Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, in a ruling on his bail application, held that the sureties must be persons of reputable standing in the society.

Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia, who said granting bail is a discretionary power of the court, ordered BLord to deposit his international passport with the registrar.

The judge also cautioned him against making public statements about the case.

Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia adjouned the matter until April 27 for hearing.

Our correspondent reports that BLord had been on remand at Kuje Correctional Centre since April 1.

The development followed his arraignment by the Nigerian police on six-count charge bordering on alleged impersonation of social media influencer, Martins Vincent Otse, widely known as VeryDarkMan (VDM).

BLord, through his lawyer, anchored the bail application on constitutional provisions and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

His application was supported by a 10-paragraph affidavit.

The defendant had urged the court to exercise its discretion in his favour.

On his part, VDM’s legal counsel withdrew a counter-affidavit previously filed in opposition to the bail application, indicating no further objection.

The dispute stems from allegations by VDM that BLord impersonated him by using his image and brand identity to promote business ventures without consent.

The post Court admits “BLord” to N20m bail in impersonation dispute with VeryDarkMan appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Abejide is seeking an order restraining Sen. David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola from parading themselves as African Democratic Congress (ADC)’s national chairman and national secretary respectively.

The suit fixed for judgment before Justice Musa Liman today, could not be delivered since the judge was said to be in another official engagement.

Our correspondent reports that Justice Liman had, on Friday, fixed today for the judgment.

The judge fixed the date after Abejide’s counsel, Ibrahim Idris, SAN, and lawyers to the defence adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the suit.

Abejide, a member of the House of Representatives on the platform of ADC, had instituted the suit.

In the originating summons, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025 filed on Feb. 15, 2026 by Idris, the lawmaker sued ADC, Ralph Nwosu, Mark, Aregbesola and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.

NAN reports that Nwosu was the former national chairman of ADC who stepped down for Mark, the ex-Senate president.

Abejide, among the eight reliefs, sought an order nullifying Nwosu’s handover or transfer of ADC’s leadership to Mark and Aregbesola as interim national chairman and intenm national secretary respectively on July 2, 2025, at Shehu Musa Yar’adua Centre, Abuja for being illegal, unlawful, null and void.

He sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining Mark and Aregbesola from parading themselves as leaders of the party “as thelr purported appointment, selection or election was unlawful, illegal, null and void.”

He also sought perpetual injunction, restraining INEC from recognising Mark and Aregbesola as ADC’s interim national chairman and interim national secretary “as their appomtment. selection or election did not meet the requirements of Section 82 of the Electoral Act, 2022,” among other prayers.

The ADC, represented by Shaibu Aruwa, SAN; Nwosu, represented by P. I. Oyewole; Rilwan Okpanachi who appeared for Mark; Aregbesola’s lawyer, I. R. Abdullahi, and counsel who appeared for INEC, Anthony Onyeri, all prayed the court to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit.

ADC, Nwosu, Mark and Aregbesola, in their arguments, submitted that Abejide lacked the legal right to institute the suit.

In their separate preliminary objections, they argued that the subject matter of the suit bordered on the internal affairs of a political party which is non-justiciable.

They added that the court lacked the jurisdiction to delve into such matters.

The defendants also stated that contrary to Abejide’s submission, the Mark-led leadership was elected on July 29, 2025, at the National Executive Committee meeting of the party, and not July 2, 2025.

They stated that Abejide had not demonstrated any reasonable cause why the suit should be filed.

The defendants, who urged the court to dismiss the suit with subtantial cost in line with Section 83(5) of the Electiral Act, 2026, argued that the matter is academic.

Also in his argument, Onyeri, who appeared for INEC, prayed the court to dimiss the suit.

He said the commission, in its argument, filed an eight-paragraph counter affidavit with an exhibit marked, Exhibit INEC-1.

