari, who is Justice Onnoghen’s driver.

In his evidence, Busari told the court how he drove Onnoghen to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) Office on July 28, 2010, to obtain an assets’ declaration form, saying he paid N200 fee for Onnoghen’s form on November 3, 2010.

Busari, who told the court that he was a chief driver and mechanic with the Supreme Court, added that while he was still with Justice Onnoghen at the CCB, he (Onnoghen) asked him to also get his own assets declaration form.

He explained that he obtained his form as directed, adding: “When we got back to the office, I filled my own form and on November 3, 2010, my Lordship gave me N200 to pay into the treasury account for the form.

“I collected the receipt from the cashier and I gave the receipt back to my lord and on November 4, 2010, I did mine by paying N200 to the cashier.”

The testimony of the 60-year old witness aimed at countering the prosecution’s charge that Justice Onnoghen did not declare his assets between 2005 and 2016 in line with public office law.

But when Awomolo sought to tender the receipt as exhibit, the prosecution counsel, Aliyu Umar (SAN), objected to its admissibility.

He hinged his objection on the fact that the ‘Revenue number’ was not on the receipt, insisting that its authenticity was doubtful, and that Busari, not being the originator of the document, was not the right person to tender it in court.

The prosecution was, however, overruled and the receipt admitted as an exhibit, after which the tribunal adjourned for that day.

It was also to call Mrs Theresa Nwafor, a Director of the CCB now based in Benin, after asking that she be issued subpoena to appear, the Defence counsel, Chris Uche (SAN) informed on the next trial date of the tribunal that the defendant was done with his case.
Uche, while addressing the tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, said:”My lords, today is for continuation of trial.

“But my lords, after a deep review of the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, the defence has come to conclusion and we have closed our case.

He stated “Pursuarnt to paragraph 14 of the Practice Direction of this honourable tribunal, we apply to file our final written addresses.”

Uche prayed the tribunal for 14 days to enable him file his client’s final written address.
Lead prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN), said the defence informed him before hand that it would close its case.

Umar urged the tribunal to allocate time to the parties as it wishes.
The tribunal’s chairman directed the defence to file and serve its address on or before April 8.

THE NJC ANGLE

Following an uproar by Nigerians on the case, especially that his trial did not follow due process and his suspension too was wrong because he could only have been suspended through the recommendation of the National Judicial Council ( NJC), the NJC stepped into the arena.

It stated that it has received two petitions, one was the one that formed the basis for the CCT trial against Justice Onnoghen and the other was by Olisa Agbakoba, SAN against Justice Tanko Muhammed for accepting to be sworn in as Acting CJN

The NJC summoned bith men to respond to the petitions after which it would take a decision.It set up a 5-man panel to handle the matter.

The council however decided that the allegations relating to assets declaration that were levelled against Hon. Mr. Justice W. S. N. Onnoghen, GCON were subjudice and therefore abstained from considering them.

Thereafter, the Council reached a decision on the petitions written by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and others, of which it has conveyed its decision to President Muhammadu Buhari.

Also, the council resolved that by the nature of the decision reached, it would be inappropriate for it to publicise it before conveying it to Mr. President.

THE END

Every film.or drama, there must be an end.And it seems the one involving Onnoghen is gradually cruising to an end with his reported resignation.

Though no official statement has so far been made by the Presidency, it was widely reported that Justice Onnoghen had tendered his resignation on Thursday and now we all await what will certainly be his final farewell from the exalted position of Chief Justice of Nigeria.

Related Topics:CCT CJN. CCB EFCC End of the Road For Justice Justice Onnoghen President Buhari Resigns Witness

Up Next

Police launch Operation Puff Adder, to battle bandits, kidnappers

Don't Miss

Pendulum: And My Idol Died ( By Popular Demand)

Click to comment

Headline

Amnesty Condemns Wike’s ‘Shoot’ Remark Against Seun Okinbaloye

Published

4 days ago

April 6, 2026

Eric

Amnesty International Nigeria has condemned comments by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, over a statement in which he said he could “shoot” a television anchor during a live broadcast.

