The Judiciary Has Lost Its Voice In 162 days, the highest court in Nigeria failed to determine the case brought by eleven PDP governors against the Federal Government. The matter was straightforward yet historic: a challenge to the removal of Governor Fubara and the appointment of a sole administrator in Rivers State. The file has remained on a dusty shelf, untouched. This silence is not accidental. It is deliberate. And it is tragic. The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as the guardian of justice. Once, it stood tall as a symbol of fairness, where ordinary Nigerians could expect the law to prevail over power. Today, it has become a tool of regime protection. Where the matter pits the executive against public interest, the court grows mute. Neutrality is gone, and with it, the credibility of our judiciary. This crisis is not new. Former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo recently mocked the judiciary in public, caricaturing its weakness when confronted with serious matters of state. His remark was less a joke than a sad reflection of reality. Even the international community now regards our judiciary with suspicion. No businessman will invest in a country where judgments are dictated by those in power. No investor will put money into a system where justice is compromised at the highest level. The present Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere Ekun, rose from the Lagos bench to the Supreme Court. Her record has been marked by quiet acquiescence to the will of the executive. Under her leadership, the court has committed infractions that erode public faith. In one case, five justices departed from a precedent established by five other justices, without the mandatory full panel of seven and without offering sound reasons for such a departure. In another, the court overreached by deciding on the botched Rivers State local government elections, even though such matters are meant to terminate at the Court of Appeal. Perhaps most damaging is the Supreme Court’s refusal to rule on the propriety of the emergency rule imposed in Rivers State. By avoiding the case, the court signaled its unwillingness to confront the executive on questions of constitutional importance. Nyesom Wike’s insistence that the PDP Governors withdraw their suit as a condition for peace suggests he feared the likely outcome if the matter had been decided. When that failed, the strategy shifted to delay, leaving the case suspended until Nigerians either lose interest or forget entirely. This pattern is not just negligence; it is complicity. It is a betrayal of the traditions built by the giants of the bench Justices Kayode Eso, Chukwudifu Oputa, Mohammed Uwais, Karibi-Whyte, Lebo Kutigi, Aloma Mariam Muktar, Alfa Belgore, Anthony Aniagolu, and George Oguntade. These were activist judges who showed fearless courage. They understood that when matters of national importance arose, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Their landmark judgments remain reference points for students, lawyers, and judges alike. Sadly, the era of landmark judgments is gone. Courage is in short supply at the Supreme Court. Nigerians no longer trust this bench, for it has shown its bias openly and shamelessly. Today, an ordinary citizen without any legal training can predict with near certainty the outcome of a politically sensitive case. That is the clearest sign of a captured state, where institutions that should protect the people now serve the ruling elite. But silence is not an option. Citizens, the Bar, civil society, and the press must demand a judiciary that is truly independent and accountable. Judges must rediscover the courage to defend the Constitution, even against the powerful. If the courts remain compromised, Nigeria’s democracy will continue to decay. The only way to save the judiciary is to speak up, insist on reforms, and hold those entrusted with justice to the highest standards. For if the courts fail, the nation itself will fail.

Tinubu and the 2027 Elections. When President Bola Tinubu traveled to London and subsequently to Paris, the dominant public interpretation was that his European engagements were aimed at strengthening relations with key European governments and possibly seeking support for intervention and reconciliation with Donald Trump. The larger objective, many believed, was to strengthen his international standing ahead of the 2027 presidential election. Against this background, The Economist of London’s report suggesting that Nigerians may reelect Tinubu despite widespread dissatisfaction with his administration deserves closer scrutiny. The report may be an assessment of Nigeria’s political realities, but it could also have the effect of shaping perceptions of the 2027 contest before voting begins. It could mean premeditation and predetermination. International media coverage matters. Reports by influential publications can influence how foreign governments, diplomats, investors, and political elites perceive an incumbent’s prospects. When such reports are repeatedly circulated, they can create an impression of certainty around an electoral outcome. That perception can subsequently influence elite calculations, political alliances, and even voter behavior. This is where the Economist narrative becomes politically significant. The suggestion that Nigerians may reelect a president they supposedly dislike could be interpreted as more than an electoral forecast. Critics may see it as hype, blitz, razzmatazz, a kite, or agenda-setting: preparing the international community to accept a Tinubu victory despite the economic hardship, insecurity, and public discontent that define his administration. The concern is heightened by the increasingly repeated argument among some of Tinubu’s supporters that he must complete eight years in office. His spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, advanced this argument earlier, and it has since been echoed by other prominent figures, including the DG of the Tinubu campaign, AbdulAziz Yari. But elections are not constitutional entitlements for individuals. A president is entitled to seek another term, but Nigerians retain the constitutional right to determine whether that president deserves it. The prevailing political sentiment among sections of the country is that Tinubu should be defeated in 2027. Through the activities of Nigerians in the diaspora and extensive social media campaigns, that dissatisfaction is also increasingly visible internationally. It is therefore capable of countering the narratives spun by international media, led by The Economist. There is, however, another concern that cannot simply be dismissed. The repeated assertion that “Tinubu is not Jonathan” reflects the belief among his opponents that defeating him may be considerably more difficult than defeating former President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015. The deeper fear is that, because of the administration’s influence over key institutions, including the electoral process, an opposition victory could face extraordinary obstacles, such as rigging, vote-buying, intimidation by security agencies, the electoral umpire's connivance, and the judiciary’s conspiracy. Such concerns must not be mistaken for proof of a predetermined election. They are, however, legitimate questions that demand credible answers. The scheduled INEC press conference should address such concerns. The controversy surrounding the FCT minister’s reported pledge to resign if the opposition wins both Rivers State and the FCT has further fueled suspicions about how confidently some actors anticipate the electoral outcome. Ultimately, the 2027 election should not be won through international narratives, institutional advantage, or political inevitability. It must be won through the freely expressed will of Nigerians. The international community should therefore watch not only who is predicted to win, but whether every Nigerian voter is genuinely free to determine who wins.

