Headlines
More Troubles in Aso Rock As Monguno Indicts Abba Kyari over Police Equipment Contract
A lucrative contract for the procurement of defence equipment for the Nigeria Police Force appeared to have triggered the raging confrontation at the highest levels of the Buhari administration, PREMIUM TIMES can report.
Freshly obtained documents showed how the national security adviser, Babagana Monguno, tackled President Muhammadu Buhari’s chief of staff, Abba Kyari, for allegedly overriding a previous directive of the president in a contract to procure equipment for the police from the United Arab Emirates.
In the December 9, 2019 letter that was addressed to the police affairs minister and police inspector-general, Mr Monguno, a retired major-general, described Mr Kyari’s action as “reckless and irresponsible”, warning that it was capable of ridiculing Nigeria as an unserious nation before a reliable international partner.
Mr Monguno warned in the letter that Mr Kyari has been getting away with disregarding presidential orders to impose his own decisions — even though he had no constitutional power to issue directives on matters bordering on security. The NSA said only himself, as the head of multiple national security panels, and the defence minister have constitutional roles to act on security matters.
The documents appeared a part of a series of circulars issued between Mr Monguno and Mr Kyari between May and December 2019.
The first part of the documents to leak was first published by PREMIUM TIMES on Monday afternoon. It detailed how Mr Monguno accused Mr Kyari of hampering efforts to resolve insecurity in the country, sparking nationwide uproar and call for the president to take charge of his administration’s security measures.
The first memo also carried the same December 9, 2019 date, but was addressed to all crucial offices of national security coordination. The latest memo appeared to have been sent to inform the police affairs minister and the inspector-general on the background of the equipment and how Mr Kyari might be frustrating the procurement process.
It was not immediately clear which equipment were being procured by the Buhari administration from the Emirati, but Mr Monguno disclosed that the International Golden Group, a Dubai-based defence and security dealer, was the firm agreed between Mr Buhari and the UAE Crown Prince in 2016, the memo showed.
Neither the president nor anyone in his cabinet has commented on the crisis at the presidency since Monday. Mr Kyari and two presidential spokespersons, Femi Adesina and Garba Shehu, rejected requests for comments on the memo Monday afternoon. They also did not return similar requests based on the latest documents that shed additional light into the rancour.
Nigeria has been grappling with multiple security problems, most of which security experts have said should ordinarily be handled by the police. The military has been locked in a decade-long battle with Boko Haram insurgents ravaging the country’s northwestern flank and the neighbouring Niger, Cameroon and Chad.
Mr Monguno, who has continued to act as the NSA even though his appointment has not been renewed for Mr Buhari’s second term, has been at the centre of coordinating efforts to combat insecurity. But his labour, he said in the memo, has been regularly frustrated by Mr Kyari’s “meddlesomeness,” which has pitted the chief of staff to not just the NSA but other key administration officials over the years, including Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo.
The implication for the raging fall-out between the top aides of the president has dominated debates since the first memo was published on Monday. The opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has demanded a thorough investigation into the fallout, lamenting its potential detriment to national security.
See documents below:
Source: Samuel Ogundipe, 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.
