— Says Electoral Umpire Must Demonstrate Impartiality, Not Selective Outrage

By Ogechi Nwachukwu

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has questioned the apparent inconsistency in the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) response to threats of electoral violence, following its condemnation of the “rig and die” slogan ahead of the 2027 general elections.

In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party recalled the widely reported remarks attributed to Edo State APC Chairman, Jarrett Tenebe, threatening the use of AK-47 rifles against those who refuse to vote for President Bola Tinubu.

“Why has INEC found its voice to condemn ‘rig and die’ but remained conspicuously silent on the threat by an APC chairman to use AK-47 rifles against opposition voters? Is a slogan more dangerous than a gun? Or does the identity of the person making the threat determine what INEC considers electoral violence?

“If INEC is concerned about the language of those warning against electoral rigging, should it not be even more concerned when a political party official threatens voters with AK-47 rifles? Has INEC referred the matter to security agencies? If not, why not?”

The ADC said the Commission’s latest intervention is appropriate, but it must not give the impression that it is only concerned when the ruling party is at the receiving end.
The party maintained that it rejects electoral violence in all forms, whether threatened by opposition supporters or officials of the ruling party.

“However, INEC cannot demand peaceful elections without demonstrating equal concern for those threatened with violence. Its responsibility is not merely to condemn inflammatory language, but to demand an environment that permits every Nigerian to vote freely.”

I have read again Okoi Obono-Obla’s second article on the ADC leadership dispute, and I consider it an elaborate but fundamentally misleading attempt to portray Senator David Mark’s alleged failure to tender certain documents at trial as an insurmountable legal obstacle on appeal. The central weakness in this argument is its suggestion that whatever a trial court has decided must remain undisturbed simply because a party did not tender additional documents. That is not the law. The Court of Appeal is not a sanctuary for erroneous findings, nor is a trial judgment an untouchable judicial monument. Its constitutional duty is to examine the record, identify errors of law or fact, and correct them where the interests of justice demand.

The distinction Obono-Obla appears unwilling to acknowledge is the distinction between introducing fresh evidence on appeal and challenging the legal correctness of findings already made on the evidence before the trial court. Senator Mark does not necessarily have to introduce new documents to demonstrate that the trial judge misapplied the law, misunderstood the evidence, ignored material facts, or reached conclusions that are unsupported by the record. Under Section 240 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the Federal High Court. That jurisdiction is not ceremonial. It exists precisely because trial courts, like all human institutions, can err.

An appellate court will ordinarily accord due respect to findings of fact made by a trial court, particularly where those findings depend on the assessment of witnesses. But that deference is not absolute. Where the findings are perverse, unsupported by the evidence, inconsistent with established facts, or founded on a wrong application of the law, the appellate court is entitled to intervene. The question is not whether a party can produce a fresh document to replace every document allegedly omitted at trial; it is whether the decision under appeal can withstand scrutiny on the evidence and law already before the court.

The rules governing fresh evidence on appeal must not be confused with the appellate court’s power to review the record. Order 4 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021 regulates the reception of additional evidence in appropriate circumstances. It does not prohibit the Court of Appeal from evaluating the evidence already admitted, correcting legal misdirections, or setting aside findings that cannot reasonably be sustained. Obono-Obla’s argument collapses these distinct principles into one, thereby creating a procedural obstacle that the law itself does not impose.

The same overstatement runs through his insistence that the absence of a membership card, Ward register or payment receipt necessarily establishes that Mark was not a member of the ADC. That is an unduly restrictive approach to the law of evidence. Sections 131–136 of the Evidence Act 2011 deal with the burden and standard of proof; they do not prescribe that membership of a political party can only be established by one particular document, irrespective of other admissible evidence. The court must examine the totality of the evidence, including the conduct of the parties, the decisions of the competent organs of the party, the circumstances of admission and any formal recognition of membership.

More importantly, the argument ignores the party’s own decisions concerning the admission and eligibility of coalition members. On 2 July 2025, Chief Ralph Okey Nwosu, then former National Chairman of the ADC, formally presented the party’s membership card to Senator David Mark at the public event at the Yar Adua Center Abuja, where Mark was announced as the would be interim National Chairman after the 29 July 2025 NEC ratification. That was not an act performed by a stranger to the party or an unauthorised political interloper. It was a formal act of the then party leadership. Channels Television reported the presentation of the membership cards to Mark and Rauf Aregbesola on that date.

There is an additional constitutional fact that Obono-Obla’s argument cannot simply wish away. At the ADC’s 97th National Executive Committee meeting held on 27 March 2025, the party reportedly resolved to waive the two-year membership eligibility provisions contained in Articles 9.3(1), 9.3(2), 9.3(3) and 9.4(1) of the applicable party constitution, which restricted the eligibility of new members to hold party positions or contest elections. The resolution was reportedly moved by the then National Legal Adviser, passed by the NEC, observed by INEC officials and communicated to the Commission on 3 April 2025, with acknowledgement on 4 April 2025. The distinction is important: this was the 97th NEC. The 98th NEC meeting of 15 May 2025 also dealt with matters, including the suspension of Article 23(4) and the reaffirmation of the mandate given to the National Chairman and NWC to engage coalition stakeholders and finalize all articles of agreement for the adoption of ADC as the official coalition platform.

The legal significance is straightforward. If the competent organ of the party validly exercised its constitutional authority to waive the two-year eligibility restriction for incoming coalition members, that restriction cannot subsequently be deployed as though the waiver never existed. Mark’s formal admission and presentation with a membership card must be considered alongside the NEC resolution and the circumstances in which the party received the coalition. The waiver, is not been exaggerated into an automatic removal of every post membership-admission requirements under the Constitution; but neither can it be ignored when determining whether the two-year eligibility rule disqualified Mark from participating in the party’s leadership arrangements.

One cannot invoke a constitutional requirement while suppressing a validly adopted constitutional waiver of that very requirement. That is not fidelity to a party constitution; it is selective reliance on its provisions to manufacture a disqualification which the party’s competent organ had resolved to remove. The proper judicial question is whether the waiver was validly adopted, whether it covered the relevant coalition members and whether it applied to the circumstances of Mark’s admission. Those questions must be answered from the applicable constitution, the NEC resolution and the evidence—not by treating the absence of one particular receipt or register entry as conclusive proof of non-membership.

The fact that the party’s constitution may prescribe procedures for membership registration does not mean that every other form of admissible evidence becomes legally irrelevant. Nor does it permit a court to disregard formal recognition by the party leadership, a membership card issued by the party, or a duly adopted resolution addressing eligibility. The evidential value of each item must be assessed in context. The court must not substitute a rigid documentary checklist for the statutory duty to evaluate the totality of the evidence.

Another weakness in Obono-Obla’s reasoning concerns the significance of Nafiu Bala Gombe’s conduct at the material meetings. If, as the evidence before the court is said to show, Bala was present when the outgoing National Chairman announced the transition, participated in the relevant deliberations, applauded the proposed arrangement and raised no objection at the time, those circumstances are not legally meaningless. They are materially relevant to acquiescence, acceptance by conduct, waiver and estoppel, depending on the precise facts established by the record. A litigant cannot always approbate and reprobate—accept an arrangement when it suits him and later repudiate the same arrangement when political circumstances change.