500 Islamic Clerics and the Politics of Endorsement In the past few weeks, carefully staged events have sought to shape the terrain for the 2027 elections. Two of them stand out for their calculated nature and the resistance they have encountered. The first was relayed by a ward head (Mai Unguwa), who reported that 130 bags of rice and 250 bags of Semovita were made available for distribution to the indigent in his domain. The donor, Abdulaziz Yari, the DG of the Tinubu campaign organisation, presented the gesture as pure sadaqah for God and country, insisting that it was not campaign material. The claim, however, strains credulity. Genuine charity traditionally flows through religious, philanthropic organisations or orphanages. When food items are channelled through the traditional hierarchy, the source is publicly disclosed, and the timing coincides with the early mobilisation phase of a presidential re-election campaign, the political intent becomes difficult to conceal. The scale, the items chosen, and the suddenness of the intervention all point to a soft power operation rather than spontaneous philanthropy. The second development occurred in Dutse, Jigawa State, where claims circulated that approximately 500 Islamic scholars and clerics had endorsed Tinubu for a second term. One of the participants, the vocal cleric Sheikh Abdurrahman Azzamfary, publicly corrected the endorsement narrative and exposed it as phony rhetoric. The clerics' assembly refused to be conscripted into a partisan script. These two episodes are related. The soft underbelly of Northern politics has long been the clergy, Islamic and Christian alike. Secure their endorsement, or even the appearance of it, and the electoral calculus shifts dramatically. In 2023, when the Muslim-Muslim ticket generated unease among Christians, staged appearances by pastors were arranged to create the impression of broad clerical acceptance. The same playbook is now being applied to the Muslim North. The difference this time is that significant sections of both the Muslim and Christian North appear united in their dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Sensing that the North remains decisive, those in power have turned once more to clerical manipulation. The clerics, however, are pushing back. The Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), the apex body, has repeatedly expressed disappointment with the quality of governance and has called for the replacement of INEC Chairman Prof. Joash Amupitan, citing concerns over perceived extreme religious leanings ( though they are not opposed to a Christian appointment). In the South West, the Muslim Ummah and Muslim Rights Concern ( MURIC) has equally maintained an independent and critical posture on matters affecting the Muslim community. A government whose style, from the highest levels downward, has been marked by opacity, controversial budgets, the proliferation of fake agencies and the routine deployment of optics over substance, has made “fake” a recurring theme in public discourse. When charity is weaponised and clerical gatherings are converted into endorsement theatres, the pattern becomes clearer. Pastor Elijah Ayodele’s recent warning about the possible emergence of fake polling units in 2027 no longer sounds far-fetched. When the machinery of power invests so heavily in manufacturing consent through traditional and religious channels, the temptation to manufacture electoral infrastructure itself cannot be dismissed lightly. The North has historically been the decisive electoral prize. Attempts to capture its religious leadership through inducement and stage-managed solidarity are therefore unsurprising. What is new is the visible refusal of sections of the clerical class to play along. That refusal deserves careful attention. It suggests that the old methods of managing the North may be losing their potency, and that the politics of endorsement is encountering an unexpected limit.

Tinubu’s Campaign Council, A Collection of Looters? It’s hard to believe President Tinubu would suddenly embrace fairness, objectivity, and the federal character principle in his campaign appointments, given his biased political choices. Yet, the makeup of his 2027 Presidential Campaign Council has surprised many observers, even as critics call it a festival of looters. The most notable appointment, however, is Abdulaziz Yari, Ex Gov of Zamfara State, named DG. The council is led by President Tinubu, with VP Kashim Shettima and APC National Chairman Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda serving as Vice Chairs. Gov. Hope of Imo State is Secretary, Ajibola Basiru is Deputy Secretary, and Hadiza Bala Usman is Assistant Secretary. Other prominent appointments include Godswill Akpabio and Bamidele Opeyemi as Deputy DG’s for the South, Gov. Mai Mala Buni, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, and DSP Jibrin Barau as Deputy DG’s for the North. Adams Oshiomhole acts as Deputy DG for Mobilization, Femi Gbajabiamila manages Administration, and James Faleke oversees Election Planning, Coordination, and Monitoring. The advisory body features Chief Bisi Akande, Chief Segun Osoba, Rochas Okorocha, Abdullahi Adamu, and Florence Ita Giwa. For a newcomer or a diasporan unfamiliar with the ethnic, linguistic, and perceived nepotistic patterns surrounding many of Tinubu’s earlier appointments, the setup might seem surprisingly balanced. Tinubu has acknowledged the North by making Yari the DG. The decision is motivated by two reasons: Yari’s deep pockets and the need to assert himself in northern territory. The Muslim-Muslim ticket, still unpopular in significant parts of the country, including the North, is further complicated by Yari’s appointment, how Tinubu plans to navigate this tide remains open. The North delivered over 5 million of Tinubu’s 8 million-plus votes in 2023. Yet, Northerners feel marginalized. Yari was bypassed for Senate President in favor of Akpabio, while the unknown Tajudeen Abbas became Speaker. That Yari has now accepted the DG role in a politically challenging region reveals shifting calculations. The dudgeon isn’t without context. It was precipitated during the intended ECOWAS military intervention in Niger, opposed by northern senators led by Abdul Ningi. The dispute over budget padding and Ningi’s suspension, followed by that of Ali Ndume, deepened northern grievances. Infrastructure spending also appears disproportionately geared toward the South-West, with projects like the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Road, the renovation of the Third Mainland Bridge, the Badagry-Sokoto Superhighway, Murtala Muhammed Airport upgrade, and settling significant Lagos State debts. Critics argue that most of the country is left with crumbs. A perceived selective anti-corruption campaign has added to the frustration, with notable northern figures such as Nasir El-Rufai and Abubakar Malami facing scrutiny, while major looters aligned with the government walk freely. Allegations of releasing N10 trillion to buy off Nigerians and put them in Tinubu's pockets are widespread. Insecurity remains a cause for concern. Boko Haram and ISWAP continue operations unabated, and new groups like Lakurawa and Mahmuda are expanding their frontiers of violence. Nationwide protests over economic hardship were strongly supported in the 19 northern states, due to policies that have worsened conditions of living leading to endemic poverty. Against this backdrop, the campaign council’s carefully balanced structure may seem inclusive on paper, but it does not erase the deeper political wounds. The key question is, can a government facing such deep northern resentment, economic hardship, and declining trust win a truly competitive election without resorting to extreme measures? The council may look balanced on paper, but whether it signifies real inclusion, mere political tokenism, or a determination to own Nigeria will ultimately be judged by how the election unfolds.

