Three Nigerian secondary schools are in the ring for the grand prize of N5m in the ongoing Glo Innov8 National STEM competition for girls in Senior Secondary Schools across the country.

The three top finalists were selected for their originality and innovation in the different entries for the competition. A total of 20 secondary schools were picked from over 200 schools which registered for the competition. After a series of considerations, 10 of them made it to the semifinal from which three; Ephraim High School, Isolo Campus, Lagos; Regina Pacis International School, Onitsha, Anambra State; and Peakfield Academy, Jos, Plateau State eventually coasted home to the finals.

Schools from Plateau, Kano, Lagos, Rivers, Edo, Borno, Kebbi, Nasarawa, Ondo, Oyo, Anambra, FCT, Delta, Kaduna and Adamawa states had signified intentions to participate following a call for entries by Glo Foundation, Globacom’s corporate social responsibility arm as part of its celebration of the 2025 International Day of the Girl Child.

Glo Innov8, a STEM-driven challenge, has scheduled prizes worth N5 million to the three schools in the finals. The competition “is geared at inspiring young girls to Compete, Innovate and Win, while also strengthening their confidence and expanding their knowledge in STEM subjects”, Glo Foundation explained.

The eventual overall winning school will go home with a cash prize of N2,000,000 while the 2 students representing the school will each get a laptop. The Teacher/Mentor/STEM Coordinator also gets N200,000.

The schools that come second and third places and their Teachers/Mentors/STEM Coordinators will also receive mouth-watering consolation prizes.

The three female judges of the virtual phase of selection of the top 20 schools said they were excited by the quality of presentations by the competing schools. One of them, Tosin Olabode said: “I was particularly impressed by the prototype presentations from some schools. They demonstrated that they had done their homework”.

In the same vein, Amina Gabriel disclosed that she was thrilled by the variety of ideas that the schools came up with. “The schools presented innovative solutions tackling issues in agriculture, security, waste management, and firefighting. The top 10 schools showcased outstanding prototypes, from apps to robots, making the judging process truly competitive. I’m grateful to Glo Foundation for the opportunity to serve and support young girls in STEM”, she said.

According to Sharon Ibejih, the third judge, “This competition has showcased a highly competitive next generation of women leaders in STEM. This was an excellent exercise and a means to encourage more students in STEM to develop problem-solving and innovative thinking skills”.

The overall winning school will emerge at an event set to hold later this year at the Mike Adenuga Centre (Alliance Française), Ikoyi, Lagos.

The leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPoB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a motion to stop the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in his trial for alleged terrorism.

Justice James Omotosho, on November 7, fixed November 20 for judgment on the case.

The judge fixed the date after Kanu’s defence was foreclosed following his insistence that he would not enter his defence under a repealed law.

However, in the motion on notice marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, he personally filed, the IPoB leader sought seven reliefs.

In the application dated November 10 and filed same date, Kanu sought an order arresting the delivery of judgment in charge no: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.

The document was made public on Tuesday.

In it, he alleged that the proceedings were conducted under a repealed and non-existent statute and in disobedience to the Supreme Court’s directive contrary to Section 287(1) CFRN 1999.”
He sought a declaration that by virtue of Section 287(1) CFRN, the trial court was constitutionally bound to give effect to the Supreme Court’s finding that count 15 (now count 7) “does not exist in law,” and its failure rendered all subsequent proceedings null and void.

He also sought a declaration that the court’s failure to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Act, contrary to Section 122 Evidence Act 2011, vitiates all steps taken thereunder.

The IPOB leader equally sought a declaration that by virtue of Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to try him in the absence of proof that the alleged conduct constituted an offence under Kenyan law or of any Kenyan judicial validation or extradition order.

Besides, Kanu sought “a declaration that the plea purportedly taken on March 29, under a repealed and non-existent statute and in violation of Section 220 ACJA 2015 is void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has again stopped the Peoples Democratic Party from proceeding with its planned national convention scheduled to take place in Ibadan, Oyo State, between November 15 and 16.

The court also barred the Independent National Electoral Commission from supervising, monitoring, or recognising any outcome from the planned convention where national officers were expected to be elected, Channels reports.

Justice Peter Lifu issued the restraining order on Tuesday while ruling on an application filed by former Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido.

Lamido had sued the party, alleging that he was unjustly denied the opportunity to purchase the nomination form for the national chairmanship position, thereby excluding him from the exercise.

Justice Lifu said the order became necessary because the PDP failed to comply with the relevant legal requirements guiding the conduct of such conventions.

He noted that evidence before the court showed the party did not publish the timetable for the exercise as required by law, and therefore acted in breach of due process.

The judge further held that the balance of convenience favoured Lamido, as he would suffer greater harm if unlawfully excluded from the process.

“In a constitutional democracy, due process of law must be strictly observed by those in authority. To act otherwise is to endanger the very foundation of democracy itself,” he said.

He added that, under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, courts must not abdicate their responsibility of delivering justice without fear or favour.

Justice Lifu warned that anarchy could result anywhere the judiciary fails to perform its constitutional duties.

In his final ruling, the court restrained the PDP from holding the convention on November 15 and 16, or on any other date, in Ibadan or elsewhere.

It also ordered INEC not to monitor or recognise the outcome of any such gathering organised by the party.

In October 2025, the Federal High Court in Abuja stopped the PDP from proceeding with its planned national convention.

In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/2025, Justice James Omotosho ordered that the convention be halted until the party complies with the statutory requirements of its constitution, the Nigerian Constitution, and the Electoral Act.

The suit was instituted by three aggrieved members of the party, Austin Nwachukwu (Imo PDP Chairman), Amah Abraham Nnanna (Abia PDP Chairman), and Turnah Alabh George (PDP Secretary, South-South).

They asked the court to stop the PDP’s scheduled national convention in Ibadan, where new national officers were expected to be elected, arguing that the planned convention violated the Electoral Act and the PDP’s internal rules.

However, on November 4, the Oyo State High Court granted the PDP approval to proceed with its convention.

Justice Akintola issued an interim order permitting the party to continue its convention plans without obstruction, following an ex-parte motion filed by Folahan Adelabi against the PDP, its Acting National Chairman Umar Damagum, Governor Ahmadu Fintiri (Chairman of the National Convention Organising Committee) and INEC.

Justice Akintola, however, on Monday, adjourned the hearing of a Motion on Notice in a separate suit filed by Folahan Malomo Adelabi against the PDP, its acting National Chairman, and other respondents.

The judge explained that the adjournment was to allow both parties to file and exchange all necessary processes before the substantive hearing could begin.