The post ADC crisis: Court adjourns judgment in Abejide’s suit against Mark, Aregbesola appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Our correspondent gathered that Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date, following the hearing notices issued to parties in the suit.

Gombe, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, had sued ADC, Mark, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Chief Ralph Nwosu as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.

Justice Nwite had, at the last hearing date, adjourned the case sine die (indefinitely) to await the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The judge adjourned the matter indefinitely after counsel for the defendants informed the court of an appeal filed against the lower court order.

However, the Appeal Court, in its March 12 judgment, ordered the parties to go back to the trial court and maintain status quo ante bellum pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

Against the appellate court’s judgment, INEC, on April 1, removed the names of Mark and Aregbesola from its official portal and website as ADC’s national chairman and national secretary respectively.

In reaction to INEC’s decision, the Mark-led leadership, in a motion on notice filed on April 7 by Sulaiman Usman, SAN, prayed the court to ordered the commission to restore their names as it were, prior to the institution of the suit by Gombe.

They also sought an order for accelerated hearing of the case.

Meanwhile, Mark and Aregbesola have urged the court “to dismiss the suit in limine for want of jurisdiction.”

The former Senate President, in his preliminary objection filed on April 7 by his lawyer, Usman, argued that Gombe lacked the locus standi to file the suit, having voluntarily resigned his position as deputy national chairman of ADC.

He argued that the suit is predicated on falsehood and suppression of material facts, particularly concerning the plaintiff’s resignation.

The embattled national chairman stated that the subject matter of the suit borders on internal affairs of a political party, which are non-justiciable.

According to him, the plaintiff has disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

“This honourable court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

“The suit constitutes a gross abuse of court process,” he added.

Aregbesola, in his consequential counter affifavit deposed to by Anthonia Nwafor from the law firm of M.E. Sheriff & Co, equally urged the court to dismiss the suit.

He said Gombe, in his suit, seeks to approbate and reprobate at the same time because he is no longer a member of the National Executive Committee of ADC, having resigned his position as the deputy chairman of the committee to make way for smooth and effective coalition and restructuring.

He stated that the party communicated the resignation of Gombe to INEC, in compliance with its standard rules and guidelines.

Aregbesola, who said that the suit is unmeritorious, sought an order awarding the sum of N50 million to him as cost for being discommoded by defending the suit.

On his part, Nwosu, in his preliminary objection filed on April 7 by his lawyer, P. I. Oyewole, equally prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

The ex-party’s national chairman, who argued that the case is premature, submitted that Gombe had failed to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism before filing the suit.

The post ADC crisis: Court hears Nafiu-Bala Gombe s suit April 14 appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

INEC officially removed the names of Mark (National Chairman) and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola (National Secretary) of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) from its official portal and website on April 1.

Mark also urged Justice Emeka Nwite to grant an order of mandatory injunction setting aside INEC’s refusal to attend or monitor the ADC’s congresses or convention, pending the hearing and determination of the instant suit.

He equally sought an order of mandatory injunction directing INEC to forthwith restore and maintain the names of all ADC’s National Working Committee (NWC) in its records and portal, prior to the institution of the suit, and pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

The motion on notice, dated and filed on April 7 was filed by Mark’s new lawyer, Sulaiman Usman, SAN.

The motion by the former Senate President, who is the embattled national chairman of ADC, is in reaction to the March 12 Court of Appeal’s judgment in a suit instituted by Hon Nafiu Bala Gombe before Justice Nwite.

The motion, which sought three reliefs, was brought pursuant to Order 26, Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019; the inherent jurisdiction of the court and under the equitable jurisdiction of the court to grant injunctive reliefs.

The reliefs sought include; “an order of mandatory injunction, setting aside the decision, act, or directive of the respondent removing the names of the applicant’s National Working Committee from its official portal and the decision of refusal to attend or monitor the applicant’s congresses or convention pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

He sought an order of mandatory injunction, directing INEC to forthwith restore and maintain records of the names of Senator David Mark as National Chairman and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as National Secretary, as well as all members of the National Executive Committee .

