Headlines
Reps Support Sanusi, Tell North to Stop Relying on Quota
The House of Representatives on Tuesday supported the Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi’s warning to the North over the region’s poor attitude to education.
The Chairman of the House Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Mr Benjamin Kalu, who stated this in an interview with one of our correspondents, said the North had not fully taken advantage of the quota system to develop itself.
He said the North should embrace education in order to compete with other regions and stop relying on the quota system.
Kalu stated this just as northern youths, under the aegis of the Coalition of Northern Groups, said the quota system and federal character should be removed from the constitution.
Sanusi, at the 60th birthday of Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai, in Kaduna on Monday, said by failing to address its numerous challenges, the North was gradually destroying itself.
He listed problems facing the North as poverty, millions of out-of-school children, malnutrition, drug abuse, Almajiri, and the Boko Haram insurgency.
The emir, who said no “true Northern Nigeria leader” was happy with the problems, said the North should stop relying on the quota system and federal character.
The monarch stated, “We have been saying this for 20 to 30 years. If the North does not change, the North will destroy itself. The country is moving on. The quota system that everybody talks about must have a sunset clause.”
Admonishing young men and women from the North, Sanusi had said, “We need to get northern youths to a point where they don’t need to come from a part of the country to get a job. And believe me, if we don’t listen, there would be a day when there would be a constitutional amendment that addresses these issues of quota system and federal character.
“The rest of the country cannot be investing, educating its children, producing graduates and then they watch us, they can’t get jobs because they come from the wrong state when we have not invested in the future of our own children.
Supporting the emir, Kalu said, “The purpose of the federal character element of the constitution is to ensure the distribution of projects and opportunities in the country. If the implementation is faulty, that is where complaints should come.
“If you benefit from that particular provision of the constitution without being fully prepared for it, you are under-developing yourself. The problem is not with the law, the problem is with those who are accessing the benefits of the law.”
The House of Representatives spokesman said federal character did not mean that those who were not qualified should occupy positions.
Kalu stated, “I agree with him (Sanusi). If you access any opportunity that you are not qualified for, you are under-developing yourself and the country. One, you will not be able to fulfil the demands of that office. Two, you will deny those who are supposed to benefit from that office, what they are entitled to.”
The House spokesman noted that what Sanusi said was in the interest of the North and any other region where the issues he raised were.
He said, “The benefit of what the Emir is suggesting, to be sincere, is for the growth of the geopolitical zones in the North. I fully agree with him that the net gift we can give to any underdeveloped or undeveloped region in this country is education.
“Equip yourself in a way that you will be competent to rub shoulders anywhere in the world because of your qualifications; not just your certificate but that you know what you are talking about. We should not be local champions, depending on all the opportunities available. He is trying to raise great minds that will be able to walk outside, and I agree with him.”
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.