Suspension Lacks Credible Investigation President Tinubu’s recent directive suspending three Permsecs over the discovery of another alleged fake government agency has raised more questions than it answered. Nigerians have the right to ask whether this response addresses the entire chain of responsibility or targets lower-level officials. The ICPC reports it uncovered an unauthorized office operating as the National Brands Development and Made in Nigeria Special Project Office within the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. Following a briefing from ICPC Chairman Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu, President Tinubu ordered the arrest of Prince George Buchi Nwabueze and the suspension of three Permanent Secretaries: M.S. Danjuma, Nadungu Gagare, and Richard P. Pheelangwah. These facts have been publicly disclosed. It is using a Northern officer to do the dirty work for the Lagos mafia. It is important to note that these officers one N’digbo and three Northerners are undoubtedly scapegoats. One can imagine that if any of them were Lagosians, they all might have been spared. What cannot be ignored is the broader issue of accountability. This recent discovery follows earlier controversy over the so-called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, which the Presidency states has no legal or executive basis. President Tinubu then directed the ICPC to investigate not only the individuals involved but also public officers, private persons, and institutional weaknesses that may have allowed this fictitious agency to appear legitimate. The public deserves to know how an organization without lawful authority could secure government office space within a major government institution. The critical question is who authorized access, facilitated the process, ignored warning signs, or knowingly enabled this arrangement. There are legitimate concerns about the perception created when administrative sanctions are announced before the full findings are available. Suspension may be needed as a temporary measure, but it should not replace the pursuit of criminal or administrative accountability throughout the entire process. Justice must be served to both those in visible positions and those who may have facilitated their actions. Allegations from the promoter of the earlier fictitious council against the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila have also complicated the controversy. The Presidency has dismissed these claims as false. However, rejecting an allegation does not eliminate the need for an independent investigation into all credible questions arising from this scandal. That is why the Federal Government should consider establishing an independent judicial commission of inquiry under the applicable Tribunals of Inquiry law. This body would hold public hearings, examine documents, summon witnesses, and trace financial transactions. Its purpose should not be to protect or target anyone but to uncover the truth and recommend prosecution or disciplinary actions where evidence warrants. The President must safeguard the integrity of government. The public needs credible, comprehensive, fair, and transparent answers based on facts and credible evidence. The most effective way to demonstrate this commitment is through a process that Nigerians can trust not through dramatic arrests or scapegoating, but through transparency. A genuine, independent inquiry would reassure Nigerians that no office, regardless of power, is beyond scrutiny. Nigeria does not need another spectacle of punishment followed by silence. It needs the truth, institutional reform, and justice for all. Only a transparent and truly independent process can restore confidence in handling this troubling issue.

TURAKI CONGRATULATES IBB AT 85 The Interim National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), His Excellency Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, SAN, on behalf of himself and the entire PDP family, warmly congratulates former President of Nigeria, His Excellency General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, GCFR, on the occasion of his 85th birthday anniversary. At 85, General Babangida stands as one of Nigeria’s foremost elder statesmen, whose years of service to the nation have been marked by remarkable dedication, courage and commitment to the unity, stability and development of Nigeria. As a former Head of State and a statesman who has devoted significant years of his life to the service of Nigeria, IBB has made enduring contributions to the country and left behind a legacy that continues to inspire reflection and emulation. The PDP family particularly recognises his wealth of experience, wisdom and contributions to national discourse. His continued counsel and commitment to the peace, unity and progress of Nigeria remain valuable at a time when the nation needs the wisdom and guidance of its elder statesmen. The Interim National Chairman wishes General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, GCFR, continued good health, strength and wisdom as he celebrates this remarkable milestone. May Almighty God continue to preserve him, bless him with many more years and grant him the grace to witness a more united, peaceful and prosperous Nigeria. Happy 85th Birthday Anniversary, Your Excellency, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, GCFR, and many very happy returns. His Excellency Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, SAN Interim National Chairman Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)