The principle of estoppel is not a decorative phrase to be invoked casually; it is a substantive rule designed to prevent a party from asserting a position inconsistent with one he previously adopted, where the legal requirements for its application are satisfied. In Fadiora v. Gbadebo (1978) 3 SC 219 , the Supreme Court considered the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam and the importance of finality in litigation. The broader point is that the court must examine the parties’ previous positions, conduct and the legal consequences that may flow from them. Bala’s participation and conduct, as established by the record, deserve judicial evaluation rather than convenient dismissal.

The argument surrounding the earlier proceedings before Justice Liman also requires a more disciplined analysis. The mere fact that two cases concern the ADC leadership crisis does not automatically make their causes of action, issues for determination, parties or reliefs identical. Equally, it does not mean that a subsequent court is free to disregard a prior judgment where the requirements of issue estoppel or res judicata are established. The relevant inquiry is whether the issue was directly and substantially in dispute, whether it was finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, and whether the parties or their privies satisfy the applicable legal requirements. The doctrine cannot be applied by slogans; neither can it be avoided by simply changing the language of a claim.

The relationship between Leke Abejide and Nafiu Bala Gombe, and the question whether one was a privy of the other for the purpose of the earlier proceedings, must therefore be examined against the pleadings, parties, issues and actual decision in the Liman case. If the necessary identity and privity are established, the legal consequences of the earlier judgment cannot be brushed aside. If they are not, the mere similarity of subject matter will not manufacture an estoppel. That is the proper legal analysis, not the simplistic assertion that Justice Lifu was automatically bound, or automatically free, without examining the precise issues and parties before both courts.

There is also the question of INEC’s role under Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022. The statutory requirement for notice and the Commission’s monitoring of party activities must be considered in their proper legal context. INEC’s presence or acknowledgement of a communication does not, by itself, prove that every internal party decision was validly taken. But neither should evidence of notice, monitoring and communication be treated as irrelevant. The court must determine what the statute requires, what was done, what the documentary record establishes and whether any alleged procedural defect was proved. The law demands evidence-based conclusions, not assumptions constructed to favour one faction.

On the disputed signature and the allegation surrounding Exhibit ADC-1, the same evidential discipline applies. Section 168 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides for certain presumptions of regularity, including in relation to official acts, where the statutory conditions are met. The presumption is rebuttable; it is not a licence to authenticate every disputed document without scrutiny. But where a document emanates from an official party process and it is certified by the electoral management body as a certified true copy, its provenance, custody, execution and surrounding circumstances must be evaluated before a court rejects it. A bare denial is relevant, but it does not automatically extinguish every evidential consideration surrounding the document. The court must determine the evidential effect of the denial, the burden of proof, the surrounding circumstances and any corroborative material on the record to prove it is not true.

Ultimately, Obono-Obla’s article places excessive emphasis on what Mark allegedly failed to tender and insufficient emphasis on what the trial court was required to evaluate. It treats the absence of supposedly selected documents as though it were conclusive, while overlooking the legal relevance of party resolutions, formal acts of party leadership, membership recognition, conduct of the parties, statutory notices and the possibility of error in the trial court’s evaluation of evidence. That is not a balanced account of appellate law.

The Court of Appeal is not being asked to conduct a political popularity contest. It is being asked to determine whether the decision under appeal is legally sustainable. It must examine the record, the applicable provisions of the ADC Constitution, the Electoral Act, the Evidence Act and the binding authorities of the superior courts. If the trial court failed to consider material evidence, applied the wrong legal test, misunderstood the effect of a constitutional waiver or reached findings unsupported by the record, the appellate court has both the jurisdiction and the duty to correct the error.

The real issue, therefore, is not whether Senator David Mark can now produce every document Obono-Obla says was missing at trial. The real issue is whether the judgment can survive a proper appellate examination of the evidence and the law. No amount of elaborate advocacy can convert an erroneous finding into an infallible one, and no trial judgment is insulated from correction merely because counsel can construct a lengthy argument around documents allegedly not tendered.

The appellate court must decide the matter according to law, not according to the confidence with which one side presents its narrative. That is the essence of appellate justice.

Alex Ter Adum, PhD

DDG THE NARRATIVE FORCE

President Bola Tinubu’s wife, Sen. Oluremi Tinubu, has sent N25 million in cash support to 500 women entrepreneurs in Ebonyi state to strengthen their businesses.

Each of the beneficiaries received N50,000 and a wrapper at an empowerment rally and stakeholders’ engagement organised on Monday by the Women’s Mobilisation Directorate of the 2027 All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council in Abakaliki.

The Minister of Women Affairs and Social Development, Mrs Imaan Sulaiman-Ibrahim, who was part of the delegation, said the financial support was an additional intervention by Mrs Tinubu to help women expand their businesses.

Sulaiman-Ibrahim disclosed that the delegation had earlier visited the Alex Ekwueme Federal University Teaching Hospital, Abakaliki, where it conducted a medical outreach for pregnant women and nursing mothers.

She described the engagement as part of the periodic outreach programmes aimed at supporting vulnerable women and addressing issues affecting families.

“It is a periodic stakeholders’ engagement. We do this to support indigent women,” she said.

The minister said President Bola Tinubu had prioritised women, children and social development as key areas of his administration’s policies.

She expressed confidence that the Federal government would continue to improve the welfare of Nigerian women.

She urged the beneficiaries and other women to sustain their support for the President, adding that the administration was committed to giving governance a human face.

Also speaking, the Director ‘One’, women’s wobilisation directorate of the 2027 APC presidential campaign council, Mrs Bertha Edu, described the intervention as a continuation of the First Lady’s various empowerment initiatives.

Edu urged women and youths to participate actively in the electoral process and support President Tinubu’s re-election bid.

The Senior Special Assistant to the President on Community Engagement for the South-East, Mrs Chioma Nweze, commended Mrs Tinubu for extending additional financial assistance to women, particularly ahead of the festive season.

Nweze described women as nation builders and encouraged them to mobilise support for the President.

She urged eligible voters to turn out on election day to exercise their civic responsibility.

“Do not sit at home, come out on the day of election. Just check where we were before, and now,” she said.

In their separate remarks, the state Commissioner for Special Projects and Consultant on Women Mobilisation in Ezza Nation, Mrs Ngozi Obichukwu, and herAgriculture counterpart, Mrs Chinyere Iyioku, said women across the state were mobilising to support President Tinubu and Gov. Francis Nwifuru.

They expressed confidence that women stakeholders across the local government areas would participate actively in the political mobilisation ahead of the 2027 elections.

“Female stakeholders in the local government areas are mobilising because this is payback time,” they said.

Speaking on behalf of the beneficiaries, Mrs Mary Chukwu and Mrs Chinyere Linus expressed gratitude to the President and his wife for the financial support and hoped the intervention would help improve their economic conditions.

They described the gesture as significant, noting that it was the first time they had ever received such assistance from the government.