In a statement issued on Saturday, the organisation described the minister’s remarks as “reckless and violent,” warning that such language could incite attacks on journalists and undermine press freedom.

The group said Wike’s statement, made during a media parley in Abuja, violated broadcasting standards and carried the risk of normalising violence against media practitioners.

“Amnesty International Nigeria strongly condemns the reckless and violent language of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr Nyesom Wike, in which he stated that he can respond to a statement by a journalist with shooting,” the statement read.

It added that Wike’s remarks—“If there’s any way to break the screen, I would have shot him”—not only incited violence but also contravened Nigeria’s broadcasting code, which the National Broadcasting Commission is mandated to enforce.

The organisation warned that such comments from a public official could embolden attacks on journalists.

“What Wike said carries the danger of normalising violence and encouraging the targeting of journalists for just doing their job. This level of violent intent coming from a member of Nigeria’s federal cabinet is unlawful and unacceptable,” it said.

Amnesty International called on the minister to immediately withdraw the statement and issue a public apology.

The controversy followed Wike’s reaction to comments made by Channels Television anchor Seun Okinbaloye during a programme discussing the leadership crisis in the African Democratic Congress and its implications for opposition politics ahead of the 2027 elections. Okinbaloye had raised concerns about the possibility of a one-party state, a position the minister criticised as inappropriate for a journalist.

Headline

Is Amupitan’s INEC Complicit?

Published

5 days ago

April 5, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

Following the Wednesday derecognition of the leadership of the main opposition party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), by the Prof Joash Amupitan-led Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), diverse narratives have flooded media space as to the real reason behind the decision.

A section of the Nigerian population has wondered if the INEC is playing out a well written script or swaying to a thoroughly rehearsed and choreographed dance. Others have hinted that the electoral body, and its officials, who are products of the powers that be, are harking to the voice of their pay paymaster to ensure that the vocal fears of many Nigerians regarding the intention of the President Bola Tinubu-controlled Federal Government and All Progressives Congress (APC) to turn the country to a one-party state comes to reality.

These and many other developments in recent times have prompted the rhetorical question, is Amupitan’s INEC complicit? Are the popularly assumed Independent body dependent on the APC government to dance to their tunes? Will Amupitan, whom many Nigerians celebrated his appointment go the way if other INEC chairmen? Especially the immediate past chairman, Professor Yakubu Mahmood, who has been rewarded with ambassadorial appointment presently.

It would be recalled that INEC, on Wednesday through its National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Haruna, announced the Commission’s decision to withdraw their recognition of the ADC leadership, with special emphasis to the Chairman, Senator David Mark and Secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, in a statement.

It hinged its decision on a court order which directed the commission to maintain the status quo pending the determination of a suit challenging the legality of David Mark’s leadership of the opposition party. But the maintenance of status quo has been variously interpreted by interested parties to suit their various whims and caprice.

While the Amupitan-led INEC believes that status quo means going back to the days before the leadership of David Marj came on board, the ADC argued that the status quo promptly refers to the period before any law suit was Instituted. The development puts a heavy question mark on the judiciary, and it’s ambiguous declarations and judgment, and the lawyers, who most times, out of mischief, refuses to adhere to the correct interpretation in as much as they are aware what the interpretation is or should be.

Now, who interprets the interpreter?

INEC has said in a statement that the appellate court, in a judgment delivered on March 12, 2026, directed all parties to maintain the existing situation before the dispute arose and refrain from actions that could prejudice the outcome of the case.

“That the Commission would, in accordance with the Order of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/145/2026 refrain from taking any step or doing any act capable of foisting a fait accompli on the court or otherwise rendering nugatory the proceedings before the trial court, having regard to all the processes filed before the trial Court,” the statement read.

Reacting, the mark-led ADC and a faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), through their spokespersons, Bolaji Abdullahi and Ini Ememobong, insisted that the development was a calculated attempt to undermine democratic structures, alleging the involvement of the APC government and urging supporters to mobilise in defence of democratic principles.