Tinubu’s Deception in Osun The hustle, bustle, and noise that greeted the Osun governorship election have now calmed down, leaving Nigerians to analyze the results and their broader implications. Gov Ademola Adeleke’s victory is notable because he defeated the candidate of the ruling APC despite the opposition's massive political machinery. That’s why the outcome has sparked intense debate, with each side interpreting it through their own political lens. The main question now among political analysts is whether President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was truly neutral in Osun or if, secretly, he preferred Adeleke over his party’s candidate, Bola Oyebamiji. The events leading up to and following the election offer plenty of material for such speculation. The relationship became especially intriguing when Adeleke openly endorsed Tinubu for a second term in 2027. That statement immediately created the impression of a political understanding between the two men. The perception grew stronger as subsequent events unfolded. Ten days before the election, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission froze an account belonging to the Osun State Government. The move sparked political controversy because it happened close to the election. However, Tinubu was later reported to have intervened, directing that the state account be unfrozen. This intervention reinforced the idea that the President was not interested in using federal agencies to hinder Adeleke’s chances. A day before the election, Tinubu also urged the Independent National Electoral Commission and security agencies to ensure a free, fair, credible, and transparent election. After the results were announced, he quickly called Adeleke to congratulate him, saying the victory showed the people of Osun’s confidence in him. Taken together, these actions have fueled the argument that the President was comfortable with an Adeleke win. But why would Tinubu appear willing to let an opposition governor defeat his own party’s candidate? The answer might go beyond Osun. The President needs to reassure Nigerians and the international community that 2027 will be a free and fair election. A credible Osun vote sets a strong precedent. International observers, foreign governments, and democratic institutions watching Nigeria will have less reason to doubt the legitimacy of the electoral process if the standards seen in Osun are maintained in 2027. There’s also a political calculation at play. Adeleke has already declared support for Tinubu’s 2027 presidential bid. His victory, therefore, isn’t necessarily a political setback for the President. On the contrary, Adeleke could become an influential ally whose political influence and popularity in Osun could be valuable in 2027. The President might also be sending a message to opposition parties that the era of manipulating elections in favor of the ruling party is over. This could lower the opposition’s guard. If opposition parties believe that 2027 will be completely transparent, they might approach the election with less suspicion, only to realize that electoral advantages can come from other, less obvious political strategies. However, there is another side to this story. The APC can’t simply dismiss the results as a product of presidential neutrality. The party is already reviewing the results and has indicated it may pursue legal and constitutional options over alleged irregularities. INEC declared Adeleke the winner with 511,067 votes versus Oyebamiji’s 444,815, a margin of 66,252 votes. No matter what interpretation one gives to the events in Osun, one fact is clear: Adeleke has grown stronger, Tinubu has been portrayed as a defender of electoral fairness, and the 2027 political contest has taken on a new dimension. The Osun election might have been more than just a governorship vote it could have been a carefully planned preview of how the 2027 political theater might unfold.

Court of Appeals and PDP Internal Affairs In April 2024, Rivers State PDP members, notably Titus Jone filed a suit against Celestine Omehia, Uche Secondus. and Austin Opara, obtaining an ex parte order from Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The orders barred the trio from attending or participating in PDP NEC and BOT meetings. The orders were grounded in alleged ineligibility and suspension issues related to earlier internal party actions, including a previous Rivers High Court matter involving Secondus. They were widely linked to factional tensions within Rivers PDP, particularly involving Nyesom Wike’s camp. The trial court refused attempts to vacate or stay the orders. However, on appeal, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, unanimously allowed Secondus, Omehia, and Opara’s appeals. It ruled that questions about membership, eligibility to attend party meetings, and participation in NEC or BOT activities are internal matters of a political party and are not subject to judicial review. Consequently, the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear those cases or issue the restraining orders. The appellate court then declared the entire Federal High Court proceedings, including the April 5, 2024 ex parte orders, null and void. The issues of attendance and participation were therefore left to be settled internally by the party. The decision underscores the well-established principle that Nigerian courts generally do not entertain disputes over internal party leadership or membership unless constitutional rights or statutory violations are involved. Allegations that Nyesom Wike has compromised some Federal High Court judges. Namely, Chief Judge Justice John Tsoho, Justices Joyce Abdulmalik, Liman, Nwite, Omotosho, Lifu, and Inyang Ekwo saturate the political space. What is clear, however, is the difference between some trial court interventions and subsequent appellate decisions. The appeals by Secondus, Opara, and Omehia serve as a good example. The Court of Appeal strongly criticized the trial court for lacking jurisdiction, declaring the proceedings and restraining orders null and void. It reaffirmed that questions about internal party matters such as membership and participation are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. More recent rulings seem to support this approach. Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenem of the COA Calabar Division, in a case challenging decisions of the Federal and State High Courts in Ibadan, dismissed arguments raised by Wike’s counsel. Also In separate rulings, Justice M.G. Umar dismissed suits filed by Anyanwu, and Justice Halliru of the Maitama High Court upheld the dismissal of Anyanwu as PDP Secretary. The Supreme Court also dismissed the cross-appeal by the Abdurrahman-led PDP. In Ekiti and Osun states, cases where Wike was not directly involved also resulted in rulings favoring the authentic PDP. This institutional distinction is important for the current appeal against Justice Ibrahim Supo’s decision at the FHC. When a trial court delves into questions of party leadership recognition, candidate nominations, or other internal processes without clear constitutional or statutory backing, and the suit seeks only to challenge INEC, the Court of Appeal’s established stance provides strong grounds for overturning such decisions. This pattern is consistent with trial court rulings that handle purely external suits as internal PDP disputes have been overturned on appeal. The Court of Appeal’s insistence on respecting jurisdictional boundaries and addressing overreach strengthens the case of party leaders and candidates who have adhered to statutory nomination rules and internal procedures. In the ongoing dispute over Osun and broader PDP leadership recognition, this consistent judicial approach offers a credible path toward resolution based on law, due process, and respect for internal party mechanisms rather than factional power.