The Chairman, Nigerian Legion, Lagos State council, Mr Akeem Wolimoh on Monday debunked allegations of a protest that took place at the Nigerian Legion office in Lagos last week Monday.

Wolimoh said that contrary to a report circulating online by peopleandpowermag.com, misinformed members of the legion only came to seek clarification of credentials regarding the elections for the Lagos state chapter of the legion.

“There was never any protest. What we had on November 2nd, 2026, was a gathering of some misinformed veterans in Lagos state that there was going to be verification of credentials of service documents at the Nigerian Legion Lagos office.

“The source of that misinformation came from a retired warrant officer and ex-service man, Philip Adedokun who is contesting against me for the position of chairman.

“So, he’s the one that misinformed the veteran community that there was going to be a verification exercise of service documents and later labeled it a protest,” the chairman said.

Wolimoh said that such directive to organise a verification exercise could only come from the national chairman based in Abuja to which Adedokun would not be privy to because he was not an executive of the council.

“So, when I heard about the gathering, I rushed down to the office to address our members and set the record straight regarding the misinformation.

“I had to put a call to the national chairman on the spot who clarified the air on the matter that she never directed for a verification exercise to hold on that date,” he said.

The chairman said that Adedokun went as far as slandering his name saying that he had misused funds generated from the sale of emblems and that he was not eligible to contest again having spent eight years in office.

“To set the record straight, every money that has been redeemed from the sale of emblems and other income generated has been put before the executives of the council to be delibeated on how such money should be used.

“Making such an allegation without substantial proof is a dangerous path that is not worth going down because of an ambition to become the chairman of the state chapter,” he said.

Wolimoh said that he was elected into office in 2022 and that having spent four years in office, has every right to recontest the position of chairmanship as stipulated in the Nigerian Legion Act, in the coming elections.

“Adedokun wrote a petition against me claiming that I had spent eight years in office as chairman and did not want to step down for others having elapsed my tenure.

“I have only spent four years in office as state chairman, so, I am eligible to contest and will be contesting again,” he said.

According to the chairman, elections for the Nigerian Legion, Lagos State council was supposed to hold on Monday, Nov.9 but due to some technicalities, had been postponed to a later date to be communicated in future.

Wolimoh said that the purpose for which the legion was established was to foster comradeship among ex-servicemen and to promote the welfare of veterans and their families.

“So, anything that can jeopardise this purpose or lead comrades to fall into conflict among ourselves should be avoided.

“There is no need for us to fight ourselves for any reason because if you fight a leader of an organisation today because you want to be a leader, then you should be expected to be fought when you become a leader.

“And when that trend continues, then that organisation will never can never stand the test of time,” the chairman said.

He urged registered members to acquaint themselves with the Act and participate in the activity of the Nigerian Legion in their respective area councils so that they could be qualified to participate in other activities.

Comrade Adewale Akodu has emerged the new chairman of the Nigeria Union of Journalist (NUJ), Lagos State Council.

Akodu took over the leadership after winning the council election, held on Monday, 9 November 2026, at the NUJ Secretariat, Iyala Street, Alausa Ikeja, Lagos, which saw all other positions contested unopposed.

Philip Nwosu returned as Vice Chairman, as Olayide Awosanya emerged Secretary, Gboyega Oni as Assistant Secretary, Adeola Akindele as Treasurer, and Oluwakemi Ishola Financial Secretary.

The election was conducted in the presence of the Permanent Secretary, Lagos State Ministry of Information and Strategy, Mr Olatunbosun Ogunbanwo; Deputy National President of the NUJ, Mrs Abimbola Oyetunde; former national presidents of the Nigeria Association of Women Journalists (NAWOJ), Mrs Toro Oladapo and Hajia Ifeanyiwa Omowole; Vice Chairman, Zone B, Mrs Ronke Samo; NUJ elders and leaders.

Others present include, Chairman of NAWOJ Lagos, Comrade Jumoke Johnson; immediate past Chairman of NUJ Lagos State Council, Comrade Adeleye Ajayi; immediate past Secretary, Comrade Tunde Olalere; and other members of the immediate past executive, alongside delegates and journalists.

In his acceptance speech, Akodu, expressed gratitude and humility for the mandate entrusted to him as Chairman of the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ), Lagos State Council, describing his victory as a collective achievement.

The new chairman, shortly after his inauguration, said his administration would be driven by three major pillars: welfarism, professionalism and capacity building.

He promised practical initiatives to improve journalists’ working conditions, strengthen ethical journalism and equip members with relevant skills to thrive in an increasingly competitive and technology-driven media industry.

He also pledged to intensify engagement with media owners and employers to ensure regular and timely salary payments, better remuneration, improved working conditions and respect for journalists’ professional rights.

Akodu stressed that his administration would defend members whenever their welfare, dignity or professional integrity was threatened.

The new chairman promised an inclusive and united Council, assuring members of transparency, accountability, fairness, consultation and an open-door leadership approach.

He called on journalists across chapels and affiliations to put their differences aside and work collectively for the progress of the Union.

Akodu further promised to strengthen relationships with the NUJ National Secretariat, sister state councils, individual chapels and relevant stakeholders, while positioning Lagos NUJ as a credible and influential voice in the media industry.

Acknowledging the challenges ahead, he urged his fellow contestants and supporters of other candidates to join hands with his administration, insisting that electoral differences should not destroy the professional bond among members.

“The campaign is over; the task of building a stronger Union has just begun,” he said, describing leadership as a responsibility to serve rather than a personal victory.

He also called on past leaders, elders, chapel executives, senior journalists and young practitioners to contribute their experience and ideas towards building a stronger Union.

The ceremony was attended by the Permanent Secretary, Lagos State Ministry of Information and Strategy, Mr Olatunbosun Ogunbanwo; NUJ Deputy National President, Mrs Abimbola Oyetunde; former NAWOJ National Presidents, Mrs Toro Oladapo and Hajia Ifeanyiwa Omowole; NUJ Zone B Vice Chairman, Mrs Ronke Samo; NAWOJ Lagos Chairman, Comrade Jumoke Johnson; and immediate past NUJ Lagos Chairman, Comrade Adeleye Ajayi.

Also present were the immediate past Secretary, Comrade Tunde Olalere, members of the outgoing executive, NUJ elders, leaders, delegates and other journalists.

Akodu concluded by urging members to support the new executive, stressing that the success of his administration would depend on their collective commitment to building a Union where journalists are respected, their welfare protected, their professional skills strengthened and their voices heard.

A Rejoinder to Olukayode Ajulo’s intervention on Festus Adedayo’s article, “Atiku, Tinubu, Justice Lifu and the Death of Àà tíí gbọ́?”

By Alex Ter Adum, PhD

Olukayode Ajulo’s intervention, presented as a defence of intellectual honesty, constitutionalism and judicial independence, is itself a selective interpretation of the facts. While invoking the respectable principles of judicial independence, presumption of regularity and the distinction between separate proceedings, he conveniently avoids the most troubling questions arising from the ADC litigation.

