Tag: Sule Lamido

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, fixed Nov. 11 for ruling on an application filed by former Gov. Sule Lamido of Jigawa, seeking to restrain the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from holding its National Convention.

Justice Peter Lifu fixed the date for ruling after the defence lawyers adopted their affidavits to show cause why the interim order should not be granted and the plaintiff’s counsel adopted his counter affidavit and argued his case.

Lamido, in the motion ex-parte moved by his lawyer, Jeph Njikonye, SAN, on Oct. 31, had prayed the court to make the interim order, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed alongside.

The ex-governor said if the PDP was not restrained by the court, the party would be violating its constitution, and by implication denying him the opportunity to contest for the position of the national chairman of the party of which he is eminently qualified to contest.

Justice Lifu, in a ruling, had declined to grant the motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/2025.

The judge, rather ordered the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that are 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit to come and show cause why the ex-governor’s reliefs should not be granted.

Justice Lifu, who gave the defendants within 72 hours from the date they were served to respond, adjourned the matter until Nov. 6 for hearing.

At the resumed hearing, Njikonye, who appeared for Lamido, recalled that on Oct. 31, the court ordered PDP and INEC to show cause why their application should not be granted.

Omokayode Dada, SAN, who represented PDP and Adamu Bello, who appeared for INEC told the judge that their separate affidavits to show cause had been filed and served to parties.

Joseph Daudu, SAN, however, announced appearance for parties seeking to be joined in the suit.

The parties seeking to be joined are Hon Austine Nwachukwu, Imo PDP Chairman; Hon Amah Abraham Nnanna, Abia PDP Chairman and Hon Turnah George, who was said to be PDP Secretary, South-South Geo-Political Zone.

Daudu said their application was dated and filed on Nov. 5.

He said the parties seeking to be joined were the plaintiffs in the judgment that was delivered by Justice James Omotosho on Oct. 31, restraining INEC from monitoring or recognising the scheduled Nov. 15 and Nov. 16 of the PDP’s national convention.

He told the court that the certified true copy of the judgment was attached with their motion as exhibit.

The senior lawyer said they sought an order joining the applicants as necessary parties and a consequential order of amendment to all the processes filed in the suit.

Justice Lifu granted the prayers after the parties did not oppose the request.

Adopting their processes, PDP lawyer, Dada, said the affidavit to show cause was filed on Nov. 4.

He said contrary to Lamido’s submission, he was not denied the purchase of the nomination form.

In the affidavit, the PDP said the days fixed by the National working Committee (NWC) for the purchase of nomination form for all the aspirants for national elective positions in the forthcoming convention had since expired before Oct. 27 when Lamido arrived at the party’s National Headquarters.

It said the party’s leadership had earlier approved the timetable and schedule of activity for the year 2025 elective national convention.

It said the timetable and schedule of activity was between Sept. 3 and Sept. 30.

It said the party and its members are bound by it constitution, guidelines, notices and it decisions.

The PDP said it had not violated any of the provisions of the its constitution and guidelines or violates any aspirant’s Right.

Dada, in his argument, said the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case which, he said, fell within the internal affairs of the party.

He urged the court to dismiss the application.

INEC’s lawyer, Bello, in the same vein, prayed the court to refuse Lamido’s prayers.

He said the commission, in response to the order of the court, filed a 13-paragraph affidavit to show cause on Nov. 4.

“I adopt the application for the court to refuse the application in the interest of justice,” the lawyer said.

Bello said the reliefs sought against the commission in the motion ex-parte were in substance the same as prayers in Lamido’s originating summons pending before the court.

He argued that granting the interim or interlocutory injunction sought would amount to prejudging the substantive issues in the suit.

Besides, he said the plaintiffs application is in substance an invitation to the court to delve into issues of internal/domestic affairs of PDP, a political party.

INEC, in the affidavit, said that a court of record should not dabble into a political question which remains the exclusive preserve of political parties which should be allowed to do their things.

Responding, Lamido’s lawyer disagrees with the submission of PDP and INEC.

He said in response to their averments, separate counter affidavits were filed.

Njikonye urged the court to take judicial notice of Exhibit D, in the application for joinder filed by Daudu which is the judgment delivered by Justice Omotosho.

The lawyer, who prayed the court to refuse PDP application, also urged the court to discountenance INEC’s argument.

“The question is who is the 2nd defendant (INEC)? My lord, the 2nd defendant is INEC.

“INEC, a national body, who is supposed to be unbiased,” he said.

According to him, INEC cannot cry more than the bereaved.

“The 2nd defendant should be independent and said whatever your lordship decides will be implemented.

“Is should be an umpire in conduct,” he said, adding that INEC cannot take itself to be a political party.

Njikonye made reference to a Supreme Court decision regarding how INEC should conduct itself.

“It is therefore within the purview of your lordship to make the right or appropriate order in this regard,” he said.

Also speaking, Daudu said the essence of the order is purely preservative.

He said this would help the court to have something to decide on.

Justice Lifu consequently adjourned the matter until Nov. 11 for ruling and further proceedings.

(NAN)

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, refused to grant an application filed by former Gov. Sule Lamido of Jigawa, seeking an order restraining the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from proceeding with its scheduled national convention.