YAHAYA JINGIR AND HIS VERBAL DIARRHEA Sheikh Yahaya Jingir is an Islamic cleric and leader of one faction of Izalatul Bidi’a wa Iqamatus Sunnah (JIBWIS) in Jos. The other faction is led by Sheikh Bala Lau, with Sheikh Kabiru Gombe as his lieutenant. Although the two factions have had serious disagreements over the years, they seem to share a common ground in their support for the APC. The debate over the Muslim-Muslim ticket should not be used as a smokescreen to garner political support. These clerics supported Buhari and Yemi Osinbajo, even though Osinbajo is a pastor of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, led by Pastor Enoch Adeboye. Their political choices are therefore not solely based on religious considerations. Bello Galadanci, popularly known as Danbello, has raised questions and made allegations about the financial relationship between Bala's faction and the government. These claims have sparked significant debate within the Muslim community. Against this backdrop, a rising social media cleric, Sheikh Yahaya Massussuka, has publicly disagreed with both factions, reportedly calling some of them “Yan Maula,” a term he uses to accuse clerics of exploiting religion to seek political favors. Sheikh Jingir once publicly mentioned receiving two pieces of land from Buhari. He claimed that his children later decided what would happen to the properties. He also stated that one of the lands was worth over one billion naira and challenged people to ask Sheikh Sambo Rigachikun about it. Such statements naturally raise questions about the links between religious influence, political power, and access to public officials. The controversy deepened when reports circulated that Sheikh Jingir was preaching in his mosque and suddenly campaigned for Bola Tinubu. Some youths reportedly stood up and objected, accusing him of supporting someone they considered an enemy of the North and Islam, and questioning his religious credentials. Whether these claims on the clerics are accurate or not, the incident highlights the growing disagreement within the Muslim community over the political role of clerics. There has also been an incident that a prominent Islamic preacher, popularly known as Alkali na Zaria, was sent to Damaturu/Potiskum for Ramadan preaching but was withdrawn by Jingir because of his critical stance toward the Tinubu administration. This decision drew criticism from the Ummah, who believe religious preaching should not be influenced by political considerations. Sheikh Kabiru Gombe has been associated with stories praising Tinubu’s mother’s alleged sponsorship of pilgrims for Hajj and lesser Hajj. Claims that hundreds of impoverished Muslims are sponsored each year have both gained admiration and invited ridicule, with critics viewing such narratives as attempts to cast Tinubu in a favorable light. It’s understandable why Sheikh Jingir’s recent comments are being seen by many Muslims as political rather than religious. The Muslim community is not in a contest with Christians over numerical superiority. Islam does not require political support from any individual to demonstrate its strength. Sheikh Jingir has the right to his political opinion, just as every Nigerian has theirs. However, he should not present his personal political stance as the collective view of Nigerian Muslims. His support for Tinubu is his own choice and should be owned as such, without masquerading as a religious consensus. The political climate in Northern Nigeria is increasingly turning against Tinubu, and Sheikh Jingir might choose to go against that tide. That is his democratic right, but he does so alone. His words represent Sheikh Yahaya Jingir, not all Muslims in Nigeria.

TINUBU’S SLEDGEHAMMER IN OSUN It’s basic physics that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Since the Tinubu administration began, almost every major government move has prompted responses in various forms rallies, protests, strikes, public criticism, and political opposition. Yet, the Presidency’s response has stayed fairly consistent,defend the reforms, dismiss the criticisms, and insist that Nigeria is steadily heading toward economic recovery. Nigerians have protested against the removal of fuel subsidies and the resulting increase in fuel prices, the floating of the naira, higher electricity tariffs, foreign borrowing, poor budget implementation, and imbalances in government appointments and contracts. Labour unions, including ASUU, have also voiced concerns about working conditions and the economy. The government’s reply mainly highlights the gains of its Renewed Hope agenda, insisting that although its economic reforms are painful, they are necessary for long-term recovery. Nigerians have also accused Tinubu’s administration of using anti-corruption agencies selectively against political opponents while being more lenient toward politicians who support or join the ruling party. This has fueled perceptions that the administration is intolerant of dissent and determined to exercise political dominance. President Tinubu is often seen as a leader of remarkable resolve, even acknowledging his own stubbornness. His public disputes with notable Catholic figures, like Archbishop Emeritus John Onaiyekan, continue to generate debate about his temperament and how he handles criticism. These incidents have strengthened the view that the President seldom backs down once he's committed to a stance. That’s what makes the recent events in Osun particularly striking. The EFCC reportedly obtained a court order to freeze the Osun State Government’s accounts during a politically sensitive period, just days before a gubernatorial election. This move sparked immediate public outrage. However, before the situation could escalate, Tinubu ordered the accounts to be unfrozen and expressed disapproval of the action. This was significant because it seemed to signal a break from the President’s usual stance on institutional disputes. It was a rare instance of him directly intervening in a matter of public concern. So, the question naturally arises,what motivated the President’s intervention in Osun? Was it self-preservation ahead of 2027? Was it meant to protect his political legacy or strategic interests? Was it an acknowledgment of political support? Or was the President genuinely concerned that a state institution had overstepped? Whatever the reason, the Osun episode has changed the political conversation. It shows that even the most determined leaders can recognize when to back off if an action risks serious consequences. The President’s earlier stance on the PDP crisis was quite different. He suggested that the opposition’s internal issues benefited his political interests and that he had no obligation to intervene. Against this background, his intervention in Osun becomes even more intriguing. Politics, like physics, ultimately revolves around consequences. Actions provoke reactions, and governments can’t escape them forever. In Osun, Tinubu seems to have understood this reality before the political fallout became irreversible. There’s always a first time for everything. If the Osun intervention signals a willingness to curb institutional overreach, listen to public opinion, and correct political excesses, it could turn out to be one of the most important decisions of Tinubu’s presidency. At the very least, the sledgehammer was raised, but this time, the President chose to put it down.

