Headlines
Home Invasion: Okorocha Denies Suing FG for N1bn
A former governor of Imo state, Rochas Okorocha, on Tuesday described as false the report that he had sued the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, and demanded N1bn damages over the invasion of his home in Abuja by the operatives of Economic and Finance Crimes Commission last week.
The ex-governor also denied the claim that he had briefed five Senior Advocates of Nigeria to commence legal action against the Federal Government.
Okorocha in a statement issued in Owerri by his spokesperson, Sam Omwuemeodo, said that he had no reason to sue the AGF because his office was not the one who invaded his home nor took him to court.
The statement said that Okorocha and his lawyers were more concerned about ensuring that the ex-governor, who currently represents Imo West in the Senate, regains his freedom as soon as possible.
Omwuemeodo said that Okorocha knew those to sue for damages when he comes out from the EFFC net, if he decides to press charges.
Part of the statement read, “We were concerned with the expected hearing of the bail application today when our attention was drawn to the online stories of N1b suit and engagement of five SANS.
“Okorocha has no reason to take either the Attorney General of the Federation or the office of the Attorney General of the Federation, to court and claim N1b damages, over the invasion of his house, since the incident had nothing to do with AGF or his office.
“lf Okorocha comes out of detention and along the line and decides to take legal action to press for damages over the invasion of his residence, he knows those who carried out the action. We do not think he would include the AGF or his office.
“We know that some patriotic human rights lawyers in the country and some of them, highly respected SANs, have been of immense help in dealing with human rights violations in the country, most of the time on their own, to help the society.
“We are, therefore, having the feeling that the renowned Senior Advocates mentioned in the online stories, might have been challenged by the invasion of Okorocha’s private residence by agents of the EFCC and might have also decided to take the bull by the horns.
“We thank them. If Okorocha comes out of detention and decides to walk in that direction, fine. But one fact would be made clear and that is, that the AGF and the office of AGF would not be parts of the action, because they had nothing to do with the invasion of Okorocha’s private residence.
“We have done this to keep the record straight. We are looking forward to seeing Okorocha out of detention by the grace of God and the magnanimity of His LOordship, handling the case.”
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.
