Headlines
Buhari’s Daughter, DSS Disagree over Detention of SIM Card User
The State Security Service (SSS) has told the Federal High Court in Asaba on Friday that it arrested and detained Anthony Okolie, based on a directive from the presidency to investigate him over the use of a SIM card previously used by Hanan, President Muhammadu Buhari’s daughter.
Okolie was arrested in July 2019 and eventually detained for 10 weeks without trial despite the provision of the Nigerian law that mandates that a suspect not be detained for more than 48 hours by the police (or government agency) without bail or without charging the individual to court.
After his release, Okolie through his lawyer, Tope Akinyode, sued Hanan, the Director-General of the State Security Service (SSS) and telecoms provider, MTN, over his ‘illegal detention’.
Mr Okolie is seeking an order to “compel the respondents to jointly or severally to pay the applicant the sum of N500 million as general and aggravated damages for the gross and unlawful violation of the applicant’s right to acquire moveable properties, freedom of movement and self dignity.”
Speaking at the hearing of the suit filed by Mr Okolie at the Federal High Court in Asaba on February 12, the president’s daughter, through her lawyer M.E. Sheriff, told the court Hanan would not be responding to the allegations “because there was no need.”
The judge, Nnamdi Dimgba, furiously responded saying: “What do you mean you haven’t seen a reason? Sheriff, how can you not see a reason? Somebody has accused you. Even if it is to say, ‘I didn’t do so’, can’t you respond? You’re saying you did not see a reason. Sheriff, what kind of thing is this?”
On his part, the SSS lawyer, E.E. Daobri, said “he did not receive the necessary documents from the SSS headquarters in Abuja on time, hence, could not file a counter-affidavit.”
Controversy
Following the backlash from the judge, Hanan’s lawyer, Mr Sheriff, in a counter-affidavit filed on February 21, agreed that the MTN SIM card which caused the dispute was once used by her.
She, however, claimed not to be aware that any arrest was made by the SSS in her 20-paragraph affidavit obtained by PREMIUM TIMES.
She said although she was not happy with the complaint from the public that someone else was using her former SIM card, but “I have never complained to the State Security Service or any law enforcement agency in Nigeria or outside the country to make arrest of anyone.”
The SSS’ Claim
In the 35-paragraph affidavit, signed by an SSS official, S.M. Kayode, and obtained by PREMIUM TIMES, the security agency said it received an official letter of instruction from the presidency dated July 5, 2019, upon which it acted.
In the affidavit, the SSS said the presidency’s letter indicated that Mr Okolie was parading himself as a member of the first family to defraud unsuspecting members of the public.
The SSS alleged that their investigation revealed that Mr Okolie attempted to defraud Ahmed Halidu, a member of the president’s family, before the former was arrested. The agency said Mr Okolie wrote a confessional statement admitting to the crime on July 24, 2019.
For 10 weeks at their custody, the SSS said nobody applied for Mr Okolie’s bail until one Ernesh Chukwuedo surfaced and he was released to him.
Also in the affidavit, SSS said it acted in the interest of national security.
Defence
Mr Okolie had earlier told PREMIUM TIMES that Hanan ordered his arrest and she was contacted thrice before he was eventually released.
Mr Akinyode, the lawyer to the accused, said the Nigerian constitution makes no provision of any kind for the “first family” and that the involvement of the presidency in this matter is a “disgraceful deployment of state apparatus for personal gains”.
“The “confessional statement” has no relevance to this suit whatsoever. There was no place he ever misrepresented to anybody that he is Buhari’s daughter. More so, he never received any money from anybody.”
“However, even if someone commits an offence – and there’s none that my client has committed – he must be charged to court within at most 48 hours. In this instance, the victim was detained for 10 weeks, his fundamental rights had been violated. Period.”
“All the things they wrote is just about putting up a useless defence where there’s none. His right has been violated. The SSS has on several occasions admitted that they ran a foul of the law because of national security. Should that be a ground to deprive a citizen of his fundamental human rights?” the lawyer said,
The matter is scheduled to come up March 3 before Justice Nnamdi Dimgba.
Premium Times
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.