Abdullahi said INEC’s position does not reflect the facts of the case and raises concerns about impartiality. He noted in a statement as follows:

“We reject INEC’s interpretation of the Court of Appeal ruling.

“INEC’s press statement is full of contradictions that fly in the face of both facts and reason. We shall clarify these contradictions for all to see. What is clear, however, is that INEC has caved to pressure and has chosen to side with the government against the Nigerian people,” the statement read.

“We are currently reviewing our options, and we shall make these known soon.

“Meanwhile, we call on our members and all Nigerians to remain steadfast as they await further directives.

“Nigeria is rising. ADC is rising,” he added.

As a follow-up to the rejection, the ADC called for the resignation or sack of the INEC Chairman, accusing him of complicity and colluding with the ruling APC to ensure no other political party is on the ballot paper to challenge the APC in the 2027 elections.

Mark, who addressed the world press conference noted as follows in a speech titled, This Attack on Democracy Will Not Stand.

On behalf of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and lovers of democracy, I welcome you all to this world press conference.

Since 1999, Nigeria has been under democratic rule. After 27 years, we thought we could proudly celebrate the entrenchment of democracy, believing that the country’s dictatorial past has receded into history.

Our experience in the past three years or so since President Bola Tinubu came to power has however confirmed otherwise. Democracy is only sustained by the quality of freedom that it offers and guarantees, especially the freedom to choose, the freedom to participate, and the freedom to associate. These freedoms are so critical to democracy that without them, democracy dies.

Yet, in the past three years, we have witnessed a relentless assault on these very freedoms. The agenda is very clear, to create a situation where, in 2027, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu emerges as the only option left for the people, despite the widespread suffering and wanton killings going on across the country. The twin challenge of deepening poverty, and worsening security situation in the country did not just happen. They are direct consequences of the failure of this government. They know that Nigerians will not want this to continue. They know Nigerians will vote them out. This is why they would do anything to hang on to power by hook or crook.

Background to the Coalition

The coalition of opposition parties came about as a result of a collective search for democratic freedom and the desire to resist what was clearly a relentless assault on opposition political parties. The coalition leaders decided to come together under ADC to save multi-party democracy in Nigeria and rescue Nigeria from what was clearly an emerging dictatorship.

We did not come to the ADC by chance. We did our due diligence. We fulfilled all the party’s constitutional requirements, as well as all wider requirements under the laws that guide the management and operation of political parties.

In furtherance of this process, a NEC meeting was convened on July 29th, 2025, monitored by INEC officials. One of the conclusions of that NEC meeting was the dissolution of the National Working Committee of the party, and the ratification of a caretaker committee to take over the affairs of the party, with my humble self, David Mark, as the National Chairman; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as the National Secretary; as well as others who have since been serving as officers of the party.

In addition to witnessing this process that brought in the new leadership of the party, a formal report of these resolutions was subsequently communicated to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). On September 9th, 2025, INEC then uploaded the names of the relevant NWC members of the party, based on the NEC resolutions.

One of the officials in the dissolved NWC was Nafiu Bala, who was one of the Deputy National Chairmen of the party. It is on record that Gombe resigned this position on 17th May, 2025. His resignation was also duly transmitted to INEC on the 12th of August, 2025. Regardless of his resignation, he decided to approach the courts on September 2nd, 2025, four clear months after his resignation, seeking to be recognised as the Chairman of the ADC.

What this means is that by the 2nd of September, when he approached the courts, INEC was already aware that Secretary Aregbesola and I had been inaugurated on the 29th of July in a process monitored by INEC. INEC was also aware that Gombe had resigned his position before the said inauguration on the 29th of July.

While this matter was in court, our team of lawyers approached the Court of Appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. In rejecting the appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered the parties including INEC to maintain the status quo ante bellum.