PDP, Turaki Celebrate Sambo's 72nd Birthday On behalf of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and myself, I warmly congratulate His Excellency, Arc. Mohammed Namadi Sambo, GCON, former Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, on the occasion of his 72nd birthday. Today, we celebrate a distinguished statesman, accomplished administrator, gentleman, and the Sardaunan Zazzau, whose life has been characterized by humility, patriotism, and selfless service to Nigeria. Your remarkable contributions to national development and your exemplary leadership continue to garner admiration and respect across the country. Your Excellency served our nation with honor and distinction, first as Governor of Kaduna State and later as Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Working closely with President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, you played a pivotal role in advancing policies and programs that strengthened democratic governance, expanded infrastructure, and helped reshape Nigeria for the benefit of its people. As a loyal and steadfast member of our great party, you have remained committed to the ideals and vision of the Peoples Democratic Party. Your unwavering dedication, wisdom, calm demeanor, and exemplary leadership have continued to inspire party members and Nigerians across political, ethnic, and religious divides. On this special occasion, I join your family, friends, associates, and countless well-wishers in thanking Almighty Allah for the gift of your life and your immense service to our nation. I pray that He grants you continued good health, strength, peace, and many more years of purposeful service to Nigeria and humanity. Happy 72nd Birthday, Your Excellency. May Almighty Allah continue to bless you with sound health, wisdom, and abundant grace. Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, SAN Interim National Chairman People's Democratic Party (PDP)

The Unstrategic Strategist Before reaching the presidency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was widely praised as Nigeria’s top political tactician. Supporters credited him with transforming Lagos State by increasing its internally generated revenue and establishing the groundwork for steady economic growth. They also highlighted his succession model, which led to governors like Babatunde Fashola, Akinwunmi Ambode, and, currently, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, ensuring continuity in leadership and progress. Most importantly, his backers believed that, unlike many of his peers, Tinubu attained the presidency through careful political maneuvering, resilience, and the now-famous “Emi Lokan” strategy, earning him the nickname of a master strategist. However, since taking office at Eagle Square, a different reality has surfaced. To many observers, the sharp strategic skills linked to Tinubu’s rise have not been evident in governance or political management. Instead of nurturing a healthy democratic environment, critics say his administration has created a political climate increasingly seen as intolerant of genuine competition. If the goal is to weaken the opposition before the 2027 elections by encouraging defections, exploiting divisions, and using state institutions, this tactic might backfire. Nigeria’s 2023 election showed that competitive politics can still deliver victory for an incumbent-supported candidate. Ironically, efforts to limit political competition have increased public vigilance, strengthened opposition resolve, and heightened scrutiny of electoral agencies. A strategy visible to almost everyone and fueling widespread doubts about the neutrality of elections cannot be considered politically savvy. Similar questions apply to governance. Despite official claims, insecurity remains widespread. In addition to long-standing threats from Boko Haram and ISWAP, new armed groups like Lakurawa and Mamuda have added to the country’s security challenges, while IPOB and ESN continue to test national unity in the South-East. For many Nigerians, daily life has become less safe rather than safer. Economic indicators also spark debate. Although headline GDP numbers might suggest improvement, millions of citizens still face high inflation, falling purchasing power, and a high cost of living. Businesses encounter increasing operational hurdles; many multinational companies have left the country, and worries remain about whether foreign investment has met expectations. Meanwhile, rising public debt has reignited discussions on whether borrowing is leading to real improvements in infrastructure and quality of life. The government’s anti-corruption efforts are also under growing scrutiny. Critics claim that anti-graft agencies are seen more as tools for targeting political enemies than as neutral defenders of accountability. Recent issues, like the IMF’s concerns over extra-budgetary spending reportedly totaling ₦8.8 trillion and allegations in the “Gbajagate” scandal, have deepened public doubts about transparency and fiscal discipline. Ultimately, elections are won by public trust, not reputation. If people increasingly believe that democratic institutions are being manipulated and not strengthened, the biggest danger might not be opposition parties but a spiraling crisis of confidence. A truly skilled strategist builds legitimacy through actions, openness, and fair competition, not by fostering the illusion that victory is guaranteed through state machinery.

Even NYSC too? Khaki has given way to Adire!