He sought an order restraining INEC from tampering with, or otherwise interfering with the said leadership records of the 1st defendant, recognising or giving effect to any contrary or competing claims, pending the final determination of this suit.”

Giving seven-ground argument why the application should be granted, the lawyer submitted that the Court of Appeal, in its ruling delivered on March 12, ordered the parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum.

Usman argued that the “status quo ante bellum” referred to the last lawful, uncontested state of affairs prior to the institution of the suit.

“As at Sept. 2, 2025, when this action was instituted, the 2nd defendant (Senator David Mark) was the recognised National Chairman of the 1st defendant.

“The said leadership structure had already been constituted.

“The plaintiff had already resigned his prior office and had no subsisting role within the party,” he said.

The lawyer further stated that INEC, acting under a misapprehension of the Court of Appeal order, removed the names of the said leadership from its portal.

He said the electoral umpire then adopted a position of non-recognition and created a vacuum in the leadership sructure of ADC.

Usman argued that INEC’s actions were inconsistent with the true meaning of the Court of Appeal order, capable of rendering the subject matter of the suit nugatory and prejudicial to Mark and Aregbesola.

“The law is settled that a mandatory injunction may be granted at an interlocutory stage to restore a party to the position wrongfully altered.

“This is a proper case for the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of this honourable court,” the senior lawyer submitted.

Also, in another motion on notice dated April 2 but filed April 7 on Mark’s behalf, the lawyer sought an order granting accelerated hearing of the suit.

Usman, who prayed the court for an order abridging the time within which the parties are to file and exchange all processes in the suit, also sought an order directing that the suit be heard on day-to-day basis until its final determination.

On why the case should be given accelerated hearing, the lawyer stated that the suit had raised fundamental issues affecting the leadership structure of the ADC, a registered political party.

He said the subject matter of the suit has far-reaching implications for democratic governance and political participation.

According to him, the Court of Appeal has already directed that the matter be heard expeditiously.

He said the present uncertainty surrounding the leadership of ADC is affecting its internal administration, impeding its participation in political activities and creating avoidable institutional confusion.

Usman further stated that the continued pendency of the suit is capable of rendering the subject matter nugatory, encouraging parallel structures and conflicting claims.

The lawyer, who said that the court has the power to accelerate proceedings in deserving cases, said it is in the interest of justice to determine the matter without delay.

Our correspondent reports that Justice Nwite had, on Sept. 4, 2025, declined to grant an application seeking to stop Mark-led leadership of the ADC, pending the hearing of the substantive suit.

The judge had refused the three prayers sought in the ex-parte motion filed by Mr Gombe, a former Deputy National Chairman of ADC, and moved by his lawyer, Michael Agber.

Rather, the judge had directed Gombe, the plaintiff in the suit, to put all the defendants on notice to show cause why the motion should not be granted.

The judge then adjourned the matter until Sept. 15, 2025, for the defendants to show cause.

However, the Mark-led ADC approached the Appeal Court to challenge the lower court’s jurisdictional power to hear the suit and the appellate court ordered the parties to go back to the trial court and maintained status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the case.

Gombe, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, had sued ADC, Mark, Aregbesola, INEC and Chief Ralph Nwosu as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.

Nwosu was the former ADC national chairman who stepped down for David Mark leadership.

The post David Mark-led ADC prays court to reverse INEC’s decision appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Our correspondent reports that the trial, which usually takes place at Kainji in Niger, was moves to the Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja since the court is currently on Easter vacation.

The vacation, which commences on Tuesday, April 7, will end on April 13 and regular court sittings will resume on Tuesday, April 14, across all divisions of the court.

Another 20 suspected terrorists facing trial before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday
NAN reports that the 13 courts at the Abuja FHC is currently busy with terrorist cases.