After this ruling on March 12th, 2026, we noticed a flurry of activities by lawyers associated with Nafiu Bala, requesting INEC to recognise him as the new chairman, or to de-recognise Aregbesola and I as the secretary and chairman respectively, in a curious interpretation of what constitutes status quo ante bellum. But we knew all along that Nafiu Bala and his lawyers were not acting on their own volition. They had become willing tools in the hands of a ruling party that had lost all support and goodwill of the Nigerian people; a government that had become desperate to cling on to power by all means even if it meant throwing the country into avoidable crisis.

In the past couple of months, ADC has become the only viable opposition party left in Nigeria. But this APC government does not want any opposition. While we were fully aware of all their desperate plans, we remained confident that no level of desperation would have driven the government and the INEC to take a direct action against the ruling of the court. But we were wrong.

It was therefore to our surprise, yesterday, 1st of April, that INEC issued a press statement after the close of business hours, announcing that it had decided to withdraw recognition for both the ADC leadership, which I head, and the fictitious one purportedly led by Nafiu Bala, thereby creating a false equivalence between the parties.

By purporting to recognizing Nafiu Bala as a faction, INEC seems to have conveniently forgotten that this individual had resigned his position, to the knowledge of INEC itself.

The Legal Position

The crux of the matter is the interpretation of what constitutes status quo ante bellum, which the Court of Appeal directed should be maintained. From all authoritative counsel at our disposal, there is no legal interpretation or precedent that could possibly lead to the outcome that INEC seeks to foist on our party.

Based on its press statement of yesterday, INEC is pretending to be confused as to what constitutes the status quo ante bellum. If this was so, under the circumstances, what one would have expected was for INEC to approach the Court of Appeal to request a judicial interpretation of what truly represents the status quo under the circumstances. But it did not do this. While posturing to be neutral, its actions confirm that it has become irredeemably partisan, working, as it were, towards a preconceived agenda. With its action, this INEC has left no one in doubt that it has chosen the path of dishonour and has become complicit in undermining Nigeria’s democracy. It therefore can no longer be trusted.

What we say in essence is this: INEC cannot choose to fix the status quo from the day it took the administrative action to upload the names of the new ADC officials on its website, because INEC does not have the power to determine for any political party who its leaders should be. That decision was taken on July 29th, not on September 9th. With its press release yesterday, INEC has invented a status quo that never existed, because there was no time that the African Democratic Congress (ADC) did not have a duly constituted leadership. What INEC has done is to create a situation that, by its own curious logic, leaves the ADC without leadership. This certainly cannot be the status quo that the Court of Appeal directed should be preserved. It is an INEC invention that is not known to any Nigerian law.

There is only one conclusion that Nigerians can draw from the April 1st action taken by INEC: THE ELECTORAL UMPIRE HAS TAKEN SIDES. IT CAN NO LONGER BE TRUSTED. As a matter of fact, INEC has acted in contempt of the Court of Appeal and has therefore acted unlawfully.

My fellow democrats, distinguished ladies and gentlemen. It is not the ADC that is under attack. This is a direct assault on Nigeria’s democracy and the right of Nigerians to choose, participate, and exercise their rights as free citizens. We have witnessed how the APC-led Federal Government has undermined, compromised, and coerced other opposition political parties. The ADC has risen as the last bastion between Nigeria’s democracy and full-blown dictatorship. And this is what worries them.

What is now unfolding is a concerted effort to dismantle that last bulwark. If we allow this to happen, it could signal the end of our democracy as we know it. If we yield to it, we would have become complicit by our inaction. We therefore hold it a duty to our democracy and the Nigerian people to say “no”.

Right now, I speak to Nigerians at home and in diaspora. I also speak directly to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu: with 90% of the National Assembly and over 30 of Nigeria’s 36 Governors in the APC, President Tinubu, what are you afraid of? If you are convinced that you have done well for the people who voted for you, why are you afraid of a free, fair, and transparent electoral contest? If you are indeed the democrat that you claim to be, why are you bent on destroying all opposition political parties?

Let me reiterate for the record; there are no competing claims on the leadership of the ADC. Nafiu Bala has no locus whatsoever. INEC should have waited for the Court of Appeal to decide this matter. Instead, INEC went ahead to do the bidding of the ruling party. But let us be clear: the role of INEC over political parties is not administrative: it is not managerial: It is simply supervisory.

