Nuru Shehu

08/06/2026

Every new day presents another chance to learn, grow, and chase our dreams with renewed energy. The path ahead might not always be smooth, but with determination, patience, and faith, each challenge becomes a stepping stone toward a brighter future. Keep moving forward, stay focused, and greet each moment with optimism.

08/06/2026

By Paul O Ibe

In April, Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Joash Amupitan, was exposed in a web of digital imprints that allegedly suggested that he may have operated a partisan X (formerly Twitter) account. That account had made political comments and celebrated victory of the ruling APC.

Before we could spell Amupitan, INEC released a statement clearing its Chairman of any involvement. The electoral umpire predicated the so-called clearance on an internal review and forensic digital investigation by an "independent" cybersecurity expert.

Many Nigerians had questioned (and still continue to question) the validity of the clearance considering that Amupitan's INEC was a Judge in its own case. The probe was commissioned and paid for by INEC itself, meaning that the process lacked true impartiality. Moreover, INEC did not publicly disclose the identity of the independent cybersecurity firm or individuals who conducted the investigation. Truth be told, there was nothing independent about the independent investigation of the allegation of partisanship against Amupitan. Add that to the role of Amupitan in removing the names of the David Mark-led exco of the from the portal, then you will come to the inevitable conclusion that Amupitan remains a danger to the opposition parties.

And now, with the 2027 elections just about 8 months away, Lere Olayinka, aide to Nyesom Wike, Tinubu’s Man Friday and Fixer is at the centre of a storm over allegations that he may have worked with yet-to-be identified INEC officials to illegally obtain data of a prospective aspirant in the NDC primaries. We are hearing that Lere had been grilled by the Nigerian Police. Knowing the modus operandi of Wike and the Tinubu-led administration, the aide of the FCT Minister may have been served grilled chicken and chips and not "grilled" contrary to media reports.

If we do not get to the bottom of this alleged criminal breach of data, we may be inadvertently be enabling what may turn out to be a large scale breach of data in the 2027 elections. We must never forget that data is life.

We are dealing with an INEC Chairman who is suspected to be partisan. When you add that to the , which may actually be a dress rehearsal, what you may have is a scenario that may be worse than the enabled glitch of the 2023 election, which targeted only the results of the presidential election.

Prof. Joash Amupitan may have strategically removed himself from public consciousness, but everything still points in the direction that the current Chairman of INEC carries a lot of baggage that will make him bad for the 2027 General Elections.

08/06/2026

First Lady Oluremi Tinubu Presents Campaign Bus to APC Youth Leader Amid Rising Insecurity Concerns

The presentation of a new campaign bus by Oluremi Tinubu to APC National Youth Leader, Israel Dayo, at the State House has sparked public debate, coming at a time when many Nigerians are grappling with worsening insecurity, economic hardship, and rising concerns over governance priorities. Critics argue that government officials and political actors should focus more on addressing the nation’s pressing security and welfare challenges rather than engaging in activities perceived as early political mobilization. Many citizens continue to call for greater attention to the protection of lives and property, improved economic conditions, and tangible solutions to the challenges facing communities across the country.

06/06/2026

Maturity is not measured by age, position, or success, but by the wisdom to stay humble in victory, calm in challenges, and respectful even when others choose otherwise. Growth begins when we learn to focus on our purpose, not distractions, and let our character speak louder than our words.

06/06/2026

THE LAW HAS SPOKEN; DEMOCRACY MUST STAND

The recent judgment of the Court of Appeal has brought much-needed clarity to the longstanding dispute within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). For many Nigerians who have followed this matter from the beginning, the central concern was never about the legitimacy of the party’s leadership under Ambassador Umar Iliya Damagum. Rather, the various court actions were initiated by party members seeking specific reliefs and demanding that certain procedures be followed before the Ibadan National Convention could proceed.

The judgments delivered by Justice Omotosho and other courts were not challenges to the constitutional authority of Ambassador Damagum or the National Working Committee. Instead, they sought to compel the party to address grievances raised by certain members before proceeding with party activities. Following those decisions, the Ibadan Convention took place, and subsequent appeals affirmed aspects of the lower court’s rulings.

The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which nullified the Ibadan Convention. The PDP accepted the judgment in good faith, recognizing that the Supreme Court remains the final authority on matters of law in Nigeria. Following that judgment, the party’s constitutional organs, particularly the Board of Trustees and the National Executive Committee (NEC), took steps to reposition the party and restore stability by appointing an Interim National Working Committee led by Barrister Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, SAN.