Some of the trial judges are Justice Binta Nyako, Justice Emeka Nwite, Justice Musa Liman, Akpan Ekerete, among others.

While Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, led the team of the Federal Government’s lawyers before Justice Nyako, Aliyu Abubakar, the Director General, Legal Aide Council, led the team of lawyers for the 20 suspected terrorists before Nyako.

Some of the suspected terrorists in Nyako’s cause list include Hamat Modu, Isah Ali, Awal Bello, Shehu Bukar, Alhaji Kulle,, Mohammed Abacha Hassan, Aminami Mallum, Tasiu Yakubu, Abdullahi Ali, among others.

Our correspondent reports that there were heavy security beef-up in and around the Abuja Federal High Court as all roads leading to the court were blocked by armed security personnel while police helicopter hovered around the Central Business District.

The post FG begins mass trial of suspected terrorists in Abuja Trial appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Justice Peter Lifu, in a ruling, rather ordered the plaintiffs in the suit to put Kingibe, who currently represents the FCT at the Senate, on notice to show cause why the reliefs sought should not be granted.

Justice Lifu subsequently adjourned the matter until May 20 for hearing of all pending applications, including a preliminary objection filed by counsel to the lawmaker, Marshall Abubakar.

Our correspondent reports that two executive members of ADC in Wuse Ward, Abuja had sued Kingibe as sole defendant.

The plaintiffs; Mr Okezuo Kanayo, Chairman of ADC, Wuse Ward, and his Secretary, Mr Isaiah Sameul, had filed the ex-parte motion through their lawyer, Kolawole Olowookere, SAN.

In the motion, dated March 17 and filed same date, the plaintiffs sought three reliefs.

They prayed the court for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendant from parading herself as a member of ADC pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for Interlocutory Injunction filed in this suit.

They sought an order of interim injunction restraining Kingibe from performing any functions, attending meetings, or participating in any activities reserved for ADC’s members representing the party in any capacity whatsoever, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

The plaintiffs also sought an order of interim injunction restraining the senator from further interfering with the administration of the Wuse Ward Executive Committee of ADC, ward membership register and other official documents, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

in their seven grounds of argument, their lawyer submitted that Kingibe, though a sitting senator, is first a member of ADC and is bound by the party’s constitution.

He said following substantiated allegations of anti-party activities, gross misconduct, and the physical confiscation of the ward’s statutory records, the Wuse Ward Executive Committee, on March 10 suspended her.

According to Olowookere, the suspension followed due process as enshrined in the ADC Constitution and was ratified by a two-thirds majority of the executive committee.

The lawyer said despite the communication of the suspension, Kingibe had continued to hold parallel meetings, issue press statements as an ADC member, and utilise her security detail to intimidate the ward executives, thereby creating a state of anarchy.

“There is a real and imminent danger that the plaintiffs/applicants’ right to maintain party discipline and the status quo will be overreached and rendered nugatory unless this court intervenes.

“The defendant/respondent’s actions constitute a flagrant disregard for the internal dispute resolution and disciplinary mechanisms of the party,” he said.

Olowookere argued that it would be just and convenient for the court to intervene to preserve the res and the status quo ante bellum.

But in her notice of preliminary objection to the suit filed by Abubakar, the lawmaker equally sought three reliefs.

Kingibe sought an order that the court had no jurisdiction to hear or try the case.

She also sought “an order striking out this suit for want of Jurisdiction.”

The senator equally urged the court for am order directing the plaintiffs’ counsel and/or the plaintiffs to pay the sum of N10 million only as cost of the suit in compliance with the provision of Section 83 (5), (6)(b) of the Electoral Act, 2026.

Ruling, Justice Lifu said having carefully considered the motion ex-parte, the court hereby exercised its discretion in favour of the defendant.

The judge, who ordered that Kingibe should be put on notice, adjourned the matter until May 20 for hearing of all pending applications.