For the avoidance of doubt, the leadership of ADC inaugurated at the 29th July 2025, NEC meeting remains the lawful leaders of the party. Party members and all Nigerians should therefore remain calm as there is no cause for alarm whatsoever.

It is important to state the net implications of this decision taken by INEC, in case they had not thought of it, or they just do not care:

First, by attempting to subvert the leadership of the ADC, INEC has already undermined our participation in the Osun and Ekiti elections taking place later this year.

Secondly, we have our congresses starting on the 9th of April, 2026, ending with our convention on the 14th April, 2026. We have given due notice to INEC, and they have acknowledged receipt of that notice. This is what the law requires of us.

Let us sound a note of warning. This INEC under Professor Joash Amupitan will be held directly responsible for whatever actions or reactions that follow this criminal path that it has chosen to take.

Our demand is therefore clear:

We demand the immediate resignation or sack of the INEC Chairman, Professor Amupitan, and all the National Commissioners. We no longer have confidence in them. We are convinced that they are incapable of conducting any credible election.

Let us also make it clear: we are proceeding with our party programmes, because there is nothing under the law that makes INEC’s attendance, a mandatory requirement. We have duly served INEC notice, and we will proceed accordingly.

We also call on the international community to take note of INEC’s actions of April 1st, and of the restraint we are exercising today. We urge them to recognise the clear threat to Nigeria’s democracy and stability, and to hold accountable those who are undermining the integrity of the electoral process.

We call on Nigerians to defend our democracy. This is a defining moment. Stand firm. Speak out. Participate. Resist any attempt to impose a one-party state on Nigeria. Nigeria belongs to all of us, and together, we must protect it.

It is often said, that the arc of history does not bend towards tyranny. It bends towards freedom.

And no matter how long the night may seem, the morning will come.

Nigeria will not be silenced. Nigeria will not be conquered.

Nigeria is rising, ADC is rising.

While Nigerians from all walks of life continue to react either positively or negatively, depending on the political divide, the ADC has insisted on going ahead with its National Convention scheduled for April 14, 2026, and its Congresses in deviance to INEC’s directive.

INEC had warned the ADC that it risks losing out completely it went ahead to conduct a Convention without the backing of the electoral body and with a court judgment on maintenance of status quo hanging on their necks. But the ADC would hear none of this, claiming that INEC is acting out a script, carefully written out by the Tinubu-led FG and APC.

Lending his voice to the accusation that Amupitan is backed by Tinubu’s government, prominent legal scholar Professor Chidi Odinkalu alleged that Professor Amupitan signed a resignation letter before taking office as a condition of his appointment — and that the threat of releasing it was used to pressure him into withdrawing recognition from the David Mark-led National Working Committee of the African Democratic Congress.

“I have it on the most impeccable authority that there is a pre-signed resignation letter by Chairman Amupitan.

“It was a precondition for his appointment. Ultimately, that had to be called in aid by those who persuaded him to issue this release. The threat of releasing it did the magic,” Odinkalu wrote on X.

Odinkalu also noted that INEC’s decision came roughly 60 hours after senior officials of the commission held meetings with the Presidency, justices of the Court of Appeal, and the Federal High Court — a sequence of events he said was not coincidental.

He further warned that the 2027 election “will not be much of an election,” stressing that the credibility of Nigeria’s electoral process, and the stability of the country, could be at serious risk if the allegations prove true.

Also speaking, a former Director, Voter Education and Publicity in INEC, Barr. Oluwole Osaze-Uzzi, faulted the commission’s de-recognition of the David Mark-led leadership of the ADC, insisting that the Opposition party should go ahead with its planned congresses despite its ongoing leadership dispute before the court.

Osaze-Uzzi said while he held the leadership of INEC in high regard, he had serious reservations about the commission’s interpretation of the Appeal Court order at the centre of the ADC leadership tussle.

Osaze-Uzzi argued that the order in question was not one that stripped either side in the crisis of legitimacy, but rather one that sought to preserve the subject matter of the case pending final determination by the High Court.

