Headline

Discordant Tones As PDP Holds Convention in Ibadan

Published

3 months ago

November 15, 2025

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

These are not the best of times for the main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as two factions of the party are locked up in a war of superiority over the soul of the party even as the much talked about 2027 general elections draw dangerously close.

Slashed into two parts with Umar Damagum and Abdulrahman Mohammed holding each piece as chairman, the PDP continues to swim in troubled waters with no hope of reconciliation of in sight.

The brouhaha notwithstanding, the Demagum faction is poised to hold their advertised and promoted National Convention slated for Saturday and Sunday, November 15 and 16, 2025, in Ibadan, Oyo State. The location is strategic as it is the home state of one of leading governors in the party, Seyi Makinde.

On the other hand, the Mohammed/Anyanwu faction has announced a postponement of the convention, in spite of the arrangements. While political commentators believe that Makinde is behind the Demagum PDP, and Abuja Minister, Nyesom Wike is behind the Mohammed/Anyanwu faction, it has been said the two party godfathers fell out with each other after their infamous G-5 governors romance in 2023.

The hosting of the Ibadan convention is coming on the heels of consistent and conflicting court judgments for and against the convention depending on who filed the case.

On Friday, the Federal High Court in Abuja, issued what it termed a ‘final’ order stopping the the PDP from proceeding with its 2025 national convention in Ibadan where new national officers are to be elected for the party. The election, ordinarily would have ended the long drawn leadership crisis that has bedeviled the party since the 2023, leading to their loss of the presidential election. Observers have said that since the entire party hierarchy and members are not in support of the convention owing to one reason or another, it becomes obvious that a sort of compromise is involved.

Meanwhile, the Demagum faction has already accused the ruling APC of being the brain behind the crises including the constantly flying about court injunctions restricting the planned convention.

Delivering his judgment on Friday, in a suit filed by former Jigawa State governor Sule Lamido, who had asked the court to bar the PDP from going ahead with the convention until it complies with its constitution and guidelines, Justice Peter Lifu ordered that the Ibadan convention must be put on hold until Mr Lamido is allowed to purchase the nomination form for the office of national chairman and campaign for his aspiration

He also prohibited the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from supervising, monitoring or aiding the convention until Mr Lamido is allowed to participate.

The judge held that the PDP is under a strict obligation to adhere to its own rules and regulations by giving eligible members the opportunity to pursue their individual aspirations. He said it was wrong of the party to deny Mr Lamido the opportunity to purchase the nomination form for the national chairmanship.

He stated that the PDP was in clear breach of its constitution and guidelines by denying some members access to nomination forms for elective offices at the convention.

In an instant counter move, an Ibadan Federal High Court, ruled that the convention should continue as planned, asking the INEC provide monitoring and other facilities required for the smooth conduct of the convention.

It would be recalled that another judge of the same Federal High Court, Abuja, James Omotosho, had on 31 October restrained INEC from recognising the outcome of the forthcoming PDP convention. He issued the order while delivering judgement in a different suit challenging the legality of the convention.

The suit was filed by three aggrieved members of the party: Austin Nwachukwu (Imo PDP chairman), Amah Nnanna (Abia PDP chairman) and Turnah George (PDP secretary, South-South).

Mr Omotosho said the PDP failed to comply with relevant conditions and laws for holding the convention. He noted that evidence from the electoral umpire and some respondents showed that congresses were not held in some states, in breach of the law.

He also held that notices and correspondences signed by the PDP national chairman without the national secretary violated the law and were therefore null and void.

In addition, the court found that the PDP failed to issue the mandatory 21 days’ notice of meetings and congresses to enable INEC to monitor them. The judge said the party’s failure to comply with the law jeopardised the convention and advised it to take the necessary steps before proceeding with elections.

Mr Lifu had also on 11 November issued an interim injunction restraining the PDP from holding the convention and barring INEC from supervising, monitoring or recognising the outcome of the election of national officers.

He based the restriction on the PDP’s refusal and failure to comply with relevant conditions and laws for conducting conventions. He said evidence from Mr Lamido showed that the timetable for the convention was not published for members as required by law.

