Headlines
Calls for Isa Pantami’s Sack Grow over Pro-Taliban Comments
The Peoples Democratic Party and civil rights groups on Sunday called on the Department of State Services to immediately invite the Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami, for questioning over some controversial comments he made in the past in support of global terrorist groups, Al-Qaeda and Taliban.
The National Publicity Secretary, Kola Ologbondiyan, in a statement in Abuja and the CSOs in separate interviews with The PUNCH, also called on the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari(retd.), to sack the minister.
Pantami has been under fire lately over comments he allegedly made several years ago in support of Al-Qaeda – an extremist group founded by the late Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. Bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011 by the US Navy SEALs inside a private residential compound in Pakistan.
Following the outrage generated by his past comments, Pantami on Saturday renounced them.
He stated that some of his past views were made out of immaturity, alleging that attacks on him by Nigerians were politically instigated.
But on Sunday the PDP said Buhari should immediately sack the minister, given the sensitivity of the issue.
The party said its position was predicated on the heightening concerns in the public space and in the international arena of possible compromises by the communication minister.
It noted that Pantami had access to sensitive government documents and information, in addition to data of all individuals including high profile personalities in the public and private sectors as well as the traditional and faith-based circles.
The statement partly read, “The party tasks the DSS to investigate the allegation, which has created apprehension, particularly given the rise in banditry and other terrorists activities in our country.
“The PDP urges Nigerians to remain at alert and very sensitive to their environment, while not hesitating in providing useful information to our security agencies in the interest of our nation.”
On its part, the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria also asked Buhari to sack Pantami.
The civil society group also admonished the President to be courageous enough by arresting and prosecuting terrorists and bandits, including armed herdsmen whom it said were about pushing the nation into another civil war by their unbridled quest to displace farmers all over the country.
The group stated this in a statement on Sunday, titled, ‘Buhari must purge his government of terrorists sympathisers,’ signed by HURIWA Executive Director, Emmanuel Onwubiko.
Also, a constitutional Lawyer and Human Rights activist, Grace Ketefe, said, “It is very important to watch one’s utterances at every point in time especially those that are in position of higher authority. Words callously stated may result in the loss of innumerable lives and properties. I am of the opinion that he should resign.”
On his part, the Head of Legal Department, Human Right Defenders of Nigeria, Sampson Ekigbo, stated, “As a person holding a public office, such a person should not, in the first place, scale through the scrutiny of the committee saddled with determining the propriety or otherwise of his qualifications to that very position. He should be made to resign forthwith and face prosecution.”
But it was gathered that the President might not ask the minister to resign despite the growing calls for his resignation or sacking.
Some of those pushing for Pantami’s exit from government had cited the case of a former Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun, who had to resign due to her past action as regards her National Youth Service Corps certificate.
When asked on Sunday if the President would advise Pantami to resign like Adeosun did or he believed the two cases were different, a Presidency official said the two cases were not similar.
The official, who did not want his name mentioned because he was not authorised to speak on the issue, said, “There is a clear distinction between the two (Adeosun’s case and that of Pantami).One is perfidious. Forgery is a criminal offence in our laws.
The Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu, could not be reached on the telephone for comment as of the time of filing this story.
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.