The post Court refuses to grant order stopping Ireti Kingibe from parading herself as ADC member appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Chile Okoroma, SAN, counsel for the EFCC, told Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja that the commission was still awaiting the response of the Chief Judge (CJ) , Justice John Tsoho, to its request.

Okoroma, who stated this shortly after the case was called for the re-arraignment of the defendants, said the application was in line with the Supreme Court order.

He said on the last adjourned date, the court was informed about a letter written to the CJ, seeking a fiat for Justice Ojukwu, who is in Calabar division of the court, to conclude the matter as directed by the apex court.

According to him, we wrote a letter to the chief judge why the order of the Supreme Court must be obeyed.

He said the prosecution, having gone far in the case by calling at least 17 witnesses, sought the application for the former trial judge to handle the case.

He then applied for an adjournment to await the official communication of the CJ.

Joe Agi, SAN, who appeared for the defendants, did not oppose Okoroma’s application.

Justice Lifu adjourned the matter until April 30 for re-arraignment or further proceedings.

“In the circumstances of this case and in the intetest of justice, the case is adjourned for re-arraignment and/or further proceedings,” the judge said.

Their re-arraignment, on March 13, was stalled due to the absence of the ex-govenor and his co-defendants in court.

Our correspondent recalls that the Supreme Court had, on Jan. 16, ordered a retrial of the defendants.

A five-member panel of the apex court issued the directive in two unanimous judgments delivered in the two appeals filed in the name of the Federal Government by the EFCC.

Both appeals were against the July 25, 2023 judgments by the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which upheld the no-case submission made by Lamido and others and struck out the 37-count charge on which they were being prosecuted, on the grounds that the Federal High Court, Abuja lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.

In the lead judgments of the Supreme Court, Justice Abubakar Umar set aside the July 25, 2023 judgments of the Court of Appeal and affirmed the earlier decision by Justice Ojukwu of the Federal High Court, Abuja which overruled the no-case submissions of the defendants and ordered them to enter their defence.

The EFCC, in the 37-count charge, among others, accused Lamido of abusing his position as governor between 2007 and 2015.

He was alleged to have laundered sums of money received as kickbacks from companies that were awarded contracts by the Jigawa State Government under his leadership.

The other defendants charged alongside Lamido are: his two sons – Aminu and Mustapha; Aminu Wada Abubakar and their companies – Bamaina Holdings Ltd and Speeds International Ltd.

The post EFCC insists on retrial of Sule Lamido by former judge appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik made the order while delivering judgment in a suit instituted by a faction of the party loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike.

Justice Abdulmalik also ordered the security agencies, including the Nigerian Police Force (NPF), Department of State Services (DSS), among others, to give adequate protection to Wike-led faction of the PDP while accessing the secretariat.

The judge held that the purported national convention held by the Turaki-led faction on Nov. 15 and Nov. 16, 2025 in Ibadan and the election of party’s officials, against the valid court orders, was a nullity.

She said the convention violated Section 287(3) of the Nigerian Constitution (as amended), as well as the PDP’s constitution.

She described the expulsion of Wike and his allies from the party during the 2025 convention as an affront to the order of court.

“I considered the expulsion of the members of the plaintiffs as not only an affront to the subsisting judgement, but also a direct assault to a democratic and principled society,” the judge said.

She said such action had no place where the rule of law is in practice.

According to the judge, all proceedings, resolutions and decisions taken at the said convention, including the suspension of members of the 1st plaintiff, were unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void, and of no effect.

Our correspondent reports that a faction of the party in the camp of the FCT minister, led by its acting National Chairman, Alhaji Mohammed Abdulrahman, had filed the suit.

In the suit, the PDP, Abdulrahman and Sen. Sameul Anyanwu, the factional National Secretary, had prayed the court to stop the police and DSS from allowing Turaki-led leadership (5th to 25th defendants) access to the party’s national secretariat at Wadara Plaza in Abuja.