The judge said the balance of convenience favoured Mr Lamido because he would suffer more if unlawfully excluded from the convention. He noted that Mr Lamido undertook to pay damages to the PDP if his suit was found frivolous, to ensure remedy.

The judge added that due process must be strictly followed, warning that failure to do so would endanger democracy. He cited section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, saying courts must dispense justice without fear or favour. He warned that anarchy would prevail whenever courts abdicate their constitutionally assigned functions.

But the decisions of the Federal High Court in Abuja rub against another order of the Oyo State High Court in Ibadan, asking the PDP to proceed with the convention as planned.

The judge, A. L. Akintola, issued the interim order on 3 November following an ex-parte application filed by Folahan Adelabi.

The judge held that the claimant successfully demonstrated the need for urgent judicial intervention in the PDP matter.

“The court finds merit in the claimant’s motion ex-parte. The same succeeds and is hereby ordered as prayed,” the judge ruled.

Mr Adelabi filed the application, joining as respondents the PDP, its Acting National Chairman, Umar Damagum; Governor Umaru Fintiri (representing the National Convention Organising Committee); and INEC.

The claimant had urged the court to restrain the defendants from truncating, frustrating, or disrupting the timetable, guidelines, and schedule of activities leading to the convention.

Granting the prayer, the court issued a raft of interim orders restraining any interference with the PDP’s timetable and schedule of activities and compelling the defendants to hold the national convention as fixed.

Presently, arrangements have been concluded for the convention to hold just as all loyalists of the Makinde and Demagum have arrived Ibadan. Though loyalists of the Wike and Anyanwu faction including Governor Sim Fubara of Rivers State, have boycotted the convention.

While the convention goes on amid discordant tones, the ball rests on the court of the INEC to recognize the outcome or not. But whichever way one looks at it, this may trigger the beginning of a longer legal tussle.

Additional information: Premium Times

Headline

Opposition Parties Reject 2026 Electoral Act, Demand Fresh Amendment

Published

15 hours ago

February 26, 2026

Eric

Opposition political parties have rejected the 2026 Electoral Act recently passed by the National Assembly, which President Bola Tinubu swiftly signed into law.

The parties called on the National Assembly to immediately begin a fresh amendment process to remove what they described as “all obnoxious provisions” in the law.

Their position was made known at a press briefing themed “Urgent Call to Save Nigeria’s Democracy,” held at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel in Abuja on Thursday.

In a communiqué read by the Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) Ahmed Ajuji, the opposition leaders stated:

“We demand that the National Assembly immediately commence a fresh amendment to the Electoral Act 2026, to remove all obnoxious provisions and ensure that the Act reflects only the will and aspiration of Nigerians for free, fair, transparent and credible electoral process in our country. Nothing short of this will be acceptable to Nigerians.”

Some of the opposition leaders present in at the event include former Senate President David Mark; former Governor of Osun State, Rauf Aregbesola; former Vice President Atiku Abubakar; former Governor of Rivers State, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi; and former Governor of Anambra State, Peter Obi, all from the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The National Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Ahmed Ajuji, and other prominent members of the NNPP, notably Buba Galadima, were also in attendance.

The coalition said the amended law, signed by Bola Tinubu, contains “anti-democratic” clauses, which they argue may weaken electoral transparency and public confidence in the voting system.

At the centre of the opposition’s concerns is the amendment to Section 60(3), which allows presiding officers to rely on manual transmission of election results where there is communication failure.

According to the coalition, the provision weakens the mandatory electronic transmission of results and could create loopholes for manipulation.

They argued that Nigeria’s electoral technology infrastructure is sufficient to support nationwide electronic transmission, citing previous assurances by officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The parties also rejected the amendment to Section 84, which restricts political parties to direct primaries and consensus methods for candidate selection.

They described the change as an unconstitutional intrusion into the internal affairs of parties, insisting that indirect primaries remain a legitimate democratic option.

The opposition cited alleged irregularities in the recent Federal Capital Territory local government elections as evidence of what they described as a broader pattern of electoral compromise.