The Setting Aside of NDC Registration: What the Decision Truly Means The Federal High Court in Lokoja delivered a ruling that has sparked widespread debate over the legal status of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC). While some reports have portrayed the decision as a direct deregistration of the party, a careful review of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the ruling reveals that the court adopted a more subtle legal stance. The ruling, issued on June 26, 2026, did not explicitly order the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the NDC. Instead, the court granted an application filed by the Peace Movement Party (PMP), set aside its previous judgment of December 10, 2025, and ordered that the substantive case revert to the stage it had reached immediately before that judgment. The December 2025 judgment had mandated INEC to register the NDC after concluding that the party met the constitutional and statutory requirements for registration. Acting in accordance with that judgment, INEC registered the NDC as a political party. However, the court now holds that the Peace Movement Party, which claimed an interest in the dispute, was not permitted to participate in the earlier proceedings. The judge determined that the constitutional right to a fair hearing required that all affected parties be heard before a final decision could be made. Based solely on that principle, the earlier judgment was overturned. Legally, overturning a judgment differs from issuing a new order of deregistration. Nonetheless, because the December 2025 judgment served as the basis for INEC’s registration of the NDC, the practical effect of the ruling is that the foundation for that registration has been removed unless a higher court orders otherwise. For INEC, this ruling raises an important legal issue. The Commission must decide whether to treat the NDC’s registration as having automatically expired after the judgment was set aside or wait for further judicial clarification, especially if an appeal or stay of execution is filed. Whatever decision it makes must align with legal requirements and the specific court orders. For the NDC, the ruling is undoubtedly a setback but not necessarily the end. The court explicitly instructed that the case should return to the stage before judgment, meaning the core issue of whether the NDC is entitled to registration remains unresolved. The party also has the right to challenge the ruling before the Court of Appeal and may seek a stay of execution while its appeal is pending. As a result, the legal battle is far from over. The ruling has reopened the case rather than permanently resolved it. Until appellate courts rule or the Federal High Court completes the rehearing, the dispute over the NDC’s legal status will likely continue. Therefore, this judgment does not definitively determine the NDC’s right to operate as a political party. Instead, it reaffirms a key principle of justice: no individual or organization whose rights might be affected should be condemned without being given a chance to be heard.

COS Gbajabiamila Faces Serious Corruption Allegations Recent corruption allegations have cast doubt over President Tinubu's administration following a press conference by Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, where he made serious accusations against Femi Gbajabiamila. During the briefing, Prince Adeyemi accused the COS of suspicious dealings involving two disputed organizations, the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC). Gbajabiamila previously denied these organizations' existence, stating that the Presidency does not recognize Prince Adeyemi’s alleged appointments. However, Adeyemi challenged this, claiming evidence shows otherwise. He said both organizations are listed on pages 50 and 51 of the 2026 Appropriation Act and that they maintain accounts with the CBN, including dollar and pound sterling accounts. He questioned how agencies he described as “non-existent” could have budgets, office space in the Federal Secretariat, and approval to hire 314 staff members. These claims raise serious questions about the government’s administrative and budget processes. Since the national budget passes through multiple review stages from relevant ministries and agencies to the Budget Office, the Federal Executive Council, the National Assembly, and finally the presidential approval, Adeyemi argued that if these agencies are indeed unauthorized, it exposes systemic flaws and undermines oversight by senior officials. Adeyemi also made serious allegations about the agencies' funding. He claimed the Chief of Staff demanded 48 percent of the agencies’ initial grants, worth over ₦27 billion. He said he refused, after which ₦400 million was allegedly paid through a proxy, with another ₦200 million still outstanding. If true, these claims would deepen the ongoing corruption allegations against the current government. Other claims include the appointment of the current Executive Secretary of TETFund, with allegations that ₦70 billion was demanded by the COS, with ₦10 billion paid upfront before the appointment was made. There are also claims tying the Chief of Staff to being the custodian of campaign funds ahead of the 2027 elections. Additionally, there are reports involving former Zamfara State Governor AbdulAziz Yari, accused of accepting kickbacks from extra-budgetary funds distributed to state governments. Reports say billions of naira were taken by APC governors, with Imo State Governor Hope Uzodinma said to control more than ₦800 billion of these funds. The COS was reportedly involved as an intermediary in all these. Adeyemi also raised troubling security concerns. He alleged that Babatunde Tanimola, an intermediary, died mysteriously in a hotel fire in Utako, Abuja, shortly after a related petition was submitted. He further claimed to have survived an assassination attempt on the Abuja-Kaduna highway, during which crucial documents and phones were lost. These incidents suggest a pattern of intimidation aimed at silencing sensitive information. In all, these allegations extend beyond personal disputes. They raise broader issues about transparency, accountability, and governance under Tinubu’s leadership. While unproven, the allegations are serious enough to warrant a thorough, unbiased, and independent investigation. There is a need to establish an independent commission comprising law enforcement, cso’s, and credible international observers to examine these claims regarding the agencies, budget approvals, financial demands, extra-budgetary funds, and threats. At the end, uncovering the truth requires a transparent investigation. All documents, bank records, budget details, and relevant evidence should be scrutinized openly. Those accused deserve a full opportunity to respond. However, anyone officially linked to these claims should step aside during the investigation to maintain public Trust and confidence. Nigerians deserve full accountability.