They also sought an order of injunction, restraining INEC from accepting any other office address or any other address from the Turaki-led leadership as the PDP’s office address other than as already contained in the commission’s records.

They sought an order of injunction, restraining the Turaki leadership (5th to 25 defendants) from parading themselves as representatives of the PDP in any capacity whatsoever, among other reliefs.

Justice Abdulmalik had earlier granted an ex-parte motion brought by the plaintiffs directing parties not to take any action pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Following the order, the Turaki-led chairman of the PDP challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal.

They also filed an application for the court to stay proceedings in the suit pending the decision of the Appeal Court.

The Turaki faction, through their lawyer, equally filed a motion on notice asking Justice Abdulmalik to recuse (withdraw) herself from the case.

They argued that there existed a reasonable and well-founded apprehension of likelihood of bias against them in the manner the suit had been handled by the judge.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Abduly held that, in line with the Constitution and other enabling statutes, including earlier judgments, it would not shy away from its duty to do what is just in the circumstances.

The judge said that the the main determinant of the case is Section 287(3) of the Constitution, which provides that the decisions of the Federal High Court and other courts established by the constitution shall be enforced by all authorities and persons across the federation.

She observed that “in spite of the judgments which have not been set aside, the 5th to 25th defendants went ahead and organised the convention.”

She added that those same judgments had also been affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

She further cited that a party’s constitution is meant to be followed by its members, hence, the issues raised in the originating summons by the plaintiffs were meritorious.

She, therefore, granted the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought.

“The defendants are bound to comply with and give full effect to the subsisting judgments of the Federal High Court earlier referred to.

“The 1st to 4th defendants are not entitled to recognise or give effect, in any manner whatsoever, to the purported national convention held on 15 and 16 November, 2025 by the 5th to 25th defendants and their associates.

“The purported convention, including the election of officers and suspension of members, is unconstitutional, null and void, ” she ruled.

Justice Abdulmalik said the plaintiffs (Wike faction) are entitled to remain in office and continue to use the party’s national secretariat and properties.

On the application filed for the judge to recuse herself from the case, Justice Abdulmalik held that the Turaki-led faction failed to substantiate the argument with evidence that the court was biased.

She held that allegations of bias must be proven with credible evidence, not mere suspicion.

The judge observed that claims of a “likelihood of bias” are “a state of mind, incapable of precise definition,” and must be supported by “cogent and credible evidence.”

The judge said she found “no shred of evidence” to justify the allegation and stressed that the mere grant of ex-parte order did not amount to bias.

On the request to transfer the case back to the chief judge (CJ) for reassignment, she held that the power to assign cases lies with the CJ and that it is “not the place of counsel to determine which judge will hear and determine their case.”

Justice Abdulmalik further stated that any dissatisfaction with her decisions is a matter for appeal, not recusal, and consequently refused the application for lacking in merit.

On the motion challenging the competence of the suit, the judge also declined to strike out the case.

She rejected the arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs had no locus standi.

NAN recalls that the defendants had argued that the dispute was purely an internal party affair, an abuse of court process, and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the suit.

In her decision, the judge held that “jurisdiction is the lifewire and pillar upon which any matter can be determined” and must be assessed based on the originating processes.

She found that the claims involved the interpretation and enforcement of constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as compliance with earlier court judgments.

She, therefore, agreed with the plaintiffs that the suit was within the court’s jurisdiction.

The judge, who held that the objections raised by the defendants lacked merit, dismissed the application in its entirety.

Our correspondent recalls that the Wike-led PDP, on Sunday, held its own national convention where Abdulrahaman emerged as the substantive national chairman.

Justice James Omotosho and Justice Peter Lifu of the FHC in Abuja, had in separate judgments in 2025, barred the PDP leadership led by Turaki from holding its national convention.

There were also counter-decisions from the Oyo State High Court.

