Headlines
Anti-graft War: NBA Warns Buhari Against Selective Approach
The Nigerian Bar Association said on Monday that the number of convictions secured or volume of assets recovered was not the right index for measuring the success of an anti-corruption war.
It rather urged the Muhammadu Buhari administration to adopt proactive strategies in fighting corruption, and do away with discriminatory or selective approach to prosecute his administration’s mantra of anti-corruption.
The association in a statement by its President, Mr Paul Usoro (SAN), commemorating this year’s International Anti-Corruption Day, also urged the government not to allow the anti-corruption war to be tainted by corruption.
It urged the citizens to stand up against corruption and blow the whistle when necessary while it also urged the government to embrace automation, the rule of law and transparency in order to rid the country of the scourge of corruption.
It said measuring the success of the anti-graft war using the number of convictions or volume of assets recovered from looters as an index would corrupt the criminal justice system.
According to him, this would only induce corruption and abuse of prosecutorial rights.
He said, “By using these as our primary index for determining our success in fighting corruption, we set targets that induce corruption and abuse of prosecutorial rights.
“We thereby make a statement that the end justifies the means and, in the process, encourage and advocate convictions and purported recovery of assets no matter how crooked, corrupt and undermining of justice the processes may be for attaining those goals.
“The end result is that we pay more attention to and celebrate these corrosive and corruptive processes while giving scant attention and regard to proactive measures that could actually stem and block the avenues for corruption.”
He urged the Buhari administration to abolish media trial for suspects while its anti-corruption war must not be perceived as discriminatory or selective.
Usoro said, “It is gratifying that President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, has consistently made it the credo of his government to fight corruption, right from his first term in office. That is commendable.
“The fight must however not be selective or discriminatory in nature; it must not even be perceived to be selective or discriminatory.
“The trial of persons for corrupt practices must itself not be tainted with corruption. Media trial of persons charged with corrupt practices, for example, amounts to corruption itself.”
He added, “Abuse of prosecutorial powers is perhaps one of the worst forms of corruption and so are the intimidation, blackmail, harassment and coercion of judicial officers in order to secure pre-determined judgments that quite often subvert justice and indeed amount to injustice. Indeed, the subversion of justice by any means whatsoever amounts to extreme corruption.”
He urged the government to put in place a mechanism that would engender transparency as a way of effectively fighting graft.
He said, “In other words, financial and economic corruption thrives where there is lack of transparency, impunity in public service, political non-accountability and pervasiveness of administrative malfeasance.
“Proactive measures that promote transparency and eliminate administrative malfeasance generally curbs corruption and abuses.
“Automation also helps greatly in stemming these tendencies and the attendant corruption and the more we can automate our processes in all the branches of government – executive, judiciary and legislature – the greater our success would be in tackling corruption through the elimination of some of those human elements and abuses that encourage and foster corruption.
“The NBA advises government at all levels and in all branches to embrace such proactive measures in the fight against corruption.
“Impunity and abuse in public service must be abhorred and so must political non-accountability and a lack of transparency in public administration and the management of our affairs.”
The Punch
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