His central argument is that Justice Peter Lifu’s judgment must be understood independently of Justice Musa Liman’s earlier judgment because the two proceedings were different suits. He further argues that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court possesses administrative discretion to assign cases and that allegations of presidential interference cannot be sustained by political suspicion.

These arguments are attractive in their abstract formulation. Unfortunately, they do not adequately address the actual circumstances of this controversy.

The issue is not whether different suits can arise from the same subject matter. Of course, they can. The issue is whether a litigant can circumvent an existing judicial determination by commencing another proceeding, potentially through a different claimant, seeking to reopen questions already determined between the same parties or their privies, and whether another judge of coordinate jurisdiction can make orders that effectively undermine an existing judgment without confronting its legal consequences.

Ajulo has not satisfactorily answered that question.

DIFFERENT SUITS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXTINGUISH THE EFFECT OF AN EARLIER JUDGMENT

Let us examine the argument about Justice Liman and Justice Lifu.

Justice Liman delivered judgment on 2 July 2026 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1637/2025, involving Hon. Leke Abejide and the ADC leadership dispute.

Justice Lifu subsequently delivered judgment on 5 November 2026 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe.

Ajulo appears to believe that identifying different suit numbers and different originating claimants sufficiently disposes of the controversy.

That is an incomplete statement of the law.

The doctrine of res judicata requires examination of the identity of parties or their privies, the subject matter, the issues determined, the finality of the earlier decision and the competence of the court that delivered it. Issue estoppel similarly prevents the re-litigation of an issue conclusively determined between the same parties or their privies.

The Supreme Court explained these principles in Fadiora v. Gbadebo (1978) 3 SC 219 and Ben Ikpang v. Chief Sam Edoho (1978) 2 LRN 152.

The critical question is therefore not simply whether the two suits have different numbers or were instituted by different individuals. It is whether the parties were litigating in the same capacity, whether there was a representative or privy relationship, and whether the material questions and rights determined in the earlier proceedings were being reopened in the subsequent proceedings.

Indeed, in the circumstances of the ADC dispute, the relationship between the litigants cannot be examined merely by looking at the names appearing on the originating processes.

The political and representative relationship between the claimants, the leadership factions and the interests they advanced must also be examined. Where the evidence establishes that individuals were acting together, advancing the same interests and litigating in a representative capacity, the law does not permit the doctrine of privity to be defeated by changing the name on the originating summons.

It is equally important to distinguish between cause-of-action estoppel and issue estoppel. The fact that the causes of action are differently formulated does not necessarily mean that every issue determined in the earlier proceedings is available for reconsideration.

Consequently, Ajulo’s argument that the proceedings were different does not answer the question of whether the earlier judgment created an estoppel or whether the subsequent judgment contradicted an existing judicial determination.

There is, however, an important qualification. A judgment of a court of coordinate jurisdiction is not binding on another judge as a precedent in the same way that a decision of the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court is binding. Nor does every earlier judgment concerning the same subject matter automatically create res judicata.

But where the earlier judgment has established rights or conclusively determined issues between the same parties or their privies, its estoppel effect cannot simply be ignored.

The distinction is fundamental. And Ajulo missed that or conveniently ignored it.

WAS JUSTICE LIFU REQUIRED TO CONFRONT THE LIMAN JUDGMENT?
This is where Ajulo’s analysis becomes particularly inadequate.

The fact that Justice Liman’s judgment was delivered in a different suit does not make it legally irrelevant.

It is true that a court does not automatically take judicial notice of every judgment delivered by another court. A party relying on a previous judgment as constituting res judicata or issue estoppel must properly raise the plea, plead the relevant facts and place the judgment and necessary proceedings before the court.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Michael Ezenwa v. I.O. Olalekan Kareem (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 138) 258 illustrates the importance of properly placing the earlier proceedings and judgment before the trial court.

But this procedural requirement does not confer permission on a subsequent judge to disregard a judgment that has properly been brought to his attention.

Once the earlier judgment is properly placed before the court, the judge must examine its legal effect. He may distinguish it, find that the parties or issues are different, determine that the requirements of estoppel have not been established, or explain why the subsequent proceedings raise genuinely distinct questions.

What he cannot properly do is proceed as though the earlier judgment does not exist when its legal consequences have been squarely raised.

This is precisely the distinction Ajulo avoids.

The complaint is not simply that Justice Lifu was required to adopt Justice Liman’s reasoning. It is that he was required to confront the legal implications of an existing judgment concerning the same ADC leadership controversy before making consequential orders capable of overturning the established administrative and political position of the party.

The distinction between not being bound by another judge’s reasoning as precedent and being bound to respect the legal consequences of an existing judgment is not a matter of semantics. It is central to the administration of justice.

Ajulo should address that distinction rather than hide behind the different suit numbers.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION OF THE CHIEF JUDGE IS NOT AN ANSWER TO A PATTERN OF QUESTIONABLE CASE ASSIGNMENTS

Ajulo’s defence of the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, is perhaps the most revealing part of his intervention.

He argues that the Chief Judge has administrative responsibilities, including the assignment and reassignment of cases, and that the exercise of such responsibilities does not establish ulterior motives.

Nobody disputes that proposition.

The Chief Judge has legitimate administrative powers. But administrative discretion is not an unrestricted licence. It must be exercised lawfully, transparently, consistently and in accordance with the institutional obligations of judicial independence and impartiality.

The relevant question is whether those powers were exercised in a manner that inspires public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.

In the ADC controversy, the circumstances surrounding the reassignment of Nafiu Bala’s case from Justice Emeka Nwite to Justice Peter Lifu deserve serious scrutiny.

The case had originally been before Justice Nwite. Following an interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court, on 30 April 2026, remitted the proceedings to the Federal High Court for continuation and accelerated determination.

When the case returned, Justice Nwite adjourned proceedings while issues surrounding a request for reassignment and the production of the Supreme Court’s certified judgment were being addressed.

Thereafter, the Chief Judge reassigned the matter to Justice Lifu.

This reassignment generated formal complaints and litigation. ADC National Welfare Secretary Nkemakolam Ukandu instituted Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1165/2026, challenging the administrative handling of the matter and seeking an investigation by the National Judicial Council.

The question raised was not whether the Chief Judge possessed administrative powers in the abstract. It was whether those powers were exercised consistently with the circumstances of the Supreme Court’s remittal, the proceedings before Justice Nwite and the legitimate expectations of the parties.

Ajulo simply tells us that the Chief Judge had discretion.

That is not an answer to the complaint.

A discretion can exist and still be exercised improperly. An administrative decision can be formally within the powers of an officeholder and nevertheless raise legitimate questions about its propriety, transparency and fairness.

The fact that Justice Nwite was subsequently elevated to the Court of Appeal is also relevant to the administrative explanation for redistribution. It does not, however, extinguish the need to examine the circumstances, sequence and manner of reassignment. Because as it is today, even after the elevation, Justice Emeka Nwite is still presiding over cases at the Federal High Court because he is yet to be sworn in as a justice of the Court of Appeal. So while elevation is a plausible answer, the reality is that it does not provide a satisfactory answer.

THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE ASSIGNMENT OF POLITICAL CASES ARE NOT INVENTED

There have been recurring complaints from political parties and litigants concerning the handling and assignment of politically consequential proceedings within the Abuja division of the Federal High Court.

The names of Justices Peter Lifu, Emeka Nwite and Joyce Abdulmalik have featured in different controversies involving opposition political parties and their internal disputes.

The PDP, for instance, publicly complained that its earlier concerns about the impartiality of certain judges had not been given adequate consideration when a case involving its leadership and secretariat was assigned to Justice Joyce Abdulmalik. The party subsequently announced its withdrawal of a case and referred to an earlier complaint to the Chief Judge and an application for recusal.

Similarly, the ADC’s complaints concerning Justice Lifu and the reassignment of the Nafiu Bala proceedings were formally taken beyond public commentary into petitions and court processes.

These complaints do not, by themselves, establish that any judge is corrupt or that the Chief Judge deliberately assigns cases to achieve predetermined political outcomes.

But they are relevant to the question of institutional confidence.

Ajulo’s mistake is to treat each complaint as an isolated political grievance and then use the general existence of administrative discretion to dismiss the cumulative concern.

That is not a serious institutional assessment.

Where complaints recur, where different political parties raise questions about judicial impartiality, and where politically sensitive cases repeatedly become the subject of controversy surrounding their assignment and handling, the proper response is institutional transparency, not rhetorical dismissal.

The judiciary must not only be independent. It must be seen to be independent.

A judicial institution that insists on public confidence cannot simultaneously demand that citizens ignore every circumstance capable of reasonably undermining that confidence.

JUSTICE LIFU’S PREVIOUS APPELLATE HISTORY CANNOT BE ERASED FROM THIS DISCUSSION

Ajulo’s attempt to portray criticism of Justice Lifu as an assault on judicial independence is particularly difficult to reconcile with the public record of appellate criticism of the judge.

Consider the proceedings concerning the attempted deregistration of the ADC, Action Peoples Party, Action Alliance, Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party.

Justice Lifu delivered judgment directing the deregistration of the affected political parties.

The parties appealed. The Court of Appeal subsequently intervened, first staying the execution of the judgment and later setting aside the deregistration decision.

More significantly, the Court of Appeal criticised Justice Lifu for proceeding with the matter despite an earlier order directing a stay of proceedings.

The appellate court described his conduct as a form of judicial impertinence and referred to judicial rascality, invoking the established principle that a judicial officer who deliberately disregards a superior court’s order is unfit for the bench.

These were not insults manufactured by political commentators. They were expressions contained in the appellate court’s judicial assessment of his conduct.

The distinction matters.

Nobody is suggesting that every judgment subsequently overturned on appeal establishes judicial misconduct. Appellate courts routinely correct errors made by trial courts.

But where an appellate court expressly condemns a judge’s conduct for disregarding a subsisting order of a superior court, that judicial history becomes relevant when evaluating subsequent concerns about the same judge’s handling of politically consequential proceedings.

Ajulo cannot demand that citizens forget this history in the name of judicial independence.

Judicial independence protects judges from improper interference. It does not confer immunity from legitimate scrutiny of their judicial conduct.

Indeed, the independence of the judiciary is strengthened, not weakened, when judges are held accountable to the hierarchy of courts and the constitutional discipline governing judicial office.

THE RECUSAL APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS WERE NOT IMAGINARY POLITICAL INVENTIONS

Another significant omission in Ajulo’s intervention concerns the formal objections to Justice Lifu’s continued participation in the ADC proceedings.

The ADC and Rauf Aregbesola sought his recusal. Applications were filed requesting that he withdraw from the proceedings and that the matter be returned to the Chief Judge for reassignment.

There were also petitions and complaints directed at the judicial administration, including allegations of bias and concerns about the handling of the proceedings.

Justice Lifu dismissed the recusal applications and imposed fines of ₦500,000 each on the ADC and Aregbesola.

For accuracy, therefore, it would be wrong to say that the applications were never judicially considered. They were considered and dismissed.

But that is not the end of the matter.

The question is whether the circumstances giving rise to the applications were properly addressed and whether the judge’s continued participation was consistent with the objective standard of impartiality.

The law does not require a litigant to establish actual personal animosity before raising a legitimate concern about apparent bias. The question is whether a reasonable and informed observer, considering the relevant circumstances, would apprehend a real possibility of bias.

This is a question of public confidence in the administration of justice, not merely the subjective satisfaction of the judge concerned.

A judge’s refusal to recuse himself does not automatically resolve the underlying question of apparent bias.

Ajulo should therefore explain why the history of complaints, the circumstances of reassignment, the earlier appellate criticism and the subsequent conduct of the proceedings should not be considered cumulatively.

Simply saying that the applications lacked merit because the judge said so is not an adequate answer.

FESTUS ADEDAYO’S SUSPICION ABOUT THE PRESIDENCY HAS A DOCUMENTED POLITICAL CONTEXT

Perhaps the most disingenuous part of Ajulo’s intervention is his suggestion that attributing political responsibility to the Tinubu administration is simply a convenient conspiracy narrative.

Festus Adedayo did not develop his suspicion in a political vacuum.

There is a documented history of public statements and conduct by senior figures within the Tinubu administration that provides context for citizens’ concerns about the destabilisation of opposition parties.

Consider the statement attributed to the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, in April 2026, during an interaction with Hon. Leke Abejide, a prominent participant in the ADC leadership dispute.

Gbajabiamila was captured in a widely circulated video encouraging Abejide to remain in the ADC, fight the opposing faction and scatter it.

The reported words were:

“Stay in that same ADC. Fight them. Scatter them! Hold on to your party, ADC. Do not abandon them. We like what you are doing.”

He also reportedly encouraged Abejide to bring Bala Gombe into the arrangement and assured him of support, adding, “Good luck in court.”

Let us pause and consider the significance of those remarks.

The Chief of Staff to the President is not an ordinary partisan commentator. He is a senior official within the Presidency, occupying an office at the centre of the President’s political and administrative machinery.

When such an official publicly encourages one faction in an opposition party to remain inside the party, fight its rival, scatter the opposing structure and pursue the matter in court, Nigerians are entitled to ask what precisely the Presidency means by its support.

Is this the language of a neutral government committed to protecting multiparty democracy, or the language of a political establishment actively interested in the internal destabilisation of an opposition party?

Ajulo cannot reasonably dismiss the concern as a conspiracy theory without addressing this public record.

The controversy was sufficiently serious to attract public condemnation from former APC Deputy National Publicity Secretary Timi Frank and other political actors.

The ADC National Legislators Forum also publicly raised concerns about the implications of the Chief of Staff’s reported remarks.

These are verifiable political developments, not inventions of Festus Adedayo.

THE REMARKS OF FESTUS KEYAMO AND NYESOM WIKE REINFORCE THE CONCERNS

The Chief of Staff’s remarks are not the only reason citizens have become suspicious of the political environment surrounding the opposition.

Consider the public statements of the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo, following Justice Lifu’s judgment.

Keyamo publicly declared that the ADC would be on the ballot but that the candidates produced by the David Mark-led faction, including Atiku Abubakar, might not be.