However, confusion persisted because some individuals continued to parade themselves as members of a leadership structure that derived its existence from a lower court judgment. That issue has now been addressed by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal’s position is clear: the lower court lacked the authority to impose a Caretaker Committee on the PDP. By doing so, it exceeded the issues before it and acted ultra petita. In law, that aspect of the judgment cannot stand. Courts are empowered to interpret the law, not to create party leadership structures that were not properly placed before them for determination.

This is the legal significance of the highlighted portion of Appeal No. CA/IB/86/2026. Once the Court of Appeal held that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a Caretaker Committee, the foundation upon which that committee claimed legitimacy collapsed. Consequently, any authority derived solely from that judgment can no longer be sustained.

The Court of Appeal further held that the issues surrounding the Ibadan Convention had already been conclusively determined by the Supreme Court. As a result, any attempt to relitigate or derive fresh authority from matters already settled by the apex court became academic and otiose.

For this reason, many party faithful believe that the PDP crisis has effectively reached its legal conclusion. The rule of law requires that all parties respect the judgments of competent courts. Those who previously relied on the lower court judgment should accept the latest appellate decision in the same spirit of obedience to the law and work towards rebuilding the party.

This is not a time for division or personal interests. It is a time for reconciliation, unity, and collective commitment to the future of the PDP. Aspirants and stakeholders who are aligned with structures now deprived of a legal foundation should engage constructively with the party’s recognized constitutional organs to resolve outstanding issues in the interest of unity.

Furthermore, once the Interim National Working Committee has complied with all constitutional and regulatory requirements, including the timetable and guidelines issued by INEC, every institution of government is expected to respect and act in accordance with the law. Neither individuals nor factions can place themselves above the Constitution of Nigeria or the Constitution of the PDP.

The truth remains that Nigeria is governed by laws, and political parties are governed by their constitutions. The pathway forward is therefore clear: respect the courts, respect the party constitution, and respect the rule of law.

As members of one political family, we must now put our differences behind us, unite under the party’s constitutional structures, and focus on the greater task ahead—strengthening the PDP and preparing to provide Nigerians with a credible alternative in 2027.

The law has spoken. Democracy must stand. The time for unity is now.

God bless the Peoples Democratic Party.
God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

06/06/2026

To the chagrin of impostors, the PDP remains indestructible, as their pack of lies continues to collapse under rigorous legal scrutiny.

Follow this link to read about developments within our party:
https://bit.ly/PDP-BULLETIN-VOL2-NO23

06/06/2026

Our president

𝗝𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗽𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲, 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝘄
Former President Goodluck Jonathan emphasizes the judiciary's role in Nigeria's future, urging legal practitioners to uphold justice and the rule of law fo...

𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬

06/06/2026

APPEAL COURT RESOLVES PDP CTC DISPUTE

By Umar Farouk

The recent ruling of the Court of Appeal in Abuja has clarified the legal dispute over the leadership crisis in the PDP, especially the controversy concerning the CTC that arose after the party’s failed Ibadan Convention.

While public attention has mainly been on the dismissal of the main appeal which was a request for an order of mandamus compelling INEC to recognize the Ibadan convention the Supreme Court’s nullification of the Nov 15–16, 2025, Ibadan Convention reveals that the Court of Appeal went much further by addressing key legal and administrative issues creating uncertainty within the party.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the main relief sought in the Federal High Court in Ibadan related to the recognition and enforcement of decisions from the Ibadan Convention. Since the Supreme Court previously declared that convention null, void, and without effect, any request to recognize any subsequent election results automatically became unenforceable. Legally, one cannot build on a foundation that no longer exists.

However, contrary to the idea that the appeal was dismissed solely because the convention was nullified, the appellate court also examined other issues raised by the appellants. Notably, it considered how the Federal High Court in Ibadan arrived at its decision to recognize a factional caretaker committee led by Abdurahman Mohammed and Samuel Anyanwu.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial court overstepped by granting orders beyond the reliefs requested. It noted that none of the parties had asked for recognition or validation of the caretaker committee, yet the Federal High Court went ahead to grant such recognition.

This finding underscores a longstanding legal principle: courts must focus only on the issues and reliefs presented by the parties. They are not authorized to create cases or grant remedies that were never sought.

Furthermore, the appellate court observed that, had the Supreme Court not nullified the Ibadan Convention, there might have been grounds for further judicial review of the legality of the leadership structures supposedly created or validated by that convention.