They characterised the polls as a “complete fraud” and said the outcome has deepened their lack of confidence in the ability of the electoral system to deliver credible elections in 2027.

The coalition also condemned reported attacks on leaders of the African Democratic Congress in Edo State, describing the incidents as a serious threat to democratic participation and political tolerance.

They warned that increasing violence against opposition figures could destabilise the political environment if not urgently addressed.

In their joint statement, the opposition parties pledged to pursue “every constitutional means” to challenge the Electoral Act 2026 and safeguard voters’ rights.

“We will not be intimidated,” the leaders said, urging civil society organisations and citizens to support efforts aimed at protecting Nigeria’s democratic system.

On February 18, 2026, President Bola Tinubu signed the Electoral Act (Amendment) 2026 into law following its passage by the National Assembly. The Act introduced several reforms, including statutory recognition of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and revised election timelines.

However, opposition figures such as Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi have also called for further amendments, particularly over the manual transmission fallback clause, which critics say leaves room for manipulation.

The president said the law will strengthen democracy and prevent voter disenfranchisement.

Tinubu defended manual collation of results, questioned Nigeria’s readiness for full real-time electronic transmission, and warned against technical glitches and hacking.

The Electoral Act sparked intense debate in the National Assembly over how election results should be transmitted ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Civil society groups under the “Occupy NASS” campaign demanded real-time transmission to curb manipulation.

In the Senate, lawmakers clashed during consideration of Clause 60, which allows manual transmission of results if electronic transmission fails.

Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe (ADC, Abia South) demanded a formal vote to remove the proviso permitting manual transmission, arguing against weakening real-time electronic reporting.

The move led to a heated exchange on the floor, with Senate President Godswill Akpabio initially suggesting the demand had been withdrawn.

After procedural disputes and a brief confrontation among senators, a division was conducted. Fifteen opposition senators voted against retaining the manual transmission proviso, while 55 supported it, allowing the clause to stand.

Earlier proceedings had briefly stalled during clause-by-clause review, prompting consultations and a closed-door session.

In the House of Representatives, a similar disagreement came up over a motion to rescind an earlier decision that mandated compulsory real-time electronic transmission of results to IReV.

Although the “nays” were louder during a voice vote, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas ruled in favour of rescinding the decision, triggering protests and an executive session.

Headline

AFP: How Tinubu’s Govt Paid Boko Haram ‘Huge’ Ransom, Released Two Terrorists for Kidnapped Saint Mary’s Pupils

Published

3 days ago

February 24, 2026

Eric

The Nigerian government paid Boko Haram militants a “huge” ransom of millions of dollars to free up to 230 children and staff the jihadists abducted from a Catholic school in November, an AFP investigation revealed Monday.

Two Boko Haram commanders were also freed as part of the deal, which goes against the country’s own law banning payments to kidnappers. The money was delivered by helicopter to Boko Haram’s Gwoza stronghold in northeastern Borno state on the border with Cameroon, intelligence sources told AFP.

The decision to pay the militants is likely to irritate US President Donald Trump, who ordered air strikes on jihadists in northern Nigeria on Christmas Day and has been sent military trainers to help support Nigerian forces.

Nigerian government officials deny any ransom was paid to the armed gang that snatched close to 300 schoolchildren and staff from St. Mary’s boarding school in Papiri in central Niger state on November 21. At least 50 later managed to escape their captors.

Boko Haram has not been previously linked to the kidnapping, but sources told AFP one of its most feared commanders was behind the mass abduction: the notorious jihadist known as Sadiku.

He infamously held up a train from the capital in 2022 and netted hefty ransoms for the release of government officials and other well-off passengers.

Boko Haram, which has waged a bloody insurgency since 2009, is strongest in northeast Nigeria.

But a cell in central Niger state operates under Sadiku’s leadership. The St. Mary’s pupils and staff were freed after two weeks of negotiations led by Nuhu Ribadu, Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, with the government insisting no ransom was paid. Nigeria’s State Security Service flatly denied paying any money, saying “government agents don’t pay ransoms”.

