Headlines
Tinubu Challenges Lawsuit Seeking His Impeachment
President Bola Tinubu has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a lawsuit demanding his impeachment over alleged human rights violations, arguing that the National Assembly (NASS) cannot be compelled to act on such claims.
The case, filed by legal practitioner Olukoya Ogungbeje, is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1334/2024 and names the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) as a co-defendant.
Ogungbeje is seeking six key reliefs from the court, including a declaration that the alleged suppression of peaceful protests by President Tinubu’s administration constitutes an impeachable offense. He cited incidents between August 1 and 10, 2024, where the government allegedly clamped down on peaceful demonstrators across the country, describing it as a violation of democratic principles.
He further argued that Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, empowers the National Assembly to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president for gross misconduct.
In response, President Tinubu and the Attorney-General, through their legal team led by Sanusi Musa (SAN) filed a preliminary objection challenging the case.
The defendants contended that Ogungbeje lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to bring the case forward, as he was not directly affected by any alleged rights violation.
They urged the court to dismiss the suit for being incompetent, arguing that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. Additionally, they challenged the court’s jurisdiction, asserting that the case was not filed under the appropriate legal procedure.
The legal team outlined 18 reasons the case should be struck out, emphasizing that the plaintiff did not identify any specific individuals whose rights were violated. They maintained that under Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution, only a person whose rights have been breached can seek legal redress.
Supporting Tinubu’s position, a counter-affidavit was deposed by Gbemiga Oladimeji, a principal state counsel in the Federal Ministry of Justice. He dismissed the plaintiff’s allegations, insisting that the Tinubu administration has been committed to upholding democratic rights, including peaceful protests.
“I know for a fact that the protest conducted between August 1 and August 10, 2024, was peaceful, as there was a court order limiting the protesters to demonstrate within a confined location,” Oladimeji stated.
He further argued that security agencies were present not to suppress protesters but to prevent hoodlums from hijacking the demonstrations.
“The 1st defendant (President Tinubu) has always ensured that law and order are strictly maintained by security agencies and government institutions,” he added.
Dismissing claims of misconduct, Oladimeji stated: “Contrary to the deposition in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, I know as a fact that the 1st defendant has not violated any provision of his oath of office and allegiance. There has been no breach on his part that would warrant his impeachment from office as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Following these submissions, Justice James Omotosho adjourned the case to March 4, 2025, allowing the plaintiff’s counsel, Stanley Okonmah, time to respond to the preliminary objection filed by President Tinubu and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The ruling on that day will determine whether the case proceeds or is dismissed outright.
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.