He subsequently argued that there was nothing inherently wrong with the possibility of Atiku being excluded from the ballot.

Of course, a minister is entitled to express a legal opinion. Keyamo is also a senior lawyer and a prominent APC politician.

But the political significance of his comments cannot be divorced from his position in the administration and the fact that the judgment had just delivered a devastating blow to the opposition party’s electoral structure.

The timing and certainty of the minister’s political interpretation, before the appellate process had run its course, were bound to attract scrutiny.

Then consider the repeated public remarks of the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, concerning the opposition.

Wike has openly declared that Nigeria has no formidable opposition, described the opposition’s political prospects dismissively and stated that his political assignment includes giving Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi political headaches.

In August 2026, he was reported as saying that his job was to give the opposition leaders high blood pressure.

These remarks may be defended as ordinary political banter. But coming from a serving minister, they reinforce the impression of an administration whose leading political figures are openly invested in the weakening of the opposition.

There is also the President’s own political rhetoric.

On 6 November 2026, during his visit to Akwa Ibom State, President Tinubu publicly attacked the political credentials of Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar, questioned Atiku’s defection to the ADC and described the opposition political arrangement in dismissive terms.

A President is entitled to defend his record and criticise his political opponents. That is part of democratic politics.

But a President must also appreciate that the language and conduct of his administration’s senior officials have institutional consequences, particularly when the country is witnessing a series of legal and political developments capable of affecting the ability of opposition parties to participate effectively in an election.

The cumulative effect of these statements cannot simply be wished away.

The issue is not whether any one of these statements independently proves that the President procured Justice Lifu’s judgment. They do not.

The issue is whether they provide a reasonable foundation for public concern about the administration’s attitude towards the opposition and the preservation of competitive multiparty democracy.

The answer is undoubtedly yes.

POLITICAL SUSPICION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A JUDICIAL FINDING OF CONSPIRACY

There is an important distinction that must be maintained.

Festus Adedayo’s argument is fundamentally an assessment of political circumstances, public conduct and the implications of recent developments.

It is not necessary to establish, as a criminal prosecution would require, that President Tinubu personally instructed a judge to deliver a particular judgment before citizens can question whether the overall political environment is hostile to opposition parties.

Political accountability and criminal proof operate at different levels.

A journalist can reasonably identify a pattern of conduct, draw an inference and question its implications without claiming to possess direct evidence of a secret agreement.

Of course, it would be wrong to present presidential orchestration of a judgment as an established fact without evidence.

But it is equally wrong to suggest that political suspicion is devoid of foundation merely because no one has produced a written presidential instruction to a judge.

The public is entitled to evaluate the totality of the circumstances: the remarks of the Chief of Staff, the comments of the FCT Minister, the statements of the Aviation Minister, the President’s own political rhetoric, the sequence of judicial developments and the resulting consequences for the opposition.

Ajulo’s argument effectively demands that citizens compartmentalise every event and refuse to examine the cumulative picture.

That is not intellectual honesty. It is an artificially narrow approach to political accountability.

AJULO’S DEFENCE OF THE PRESIDENCY IS A POLITICAL WHITEWASH DISGUISED AS A LEGAL ASSESSMENT

What is particularly striking about Ajulo’s intervention is its selective application of the presumption of regularity.

He readily invokes that presumption in defence of the Chief Judge’s administrative decisions and Justice Lifu’s judicial conduct.

Yet the same generosity is not extended to the legitimate concerns of opposition politicians and citizens who question the circumstances surrounding those decisions.

He tells us that the Chief Judge should be presumed to have acted regularly because he possesses administrative powers.

He tells us that Justice Lifu should not be criticised because judges are entitled to judicial independence.

He tells us that the Presidency should not be suspected because direct proof of executive interference has not been established.

But what about the people who petitioned the judicial authorities? What about the parties who formally sought recusal? What about the appellate court’s condemnation of Justice Lifu’s earlier conduct? What about the Chief of Staff’s publicly reported encouragement to scatter the ADC? What about the political statements of the FCT Minister and the Aviation Minister?

Why are these facts treated as irrelevant or insufficient even for purposes of reasonable public suspicion?

Ajulo’s intervention is therefore not the neutral constitutional assessment it purports to be.

It is a defence constructed by isolating each troubling development from the larger political and institutional context in which it occurred.

That is the very selectivity he accuses Festus Adedayo of displaying.

THE REAL QUESTION IS THE SURVIVAL OF MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY

Nobody is suggesting that Atiku Abubakar should be exempted from the law because he is a former Vice-President or a presidential aspirant.

Nobody is suggesting that the ADC should be permitted to disregard its constitution or the Electoral Act.

Nobody is arguing that the courts should automatically endorse the decisions of the David Mark-led leadership.

The question is whether the law is being applied consistently and impartially, whether judicial processes are being used to resolve genuine disputes or are producing disproportionate consequences, and whether the political environment is increasingly hostile to the survival of a credible opposition.

The judgment of Justice Lifu did not merely resolve a narrow disagreement about the tenure of an individual party officer. Its consequential orders affected the Mark-led leadership, the party’s internal decisions and the validity of the candidates produced under that leadership, including Atiku Abubakar.

The potential consequences extend to hundreds of other candidates and the democratic choices available to Nigerian voters.

Such a judgment deserves the most rigorous legal and institutional scrutiny.

The right to political participation is not a personal privilege belonging to Atiku. It is a constitutional right enjoyed by Nigerians and political parties within the framework of the Constitution and electoral laws.

A democracy cannot be healthy when the opposition’s ability to organise, contest and present candidates is repeatedly threatened by political manoeuvres, internal factional disputes and judicial decisions with far-reaching consequences.

And it is precisely because the stakes are so high that judicial officers must exercise exceptional care in proceedings capable of altering the political landscape.

CONCLUSION: INTELLECTUAL HONESTY MUST NOT BECOME A CONVENIENT SHIELD FOR INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE

Olukayode Ajulo is entitled to disagree with Festus Adedayo. He is entitled to defend the Chief Judge’s administrative authority and to argue that Justice Lifu’s judgment should be tested through the appellate process.

But he cannot reasonably demand intellectual honesty from others while avoiding the most inconvenient facts in the controversy.

Different suit numbers do not automatically defeat res judicata or issue estoppel. Administrative discretion does not automatically establish the propriety of every case assignment. A judge’s refusal to recuse himself does not conclusively answer every legitimate question about apparent bias. And the absence of direct proof of presidential instructions does not render the public’s suspicion of executive hostility towards the opposition irrational.

Most importantly, the appellate condemnation of Justice Lifu’s conduct in the deregistration proceedings is part of the public judicial record. It cannot be erased by an appeal to judicial independence.

The public statements of the Chief of Staff, the Aviation Minister, the FCT Minister and the President are equally part of the political record. They must be confronted, not explained away through abstract appeals to constitutionalism.

The Chief Judge deserves institutional fairness, but so do the litigants who complained about the circumstances of case assignment. Justice Lifu deserves the protection of judicial independence, but so does the public’s right to scrutinise his judicial conduct. The Presidency deserves the presumption that it has not committed an unproven offence, but it cannot demand immunity from political accountability for the statements and conduct of its senior officials.

