Headlines
We Will Not Place Travel Restriction on High-Risk Countries over Coronavirus – FG
While many countries are placing travel restrictions to combat the spread of Covid-19, Nigeria has insisted it would not be banning any legitimate traveller from entering the country.
The minister of state for health, Olorunnimbe Mamora, said on Monday in Abuja that Nigeria still has no plans on restricting any country’s nationals from entering the country.
Instead, the country would be intensifying screening on passengers from eight countries – China, Iran, South Korea, Italy, Germany, Japan, France, and Spain.
Mr Mamora, while giving the national update on the status of the disease in the country, said these eight countries have been highlighted as countries with high risk of widespread community transmission and screening would be intensified on passengers from these countries.
The U.S. and UK, despite having high ongoing transmission and cases, are not part of the countries earmarked for intensive passengers screening.
As at the time of reporting, the U.S. ranks eighth on the table of countries with the highest number of confirmed cases with 3,802 confirmed cases while the UK ranks 10th with 1,391 confirmed cases following Switzerland.
Meanwhile, Japan which is on the list for intensive passengers screening to Nigeria, ranks 17th with 840 confirmed cases.
Mr Mamora said “despite the fact that we have not recorded a confirmed Covid-19 case in the last one week in Nigeria, it is important to remember that we are still at high risk like other countries.
“We have carried out a review of our case definition after the disease was declared pandemic and added three countries to the existing list of five high risk countries with widespread community transmission.”
Although 24 countries including the U.S, Ghana Angola, Australia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Peru among others have placed some restrictions on travellers due to Covid-19, Nigeria will not be following suit any time soon.
Mr Mamora explained that countries have the right to make policies that suit their situation in combating the Covid-19.
He said “each country will be in position to know when to put restrictions in place in relationship with the situation on ground.
Responding to why the UK is not on the list for intensive passengers screening, he said “We are monitoring situations and it is dynamic and we will do so when necessary.”
He added that passengers from these eight countries will undertake secondary screening at the point of entry and also advised to self-isolate on entry.
While transmission of the disease has remained high globally, Nigeria has so far recorded only two cases of the disease.
The index case, an Italian who had flown into the country for business and the second one of the people who have been in contact with the index case.
While suspected cases are being reported periodically, Mr Mamora said there is yet to be a new case from any of the suspected cases.
The last being a case from Enugu over the weekend and was tested negative.
Meanwhile, he said the contact case from the index case is well and released to go back into the community.
Mr Mamora said the index case is still however being observed as the viral load of the virus is yet to be at zero significant level.
He said the Italian would be under observation until that is achieved but he is clinically stable and responding to treatment.
Mamora said a total of 48 people who had met the case definition of the disease has so far been tested in eight states – Lagos, Ogun, Edo, Enugu, FCT, Rivers Kano, Yobe – out of which 47 tested negative and have been cleared, one positive (contact of index case) and one result still pending. There has been no death so far.
Since the onset of the outbreak in Wuhan in December, cases of the virus have spread across all the continent except Antarctica.
As of Monday, over 170,500 cases have been reported in 156 countries with over 6,500 deaths.
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.
