By Rukevwe Odeh

The Court of Appeal in Abuja is scheduled to continue proceedings in the legal dispute over the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties.

The appeal follows a Federal High Court judgment that ordered the deregistration of the affected parties, a decision they have challenged at the appellate court. Alongside the ADC, the Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party, Action Peoples Party (APP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) are asking the court to overturn the ruling.

At an earlier sitting, the three-member panel, led by Justice Abba Mohammed, postponed the substantive hearing to allow all parties involved to complete the filing and exchange of legal documents. The court fixed July 7 for the full hearing after lawyers requested additional time to regularise their processes.

The legal battle stems from a lower court judgment that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw recognition from the five political parties. However, the Court of Appeal had previously ordered that the status quo be maintained pending the determination of the appeals, effectively putting the deregistration on hold.

The affected parties argue that the Federal High Court erred in both law and procedure, insisting that the ruling should be set aside. They maintain that the judgment threatens political pluralism and could unfairly limit participation in the country’s democratic process.

INEC has also expressed support for maintaining the existing situation until the appeal is resolved, noting that the substantive issues raised by the parties deserve judicial consideration before any final action is taken.

The outcome of the appeal is expected to have significant implications for the political parties involved as preparations continue for the 2027 general elections.

By Divine Perezide

Presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), Peter Obi, has taken legal action against his former associate, Kenneth Okonkwo, over allegations of bribery and corruption.

Obi is seeking ₦8 billion in damages, accusing Okonkwo of making defamatory statements that portrayed him as being involved in collecting illegal payments from political aspirants.

The dispute stems from comments allegedly made by Okonkwo during a television interview, where he claimed that Obi and some South-East political figures demanded additional payments of ₦10 million from individuals seeking House of Representatives tickets under the party, despite having already paid official nomination fees.

According to Obi’s legal team, the remarks were false, damaging, and capable of harming his public image and political reputation. They argue that the statements suggested involvement in fraud, extortion, and other criminal conduct.

The lawyers further stated that the allegations were widely circulated across media platforms and social media, increasing their potential reputational damage.

As part of the suit, Obi is requesting a court order compelling Okonkwo to retract the claims publicly, issue an unreserved apology across all his media platforms, and provide an undertaking not to repeat such statements in the future.

He is also demanding financial compensation of ₦8 billion for the alleged harm caused.

The case marks a major escalation in the strained relationship between the two, who were once political allies but have since fallen out over party-related disagreements.

By Rukevwe odeh

The political disagreement between former Senate President, Bukola Saraki, and the administration of AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq has intensified following the filing of a criminal defamation suit by the Kwara State Government.

The case, instituted before the Kwara State High Court in Ilorin, stems from allegations that Saraki made public statements questioning the educational qualifications of Governor AbdulRazaq. According to the state government, the former Senate President allegedly circulated comments through social media platforms and newspaper publications suggesting that the governor did not complete his secondary school education.

State prosecutors contend that the statements were false, malicious, and damaging to the governor’s reputation. The government further argues that the remarks were capable of provoking public unrest and undermining public confidence in the state’s leadership. The charge was filed under Section 399 of the Kwara State Penal Code, which criminalizes acts of defamation deemed likely to disturb public peace.

During proceedings before Justice Mohammed Folorunso, prosecution counsel Rafiu Balogun requested that the court issue a bench warrant against Saraki, claiming he failed to appear in court despite allegedly being served with the necessary legal documents. The prosecution maintained that the defendant’s presence was essential for the scheduled arraignment and urged the court to proceed accordingly.

However, Saraki’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Jimoh Mumini, challenged the competence of the case. The defence argued that the Kwara State High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter, insisting that the dispute should instead be heard by the Federal High Court. Counsel also questioned whether proper service of court documents had been effected on the former Senate President.

Following arguments from both parties and a brief recess, the court declined the request for a bench warrant and ruled that the defendant was entitled to seek an adjournment. Justice Folorunso subsequently fixed July 3, 2026, for the hearing of preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and for the possible arraignment of Saraki.

Political analysts view the case as another chapter in the long-standing rivalry between Saraki’s political camp and the AbdulRazaq administration. The legal battle is expected to attract significant public and political attention, particularly as stakeholders monitor its potential implications for the political landscape in Kwara State ahead of future electoral contests.

As the matter returns to court in July, attention will focus on the judge’s determination of the jurisdictional issues raised by the defence, a decision that could shape the future direction of the case and influence the broader political discourse within the state.