And Atiku, David Mark and the ADC deserve the same protection of the law that would be demanded for any political party or presidential aspirant.

The most troubling feature of Ajulo’s intervention is that it treats every concern raised against the judicial and political establishment as an allegation requiring extraordinary proof, while treating every action taken by that establishment as presumptively legitimate.

That is not balance. It is asymmetry.

Festus Adedayo may not have established a judicially provable conspiracy involving the Presidency and Justice Lifu. But he has identified a series of developments that deserve serious public scrutiny. His concern is neither irrational nor without foundation.

The question is not whether we should abandon evidence in favour of political suspicion. It is whether we should abandon critical examination of evidence merely because it points in an uncomfortable direction.

That is the real meaning of intellectual honesty.

And if we must ask Àà tíí gbọ́?, let us ask the more important question: what should the world say when those entrusted with protecting democracy appear indifferent to the circumstances that threaten it?

A judiciary must not only dispense justice. It must inspire confidence that justice is being dispensed. And a Presidency must not only proclaim its commitment to democracy. It must conduct itself in a manner that leaves no reasonable doubt about that commitment.

That is the standard against which both Justice Lifu’s judgment and Ajulo’s defence must be measured.

Alex Ter Adum, PhD

DDG THE NARRATIVE FORCE

The National Agenda for Tinubu (NAFT 27) a Support Group of President Bola Tinubu says it has ncreased0 aggressive campaigns across Ebonyi to ensure the president’s re–election in the 2027 general elections.

The Newly Appointed State Coordinator of the group, Dr Obinna Nwachukwu, said the group also attunes its activities to the developmental strides of Gov. Francis Nwufuru which made it affix FON to NAFT (NAFTFON).

Nwachukwu, a Former Leader of the Ebonyi State House of Assembly, said campaigns have been intensified for the re-election of both leaders: Tinubu and Nwifuru through various mass media means.

“This campaign is aggressively pursued through broadcast and print media outfits, road shows, SMS phone messages, handbills, stickers, door to door campaign among others.

“We are in collaboration with relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) Non–Governmental Organisations (NGOs) Civil Society Organisations among others.

“We are also facilitating the empowerment of Children, Women, People With Disabilities (PWDs) among other categories of vulnerable persons in the society.”

The Former Chairman of Ishielu Local Government Area (LGA) said that group has with absolute patriotism, followed President Tinubu and his team’s commitment in implementing his administration’s Renewed Hope Agenda.

“We would therefore provide unflinching and seamless support to ensure that the President and Governor Nwifuru’s return for second terms to consolidate the good works in their first tenures.

“We are a non–religious, non–ethnic, broad-based grassroots oriented platform, motivated to mobilise nationwide support for Tinubu and Nwifuru wilth shared vision of success.

“We are committed to support the president in building a more prosperous, progressive and inclusive society where every Nigerian irrespective of gender, tribe, religion or region, will have a say,” he said.

He noted that the group was committed to contribute its quota in realising the Renewed Hope Agenda of President Tinubu with a convinction that the nation was in good hands due to his sterling achievements.

“We commend our National Patron— Vice President Kashim Shettima, The Grand Patron—Abdulahi Ganduje, Our Patrons: The Senate President–Godswill Akpabio and the Speaker of the House of Representative—Tajudeen Abass.

“We also hail our patron- the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Chairman—Nentawe Yilwatda, our National Convener– Dr Aliyu Ibrahim, all zonal, state officers and members for their dedication and commitment,” he said.

Nwachukwu who is also former Commissioner for Finance, noted that President Tinubu has brought several democratic dividends to the people which include: over 900 beneficiaries of the President’s Loan and Grant scheme.

“We have over 300,000 beneficiries of the students loan scheme, over 400 ongoing road projects including 2,700 kilometres of roads, recorded $8billion in new oil and gas investments among others.

“Gov. Nwifuru has recorded innumerable feats in education. infrastructure, health, agriculture, human empowerment, youth development, sports, commerce and industry among others.

Football fans in Ebonyi have canvased that the Flamingoes’ Federation of International Football (FIFA) U–17 Women World Cup victory, should be the tonic to enshrine practical reforms in Nigerian football.

The Nigerian female cadet team beat Japan 2–1 in Rabat, Morocco on Saturday equalling its male counterpart’s feat of Africa’s first U–17 world cup winners, achieved in China, 1985.

Goals from sensational Awawu Bashiru and the tournament’s Most Valuable Player (MVP) Oluebube Umejiaku sealed Nigeria’s win, to record the country’s first global glory since the male U–17 world cup feat in Chile, 2015.

The respondents congratulated the team and urged relevant authorities to ensure the victory marks a turning point in salvaging the poor fortunes of Nigerian football.

Jacob Onu, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Fair Play International Sports Agency, congratulated the team for bringing smiles back on Nigerians’ faces after long periods of disappointments and heartbreaks.

Onu, a Renowned Sports Administrator hailed Coach Akeem Busari ‘s tactical approach in bouncing from an opening game loss to Poland to clinching the coveted trophy.

“This is the never say die spirit exhibited by our patriots on the pitch in several competitons and which defines the citizens’ collective resolve to surmount contemporary challenges.”

Dr Innocent Unah, a Veteran Sports Media Consultant congratulated the interim managers of the Nigerian Football Federation (NFF) for displaying a high level of professionalism in managing the affairs of the team.

“This should be apt in the desired reform of Nigerian football as for the first time in recalable history, a Nigerian team went to a global showpiece without allowances rancour, players’ rift among others.”

Dennis Aloh, A Football Viewing Centre Operator in Abakaliki also congratulated the team and prayed that the victory brings back the fans’ followership of the country’s football.

“I was sad when viewers at the centre rejected my pleas to beam the Flamingos match, opting to watch the English Premiership League (EPL) match between Nottingham Forest and Manchester City.

“I learnt such was the case in other viewing centres across the town as the proposed reforms should ensure fans return to the stadiums and watch national teams’ matches once more.”

Miss Judith Aleke, A Student and.Female Football Enthusiast urged President Bola Tinubu to shower his fatherly blessings on the team for doing the nation and Africa proud.

“Winning a world title on African soil should dignify a nation and the president should reward the team as he did to the Super Falcons on its WAFCON glory.

“Nigerians should also show appreciate the team as the proposed reforms should also touch on players’ reward system.”

The historic visit of the Inspector-General of Police (I-G), Mr Olatunji Disu, to the Lagos State Criminal Investigation Department (SCID), Panti, has brought additional recognition to 24 retired detectives, following a N6 million Dangote shares donation by a businessman.

The businessman, Abayomi Awoboku, Chief Executive Officer of Konstrutum Construction, gifted the retired officers shares in Dangote Refinery and Petroleum in recognition of their 35 years of service to the nation.

Awoboku, who was among the dignitaries at the officers’ retirement reception in September, also engaged a professional investment firm to manage the shares and ensure optimal returns for the beneficiaries.