Despite these rulings, the Turaki-led faction proceeded with the convention which produced Turaki as national chairman of the party, alongside other national officers.

Apart from electing the party’s National Working Committee (NWC), the convention also suspended some allies of the FCT minister over alleged anti-party activities.

The post Court bars Turaki-led PDP faction from accessing national secretatiat appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

The APC National Convention 2026 is scheduled for Friday and Saturday at the Eagle Square, Abuja,

Dagogo urged Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja to determine whether there could be a legitimate zonal congress for South South APC with his exclusion after he was duly cleared and paid for his expression of interest (EoI) and nomination forms.

Our correspondent reports that the plaintiff, who is a chieftain of the party, named APC and Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda, APC’s National Chairman, as 1st amd 2nd defendants.

Dagogo also listed Hon Victor Giadom, APC’s National Vice Chairman, South South, and Sulaiman Muitamma, APC’s National Organising Secretary, as 3rd and 4th defendants respectively.

The matter, which was fixed for hearing on Friday before Justice Abdulmalik, could not proceed due to the absence of the judge.

The case, listed as “number 6” on the cause list, was subsequently adjourned until March 30 for mention.

Our correspondent reports that in the originating summons, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/591/2026 dated March 22 and filed March 23 by his lawyer, Chief Ogochukwu Onyema, Dagogo sought six reliefs.

He sought a declaration that by virtue of APC’s Payment Acknowledgment Receipt No. 26827 dated March 13 and issued to him, he is entitled to be issued with the requisite EoI and Nomination Forms as an aspirant for the position of National Vice Chairman, South —South Nigeria.

“A declaration of this honourable court that no APC National Chairman South South can emerge from the 25 March, 2026 APC Zonal South-South Zonal Congress when an aspirant like the plaintiff was excluded.

“A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from conducting any zonal congress for South-South APC, on Thursday 25th day of March, 2026 as slated in the APC 2026 Schedule Of Nationwide Congresses, National Convention And Related Activities.

“Until the form of the plaintiff is duly issued, and he is given not less than seven days notice to prepare and participate in the zonal congress, to be conducted on another day.

“An order of court declaring as NULL and Void and of no Effect, the outcome of any APC National Congress for the position of National Vice Chairman South South conducted on 25//3/2026 or any other time, without the physical participation of the plaintiff,” he prayed.

Dagogo equally prayed the court to award a general damages of N100 million against the 3rd and 4th defendants jointly and severally for the discomfitures, embarrassments and mental torture, they occasioned to him with their ill conduct.

“An order of the honourable court awarding, a 10% interest per month on any judgment sum, until same is liquidated,” he added.

Dagogo, in the affidavit attached to the application, averred that he is a card-carrying member of APC aspiring for the office of National Vice Chairman, South South.

He said in line with the APC’s schedule, he was cleared and the party received and acknowledged his payment of N100, 000 and N5 million for the Expression of Interest (EoI) Form and Nomination Form respectively on March 13.

Dagogo said the same day, he went to the 4th defendant’s office to collect the forms and the 3rd defendant, who presently occupies the position he is vying for, saw him and inquired which form he came to collect, and he was told that he is contesting for his present office.

“That knowing my popularity and acceptability, and that I will likely win and displace him from the office, he brazenly issued instruction stopping the workers from issuing any EoI and Nomination Forms to me.

” And they simply told the me that forms for Natiinal Vice Chairman South South has finished, as if they customised the forms,” he said.

He said in a bid to exhaust internal remedies, he complained to Yilwatda, through a letter dated March 18 but got no response till date, among other party leaders he sought to meet.

Dagogo, who said Section 20(1)(A) of the Constitution of APC provides that every officer of the party shall be elected through democratic election during congress, urged the court to grant his reliefs in the interest of justice.

But the APC, in a preliminary objection filed by its lawyer, Kayode Okunade, urged the court to strike out or dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.