However, four intelligence sources familiar with the talks told AFP the government paid a “huge” ransom to get the pupils back. One source put it at 40 million naira per head – around $7 million in total.

Another put the figure lower at two billion naira overall. The money was delivered by chopper to Ali Ngulde, a Boko Haram commander in the northeast, three sources told AFP.

Due to the lack of communications cover in the remote area, Ngulde had to cross into Cameroon to confirm delivery of the ransom before the first group of 100 children were released.

Nigeria has long been plagued by mass abductions, with criminals and jihadist groups sometimes working together to extort millions from hostages’ families, and authorities seemingly powerless to stop them.

Source: Africanews

Headline

Unlawful Invasion: El-Rufai Drags ICPC, IGP, Others to Court, Demands N1bn Damages

Published

4 days ago

February 23, 2026

Eric

Former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has slammed a ₦1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for what he claimed was an unlawful invasion of his Abuja residence.

El-Rufai, in a suit filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, also listed the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.

According to the suit filed through his lawyers, led by Oluwole Iyamu, El-Rufai prayed the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT (2nd respondent), authorising the search and seizure at his residence as invalid, null and void.

Security operatives had stormed and searched the former Governor’s residence in the ongoing investigations against him.

However, he argued in the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, that the search was in violation of Section 37 of the Constitution, and urged the court to declare that the search warrant was “null and void for lack of particularity, material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, overbreadth, and absence of probable cause thereby constituting an unlawful and unreasonable search.”

In the suit dated and filed February 20 by Iyamu, ex-governor, who is currently under detention, sought seven reliefs.

He prayed the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on Feb. 19 at about 2pm and executed by agents of ICPC and I-G, “under the aforesaid invalid warrant, amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.”

He urged the court to declare that “any evidence obtained pursuant to the aforesaid invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.”

El-Rufai, therefore, sought an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using, or tendering any evidence or items seized during the unlawful search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him.

“An order directing the Ist and 3rd respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.

“An order awarding the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, and the resultant psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.”

The breakdown of the ₦1 billion in damages includes “a N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security;

“A ₦400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate the applicant’s rights.

“A ₦300 million as aggravated damages for the malicious, high-handed and oppressive nature of the respondents’ actions, including the use of a patently defective warrant procured through misleading representations.”

He equally sought ₦100 million as the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses.

Iyamu argued that the search warrant was fundamentally defective, lacking specificity in the description of items to be seized, containing material typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives, and no verifiable probable cause.

He added that the warrant violated Sections 143-148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences (ICPC) Act, 2000, and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusions and several other constitutional provisions.

“Section 146 stipulates that the warrant must be in the prescribed form, free from defects that could mislead, but the document is riddled with errors in the address, date, and district designation;

“Section 147 allows direction to specified persons, but the warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to “all officers is overbroad and unaccountable.

“Section 148 permits execution at reasonable times, but the contradictory language creates ambiguity, undermining procedural clarity,” he submitted.

Iyamu stated that the execution of the invalid warrant on Feb. 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s premises, constituting violations of the rights to dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36), and privacy (Section 37) of the Constitution.

He further argued that the search was conducted without legal justification and in a manner that inflicted humiliation and distress.

“Evidence obtained without a valid warrant is unlawful and inadmissible, as established in judicial precedents such as C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137, where the court ruled that evidence procured through improper means contravenes fundamental rights and must be excluded,” he said.

In the affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred that on Feb. 19 at about 2p.m., officers from the ICPC and Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about Feb. 4.

According to him, the said warrant is invalid due to its lack of specificity, errors, and other defects as outlined in the grounds of this application.

He said the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”

Shaba stated that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as provided by the law before proceeding with the search.

“That the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district wherein he sits.

“That during the invasion, the officers searched the applicant’s premises without lawful authority, seized personal items including documents and electronic devices, and caused the applicant undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.

“Now shown to me and marked as ‘EXHIBIT B’ Is the list of the items carted away.

“That no items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence.

“That the applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce same,” Shaba said.

Source: Naijanews.com