The gesture followed Disu’s visit to the department and his attendance at the retirement ceremony, where he celebrated the officers for their decades of service to the Nigeria Police Force (NPF).

In a video, Awoboku said the donation was aimed at appreciating the retired officers for their dedication and sacrifices while encouraging serving personnel to remain committed to national service.

Reacting to the gesture, the Commissioner of Police, Lagos State Command, Mr Fatai Tijani, expressed profound gratitude to the donor.

Earlier, the Deputy Commissioner of Police in charge of SCID, DCP Dayo Akinbisehin, paid glowing tributes to I-G Disu and CP Tijani for their leadership and support, which he said had contributed to the department’s growth and the welfare of its retired personnel.

In an appreciation letter to Awoboku on behalf of Tijani and the beneficiaries, DCP Akinbisehin described the donation as a remarkable demonstration of goodwill and support for the police.

“On behalf of CP Tijani and the recently retired officers of SCID, I wish to convey our profound appreciation for your benevolence and invaluable support towards the successful retirement reception organised in honour of our veteran officers.

“Your generous contribution constituted a remarkable demonstration of corporate responsibility, institutional solidarity and enduring goodwill towards the NPF,” Akinbisehin said.

The retirement ceremony, held at SCID, Yaba, brought together senior police officers, dignitaries, colleagues and family members to celebrate the 24 officers who had completed 35 years of service.

The presence of Disu at the retirement ceremony added significance to the occasion as he commended the retirees for their sacrifices and assured them of the continued support of the police beyond active service.

Congratulating the officers, the I-G said their retirement marked the completion of an important chapter in their careers but did not end their relationship with the NPF.

“Congratulations to all of you for successfully completing 35 years of service. This is not the end of everything.
“We will continue to support you, even after service. We appreciate all you did for your fatherland,” Disu said.

Reaffirming his commitment to their welfare, Disu described the retirees as police officers for life and pledged that the NPF would continue to look after them.

The retirees were described as men and women whose 35 years of service were marked by countless hours of commitment to public safety and the protection of lives and property.

Their sacrifices included working night shifts, in heavy rain and on public holidays, often at the expense of quality time with their families.

The event attracted eminent personalities from different walks of life, including the Oba of Lagos, HRM Oba Rilwan Akiolu, who attended as the royal father of the day alongside his White Cap Chiefs.

Speakers at the event acknowledged the officers’ contributions to the investigation of complex and sensitive cases handled by SCID, reaffirming the department’s position as a major investigative arm of the Lagos State Police Command.

Tributes were also paid to the spouses and families of the retirees for their sacrifices, including missed celebrations and prolonged absences during the officers’ years of service.

The ceremony therefore served not only as a celebration of the retirees’ decades of service but also as an opportunity to highlight the importance of institutional support, improved welfare and sustained investment in police personnel.

The retirement send-forth initiative, now in its third edition, has become an integral part of the SCID Panti tradition since Akinbisehin assumed leadership of the department.

The initiative was approved by Tijani in line with Disu’s policy thrust of prioritising the welfare of serving and retired police officers.

One of the retirees, DSP Benson Emuerhi, described his 35-year career as challenging but fulfilling, saying he joined the NPF out of a desire to serve humanity.

Emuerhi, who served in the Prosecution Department, recalled intervening in minor disputes that could otherwise have escalated into more serious conflicts, adding that such experiences strengthened his commitment to public service.

He, however, expressed concern that police officers were not adequately appreciated despite the enormous sacrifices associated with their profession.

According to him, officers are expected to remain available for duty even on weekends, public holidays and during personal emergencies.

“Police work is different. There is no Saturday or Sunday when it comes to protecting lives and property,” he said.

Another retiree, DSP Rita Momah, who also completed about 35 years in the NPF, emphasised the importance of continuous training, professionalism and respect for human dignity in modern policing.

She urged serving officers to adopt a human face in their interactions with suspects, victims and members of the public, stressing that the protection of human dignity should remain central to police operations.

Awoboku’s N6 million share donation has added a significant dimension to the recognition of the retired detectives, providing them with an investment opportunity beyond their years of active service.

The gesture also highlights the potential of private-sector support in recognising and rewarding public servants who have dedicated their lives to protecting society.

Yaba branch dominated the sprint events, while Opebi and Ago Palace emerged football champions at the i-Fitness GameFest 2.0 held in Lagos.

The competition, held on Saturday at the Legacy Pitch, National Stadium, Surulere, brought together members of 14 i-Fitness mainland branches to promote physical activity, healthy living and teamwork.

Held under the theme, “Different Squad, Unstoppable Together”, the event featured football, 100-metre and 200-metre races, tug of war, sack race and other sporting activities.

Yaba won both male and female 100-metre races, while Surulere and Ikorodu emerged runners-up, respectively.

In football, Opebi clinched the male title, with Magodo finishing as runners-up, while Ago Palace won the female category ahead of Acme.

Gbagada won the tug-of-war competition, with Iponri finishing second, while Egbeda claimed the male sack race title ahead of Magodo. Surulere emerged winner of the female sack race, with Egbeda finishing as runners-up.

Mr Derek Nwafor, Head of Corporate Sales and Partnerships, i-Fitness, said the competition was organised to bring members together and demonstrate that exercise could be enjoyable.

“At the heart of it is a celebration of fitness and the community of people who have woken up to the need for fitness across Nigeria,” he said.

Nwafor said the event was the second edition, following the first held for the organisation’s island branches earlier in the year.

He said the initiative also involved corporate partners supporting efforts to promote fitness through workplace wellness programmes and other collaborations.

Highlighting the health benefits of exercise, Nwafor said regular physical activity strengthened muscles and bones, improved cardiovascular health and helped reduce the risk of chronic diseases.

“Being physically active has a direct correlation with longevity. If you don’t exercise now, you pay for it later,” he said.

Mr Foluso Ogunwale, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, i-Fitness, said the GameFest was designed to make fitness accessible, enjoyable and part of people’s everyday lives.

He said the organisation currently operated 25 branches across Lagos, comprising 14 on the mainland and 11 on the island.

“When we started i-Fitness 11 years ago, our idea was to make fitness accessible and affordable to the average urban Nigerian,” he said.

Ogunwale said the organisation planned to make the competition a regular event, possibly holding it twice yearly, while introducing more sporting activities.

He added that plans were underway to expand the initiative beyond Lagos to Abuja and Port Harcourt, as the organisation continued to grow its presence.

According to him, i-Fitness also hopes to organise a larger competition involving its island and mainland branches in the first quarter of 2027.

One of the participants, Alma Oputa, of the i-Fitness Ikeja GRA branch, said regular exercise had significantly improved her strength, endurance and general wellbeing.

“I do it because I know that health is wealth. I want to grow old and still be strong,” she said.

Another participant, Delight Bekee, also of the Ikeja GRA branch, described the competition as an exciting opportunity to interact with people who shared similar interests in sports and fitness.

Bekee encouraged Nigerians to exercise regularly, particularly because of its benefits to mental health.

The event was supported by Wema Bank and Brila FM as lead partners, alongside Pocari Sweat, Red Bull, Rexona, Nirvana Water, MOL and other brand partners.