Okunade also prayed the court for an order striking out the originating summons filed by Dagogo as incompetent.

The lawyer, in his eight-ground argument, said the subject matter of the suit borders on the internal affairs of a political party, which is non-justiciable and outside the jurisdiction of the court.

He said Dagogo’s complaint, relating to non-issuance of nomination form despite payment, concerns the conduct of party congresses and pre-primary processes, which are within the exclusive domestic jurisdiction of the party.

Okunade argued that the applicant lacks the locus standi to institute the action, having not been duly recognised as a valid aspirant under the APC Constitution and Guidelines.

He said the suit is premature, the applicant having failed to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the party’s constitution.

The lawyer, who said the suit constitutes an abuse of court process, aimed at inviting the court to interfere in the discretionary powers of a political party, argued that Dagogo had not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the respondents.

In his replying on points of law, Onyema who urged the court to dimiss the preliminary objection, argued that illegality in party processes should attract judicial sanction.

The lawyer, citing previous cases, including APC vs. Marafa (2020), submitted that “political party affairs remain internal only to the extent that they are conducted in accordance with the law and party’s rules.”

According to him, once fraud, illegality or breach of mandatory provisions is introduced, the matter becomes justiciable, among other arguments.

“We therefore implore my lord to dismiss this preliminary objection, assume jurisdiction and determine the matter on its own merit,” he said.

The post Convention: Aspirant files N100m suit against APC, others over alleged unlawful exclusion appeared first on NEWSVERGE.

Justice Peter Lifu made the order after counsel to the plaintiffs, B. A. Nenuwa, moved a motion ex-parte to the effect.

Nenuwa said the order became necessary following the inability to serve Kingibe, who currently represents the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) at the Senate, all the proceeses filed in the suit.

Justice Lifu granted the plaintiffs the permission to serve the originating processes, motions and all other processes in the suit on the lawmaker by substituted means by delivering same on her legislative aides/secretary at her office at the National Assembly Complex in Abuja.

“The service when effected, shall be deemed as good, proper and regular service on the defendant,” the judge ruled.

Shortly after the ruling, Marshall Abubakar, announced appearance for Kingibe,

Abubakar told the court that be would be applying for the court documents in the suit and the judge granted the lawyer’s request.

Justice Lifu said since Abubakar was in court on Kingibe’s behalf, he should liaise with the plaintiffs’ counsel so that he could received the processes.

The judge fixed April 2 for hearing.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that two executive members of ADC in Wuse Ward, Abuja had sued the legislator, praying court to restrain her from parading herself as a member of the party.

Mr Okezuo Kanayo, Chairman of ADC, Wuse Ward, and his Secretary, Mr Isaiah Sameul, filed the suit through their lawyer, Dr Maxwell Opara.

The originating motion is dated and filed on March 13 by Opara.

They prayed the court to declare that by virtue of the Constitution of the ADC, the Wuse Ward Executive Committee had the power to discipline and suspend any member of the party within its jurisdiction.

They also sought a declaration of the court that the suspension of Sen. Kingibe, by the Wuse Ward Executive Committee of the ADC was valid and subsisting.

They prayed the court to declare that Sen. Kingibe cannot lawfully parade herself as card-carrying member of the party during the subsistence of the said suspension.

They want the court to declare that the National Working Committee (NWC) of the ADC cannot and should not lawfully recognise the defendant as a member of the party at any level during the subsistence of her suspension, among other reliefs.

In the affidavit deposed to by the Wuse Ward Secretary, Mr Samuel, he averred that the senator is a member of ADC registered under Wuse Ward.

According to him, sometime in 2026 the Ward Executive Committee received complaints regarding acts allegedly committed by the defendant contrary to the constitution of the party.

He accused Kingibe of anti-party activities, which he said, led to her suspension.

The post Suspension; Court orders ADC ward executive to serve Kingibe by substituted means appeared first on NEWSVERGE.