Aside from issues of jurisdiction and reliefs, the judgment clarifies the legal and administrative status of the caretaker committee and the actions taken in its name. By ruling that the legal basis for the committee’s existence was extinguished by the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal eliminated any remaining doubts about its legitimacy.

The ruling also addresses the standing of A.K. Ajibade and the actions carried out under the authority claimed from the caretaker arrangement. Practically, the appellate court now aligns all pending legal questions with the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court.

Collectively, the decisions of both courts effectively end the caretaker committee controversy. The legal justification for its existence has been nullified, and the recognition previously granted by the Federal High Court can no longer stand.

The focus now shifts to INEC. As a regulatory agency expected to operate within the law, INEC has the opportunity to demonstrate its adherence to statutes and the rule of law by ensuring its records and actions reflect the outcomes of the appellate and Supreme Court rulings.

Ultimately, the significance of the Court of Appeal ruling lies not just in dismissing the main appeal, but in clarifying the legal errors identified in the trial court’s judgment. This decision provides the final legal clarity needed to resolve this chapter of the PDP leadership dispute.

06/06/2026

THE QUESTIONS WIKE MUST ANSWER

By Umar Farouk

The latest comments by the Minister of the FCT, Nyesom Wike, have once again raised serious questions about the independence of INEC and the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral process.

Speaking on the ongoing political dispute within the PDP, Wike reportedly declared that certain lawyers risk losing their professional standing for allegedly misinterpreting court judgments and misleading their supporters. He further stated that by July, when INEC publishes the list of approved candidates, the group associated with Turaki, SAN, will finally uncover “who is in charge.”

Generally, confidence in one’s legal stance is not a crime. Political figures are allowed to interpret judicial decisions in a way that benefits them. However, what has caught public attention is Wike’s seeming certainty about what INEC will do long before the electoral commission officially announces its decision.

This isn’t the first time such concerns have arisen.

Many Nigerians still remember how Wike publicly predicted that INEC would reject nominations from PDP in Ekiti and Osun States. Remarkably, shortly after those comments, INEC took actions consistent with those predictions. In Ekiti State, the governorship candidate, Wole Oluyede, had to seek judicial intervention to restore his candidacy. Similar controversies later emerged in Osun State.

These events naturally fuel public suspicion and raise valid questions. How does a political actor repeatedly seem to know in advance what an independent electoral body will decide? Is this just confidence based on legal advice, or does it point to a relationship that needs closer examination?

The controversy becomes more significant in light of recent judicial rulings. The Court of Appeal in Abuja has now addressed several issues regarding the legitimacy of the faction aligned with Wike. The ruling clarified key legal questions that formed part of INEC’s justification for recognizing that faction.

Instead of allowing the judgment to stand on its own, Wike’s reaction seemed triumphant warning opposing lawyers and predicting future moves by INEC. While such statements may excite political supporters, they do little to rebuild public confidence in democratic institutions.

The concerns aren’t new. Elder statesman and respected PDP leader Chief Bode George previously alleged that the INEC Chairman paid a late-night visit to Wike’s residence on December 3, 2025. This allegation garnered widespread public interest due to its implications for the perceived neutrality of the electoral authority.

What remains troubling is that neither INEC nor its chairman has publicly denied the allegations, which could have settled the matter. In politics, perception often matters as much as reality. Silence in response to serious accusations can deepen suspicion and weaken public trust.

The broader issue goes beyond Wike, PDP, or any single political group. It concerns the credibility of institutions expected to operate above partisan interests. Democracy endures not only because institutions are independent, but because citizens believe they are.

The recent Court of Appeal ruling offers INEC a chance to prove it remains guided only by law, facts, and statutory duty. The commission must carefully review the legal implications of the ruling and make decisions that are transparent, fair, and justifiable.

At a time when many Nigerians already doubt INEC’s neutrality, it can’t afford actions that further diminish public trust. The commission owes a duty not just to political parties, but also to millions of citizens and the international community who all care about Nigeria’s democratic future.

Ultimately, the question is simple, Does Wike know something the public doesn’t, or is he just confident politically?

The answer might very well determine how Nigerians judge both the electoral commission and the integrity of the democratic process in the years to come.

06/06/2026

Hahaha, are Wike Peoples here

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has faulted Justice Uche Agomoh of the Federal High Court in Ibadan for granting reliefs that were not sought by any of the parties in a dispute involving the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam of the Court of Appeal, the appellate court held that the trial judge went beyond the reliefs before her when she recognised a factional caretaker committee in the PDP leadership crisis.

More details in comment section....