Headlines
For Calling Us Useless People, We’ll Never Patronise You Again, Naira Marley Threatens Executive Jet
Azeez Fashola, popularly known as Naira Marley, and the Chairman of Executive Jet Services, Sam Iwuajoku, have exchanged bitter words over the sanctions imposed on the airline by the Federal Government for violating the COVID-19 guidelines.
While Iwuajoku described Naira Marley and his team as a bunch of useless people, the singer, in a series of tweets on Tuesday, vowed never to patronise the airline again.
The Federal Government had, on Monday, announced the indefinite suspension of the operations of the airline and promised to impose fines on it and the pilot for violating the flight approval it received from the Ministry of Aviation.
The airline had flown Naira Marley and his team to Abuja, where they performed at a concert in violation of the COVID-19 guidelines
Iwuajoku, in a letter dated June 15, 2020, and addressed to the Minister of Aviation, Hadi Sirika, apologised for the incident and claimed that he thought the aircraft was conveying a serving minister and his team.
He said he was shocked when he realised that it was Naira Marley and his team, who were conveyed by the aircraft.
The letter read in part, “Please, the flight was to carry (sic) a judge to Abuja on Sunday, 14th of June, 2020, as requested and the permit was granted based on the application, but unfortunately, when I called the judge on Saturday morning to inform him that we have (sic) the permit, he then said he has (sic) reached (sic) Abuja already with (sic) a different flight that someone gave him a lift (sic) to Abuja.
“So, on Saturday morning, 13th June, 2020, my staff called me that they have (sic) a charter flight to Abuja and that the passengers are (sic) already in the lounge. As a rule, passenger manifests are always sent to me before departure.
“When I went through the manifest and saw Babatunde Fashola, I thought it was the honourable Minister of Works (and Housing) going to Abuja with his men. So, we decided to do (sic) the flight since he is a serving minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I didn’t know that it was a bunch of useless people.”
Reacting to Iwuajoku’s letter, Naira Marley regretted using the airline, saying the plane almost crashed.
He tweeted, “Do you know that over 20,000 Marlians travel with executive jets a month? We won’t be using your useless airline again for calling us useless. Thank God we didn’t crash on that flight sha because we nearly did. BTW We didn’t book the flight ourselves.
“The cost of living working-class/middle-class is too high. The fact that the Almighty has blessed you, shouldn’t make you look down on anyone Mr executive jet calling us useless is not only defamation but oppressive. The statement by the CEO is arrogant and silly.”
He, however, added that his younger brother, whose name is Babatunde Fashola, was on the flight.
Meanwhile, the minister has distanced himself from the controversy, saying he has not travelled out of Abuja since March 22, 2020.
Fashola, in a statement on Tuesday by his Special Adviser, Communications, Hakeem Bello, said his attention was drawn to the mentioning of his name in the letter by Iwuajoku.
The statement said, “For purposes of clarity and in order to set the records straight, the Minister of Works and Housing, Mr Babatunde Fashola, has not travelled out of Abuja since March 22, 2020, when he returned there after an inspection tour of the Enugu-Port Harcourt Expressway’s construction work and a visit to Lagos before the lockdown.
“The decision of the minister not to travel was taken in strict compliance with the Federal Government’s ban on inter-state travels as part of efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It is, therefore, ridiculous for Dr Iwuajoku to attempt to link the minister with any non-compliant flight.”
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.