FEDERAL HIGH COURT’S ORDER AGAINST NDC MAY NOT HOLD The decision of the Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja to overturn its earlier judgment directing the INEC to register the NDC has sparked widespread concern across Nigeria’s political landscape. While the court noted that the Peace Movement Party (PMP), which claims prior ownership of the disputed logo, should have been included in the proceedings, the legal and democratic implications of the ruling require careful examination. This judgment should not be viewed as the final ruling on the NDC’s legal status. There are significant legal reasons why the decision could be reversed on appeal. INEC fully followed the original judgment by registering the NDC and did not appeal that decision. During the period the judgment was in effect, the party gained legal recognition, established structures nationwide, nominated candidates, and took part in an entire election cycle. All these actions were carried out under the authority of a valid and ongoing court order. The principle of legal certainty demands that rights established under a valid judgment should not be easily disturbed to the detriment of innocent parties who relied in good faith on the court’s ruling. While the right to a fair hearing is fundamental, Nigerian appellate courts have consistently emphasized that remedies should match the severity of the injustice. If the dispute mainly concerned ownership or similarity of a party's logo, there were less disruptive solutions available, such as directing the adoption of a different logo while maintaining the party’s legal existence. Such an approach would have safeguarded the constitutional right to a fair hearing without causing unnecessary harm to democratic participation. The Apex Court has repeatedly stressed that substantial justice must take precedence over procedural technicalities. It has also warned courts against issuing orders that unnecessarily disenfranchise voters or hinder democratic participation when there are less drastic options. Election disputes are not just about political parties; they affect candidates, party members, and millions of citizens whose constitutional right to choose their leaders should be protected equally. Another potential issue on appeal is the practical impact of the ruling. If the NDC legally sponsored candidates who contested elections under a court-recognized platform, then overturning the registration after the election raises serious constitutional questions. Such a decision could undermine the legitimate expectations of candidates, elected officials, party members, and voters who relied on a valid judgment that remained uncontested by INEC. Democracy thrives where there is certainty, stability, and fairness. It weakens when opposition parties face unnecessary legal ambiguity after complying with judicial rulings. Regardless of political affiliation, every registered political party should have equal protection under the Constitution and an equal chance to present its candidates. Courts must remain impartial arbiters, ensuring justice enhances democratic inclusion rather than unintentionally excluding parties. The perception that viable opposition parties are being weakened through litigation instead of being defeated at the polls is damaging to Nigeria’s democracy. Whether that perception is accurate or not, it damages public trust in the electoral process. Elections should be decided by citizens’ votes, not by procedural battles that eliminate competitors before voters can choose. The Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Apex Court if needed, now have a chance to clarify the law on post-registration disputes, protect legitimate expectations from ongoing judgments, and reaffirm the constitutional commitment to free, fair, and competitive elections. The primary benefit should not go to any political party but to the rule of law, electoral integrity, and Nigerians’ right to choose their leaders through credible elections.

AN OPEN LETTER TO OUR LEGISLATORS AT ALL LEVELS Dist. Senators, Hon. Members of the National and State Assemblies, I write as a concerned citizen and student of Nigeria’s constitutional history regarding the ongoing effort to establish a state police. Reports indicate that the amendment process is being rushed under a legislative emergency, with limited public engagement and short timelines. Such a major constitutional change warrants careful thought rather than hurried action. Before creating a state police force, we must ask a crucial question: what problem are we trying to solve? Nigeria faces a police force that is underfunded, understaffed, and urgently in need of reform. However, the shortcomings of the NPF do not automatically justify creating thirty-six separate police commands. A failing institution should be reformed first before establishing an entirely new structure. History warns us, and ignoring these lessons carries risks. From 1960 to 1966, Nigeria operated regional police forces under regional governments. Instead of serving as neutral agencies, they were often used against political opponents and dissenters. The Western Region crisis is a prominent example. Under Premier Chief Samuel Akintola, regional police were accused of harassing opposition members, disrupting political activities, and suppressing dissent. This period contributed significantly to political instability and deepened national divides. Femi Falana (SAN) recalled in May 2026 the abuses associated with regional policing, noting that opposition figures were frequently subjected to arbitrary arrests and intimidation. It was largely because of these experiences that the framers of the 1979 Constitution adopted a centralized policing system and enshrined it in Section 214. The decision was deliberate; it was a response to painful historical lessons. The key question for lawmakers is whether today’s political climate provides enough safeguards against repeating those abuses. Recent experiences suggest caution. Different regimes and political parties have accused governors of influencing security agencies for political ends. Allegations of using security institutions against political opponents, labor leaders, lawmakers, journalists, or specific communities have emerged in several states. While these accusations remain publicly debated, they raise a fundamental concern: if governors can influence federal security agencies, what protections exist to prevent abuse when they control state police? This is a matter of institutional design. The constitutional amendment process is intentionally rigorous. Section 9 requires a broad national consensus through approval by the National Assembly and ratification by at least two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly. These safeguards are meant to prevent major constitutional changes driven by fleeting political pressures. Nonetheless, 36 state assemblies have endorsed the amendment. Even the IGP’s technical committee reportedly recommended phased implementation, citing risks such as political interference, funding issues, operational coordination challenges, and ethnic bias. These concerns deserve serious review before any final decision. State policing, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Yet, without strong safeguards, independent oversight, transparent recruitment processes, and clear constitutional protections, it could create new problems rather than solve existing ones. As defenders of our democracy, you must ensure that any constitutional change enhances national unity, safeguards civil liberties, and promotes justice. I urge you to act with caution, seek broader consultation, and let history rather than urgency guide your decision. The choices you make today will define Nigeria’s security framework for generations. Yours in service to our nation, Hassan Husaini, mni