“Because the court did not say that INEC will withdraw recognition from either faction. All it did say is that both INEC and the contesting factions will be careful not to do anything that will usurp the power of the court and its ability to do justice on the matter,” he stated.

“I think the ADC should proceed with all that they are doing, as long as they do not impugn the majesty of the court and its ability to do justice on the case,” Osaze-Uzzi said.

According to him, the court did not direct INEC to withdraw recognition from either of the contending factions in the party, but only cautioned all parties against taking any step that could undermine the authority of the court or frustrate the judicial process.

The debate whether the Mark-led ADC defaulted when they took over the leadership of the party in July 2025 still remains on the front burner with the opposers, mostly APC adherents, lashing out at the opposition party, and hailing INEC’s decision while supporters of the ADC have not only blamed the INEC, but accused Tinubu of fear of having opposition.

The coming days promise to be dicey in the Nigerian political terrain, seeing that the ADC is the only viable opposition to Tinubu’s re-emergence in 2027.

While Nigerians watch events develop, the all-important question remains, is Amupitan’s INEC complicit?

Headline

What Manner of Condolence Visit is This, Atiku Knocks Tinubu on Trip to Jos

Published

1 week ago

April 2, 2026

Eric

Former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, on Thursday criticised President Bola Tinubu’s condolence visit to Plateau State, describing it as a troubling reflection of what he called a growing disconnect between leadership and the plight of ordinary Nigerians.

In a statement issued in Abuja by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku expressed deep concern over the President’s response to the killings in parts of Plateau, insisting that the visit fell short of the empathy and urgency demanded by the tragedy.

The chieftain of the African Democratic Congress highlighted that the events in Plateau once again exposed “a disturbing and unacceptable approach to national tragedy.”

He said, “It is both shocking and deeply insensitive that several days after the gruesome killings of innocent citizens, the President’s so-called ‘on-the-spot assessment’ was reduced to a brief stop at the foot of his aircraft, never extending beyond the airport, never reaching the grieving communities, and never touching the pain of the victims.

“Even more troubling is the impression that this fleeting visit was hurriedly curtailed to allow the President to proceed to Lagos for the Easter holidays, a decision that reflects a deeply troubling prioritisation in the face of national grief.

“While families continue to mourn those slaughtered on Palm Sunday, the President chose to convert what ought to have been a solemn visit into a political spectacle, meeting party loyalists in Jos under the thin guise of official engagement. This is not leadership; it is indifference dressed as protocol.”

According to him, the President’s handling of the Plateau visit reflects a recurring pattern of what he described as insensitive and politically driven responses to national tragedies.

He referenced a similar condolence visit to Benue State in June 2025, which he said avoided the worst-hit community and turned into a political gathering, arguing that the repetition suggests a consistent approach rather than an isolated lapse.

“In Plateau, the President neither visited the bereaved families nor the injured receiving treatment in hospitals. He offered no concrete policy direction, no decisive security intervention, and no reassurance that such horrors would not recur.

“Instead, he staged a meet-and-greet within the confines of the airport, surrounded by politicians, traditional rulers, and party operatives—far removed from the anguish of the people. This is not only inappropriate; it is shameful. A leader who cannot stand with his people in their darkest hour cannot convincingly claim to be fighting for their safety,” he stated.

Atiku’s remarks come hours after President Tinubu visited Plateau State following last Sunday’s deadly attacks in Jos, particularly in the Angwan Rukuba area, where at least 27 people were reported killed.

During the visit, the President reportedly met with a grieving mother whose anguish had gone viral after she was seen clutching the lifeless body of her son and some other victims of the attacks.

Addressing her by name, Tinubu acknowledged her loss and assured affected families of government support, noting that no compensation could adequately replace lost lives.

Speaking through his spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, the President described the incidents as “barbaric and cowardly,” vowing that those responsible would be brought to justice.

The President was received on arrival in Jos by the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress, Nentawe Yilwatda, Plateau State Governor Caleb Mutfwang, and other senior government officials.