Lamido, in the motion ex-parte moved by his lawyer, Jeph Njikonye, SAN, had prayed the court to make the interim order, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed alongside.

Justice Peter Lifu, in a ruling, rather ordered the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that are defendants in the suit to come and show cause why the ex-governor’s reliefs should not be granted.

Justice Lifu, who gave the defendants within 72 hours from the date they were served to respond, adjourned the matter until Nov. 6 for hearing.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Lamido, who is the plaintiff in the fresh suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/2025, named the PDP and INEC as 1st and 2nd defendants.

In the ex-parte motion dated and filed on Oct. 28 by his team of lawyers led by Njikonye, Lamido sought two orders;

“An interim order of the honourable court restraining the 1st defendant from conducting its national convention scheduled to hold in Ibadan, Oyo State (or any other place or state) Nov. 15 and Nov. 16 or any other date(s).

Read Also: Court stops PENGASSAN from disrupting Dangote Refinery

“An interim order of court restraining the 2nd defendant (INEC) from monitoring, supervising and recognising the 1st defendant’s national convention”.

Giving seven grounds why his application should be considered, Lamido averred that once an action is pending in court. parties are bound to maintain status quo to avoid subjecting the court or the plaintiff to a fait accompli.

The ex-governor said the court has an inherent jurisdiction to preserve the subject matter of litigation.

He said if the PDP is not restrained by the court, the party would be violating its constitution, and by implication denying him the opportunity to contest for the position of the national chairman of the party of which he is eminently qualified to contest.

“The plaintiff/applicant has established a prima facie legal interest in the subject matter of litigation entitling him to the grant of the interim preservative relief sought,” he said.

Lamido said where an action sought to be restrained had already been completed, the equitable remedy of interim injunction may no longer be available to him, “hence why this application is necessary at this stage.”

According to him, the plaintiff’s suit raises a serious triable issue.

He also averred that balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of the interim preservative reliefs sought.

The matter, which was the only one on Friday’s cause list, was heard in the judge’s chamber.

After Njikonye moves the motion, the judge said it would be necessary to hear from the parties.

“The court has carefully perused and painstakingly considered the motion ex-parte, the affidavits, exhibits and the written address, including the decided cases commended to the court by learned senior advocate.

“I have equally advised myself on the issues raised in the originating summons which of cause raises triable issues,” he said.

Justice Lifu said that the court was not also unmindful of the balance of convenience and the undertaking as to damages as held in the three cases cited.

“I have also averted my mind to Order 26 Rules, 8(c) of the Rules of this court and the need fo exercise my discretion judicially and judiciously.

“Consequently, considering the entire gamut of the entire suit, it is my considered view that Order 26 rule 8(c) of the 2019 Rules of this court be invoked to enable this court balance the scale and equities of the parties.

“In that wise, the respondents in this suit are herein ordered to show cause within the next 72 hours effective from the date and time of service of this order on them why the prayers of the applicant should not be so granted,” the judge ruled.

He adjourned the matter until Nov. 6 for further proceedings.

(NAN)

The Presidency has fired back at former Jigawa State Governor, Alhaji Sule Lamido, over his recent remarks suggesting that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu supported the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election, calling the claims false, revisionist, and historically dishonest.

In a strongly worded statement issued on Sunday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency described Lamido’s assertions—made during a live television appearance—as a “distortion of history” and an attempt to diminish President Tinubu’s longstanding pro-democracy credentials.

“Alhaji Lamido’s claims represent a distortion of history and a regrettable attempt at revisionism. He alleged that President Tinubu only rose to prominence after the formation of NADECO and claimed that Tinubu’s mother, Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji, mobilised market women to back the annulment. These allegations are patently false”, Onanuga stated.

Setting the record straight, the statement clarified that Alhaja Mogaji never rallied support for the annulment of the election widely adjudged as the freest and fairest in Nigeria’s history, saying “had she done so, she would have lost her position as market leader in Lagos”.

Read Also: How to improve sports infrastructure in Nigeria, by Ex-Julius Berger chair Sumonu

Turning attention to Lamido’s own role during the crisis, the Presidency accused the former SDP National Secretary of failing to defend the party’s mandate. 

“Alhaji Lamido, as secretary of the Social Democratic Party (SDP)—the party whose candidate, MKO Abiola, won the June 12 election—was among those who failed to oppose the military’s injustice. Lamido and the then-chairman Tony Anenih surrendered the people’s mandate without resistance”, the statement charged.

Contrasting Tinubu’s record, the statement detailed the president’s consistent opposition to the military regime even before the complete collapse of democratic institutions under General Sani Abacha. 

Notably, Tinubu, then a senator representing Lagos West, had spoken on the Senate floor on August 19, 1993, categorically condemning the annulment.

Quoting from the Senate record, Tinubu had described the annulment as “another coup d’état” and warned against tolerating injustice and abuse of power. 

“We have a government that made the law and abused its law. Therefore, the present military administration, by virtue of abrogation and violation of its own decree, has committed a crime,” Tinubu had said in his Senate address.

The statement went on to recall Tinubu’s alignment with MKO Abiola after his return from overseas and his subsequent defiance of the Abacha regime following its dissolution of the interim government. 

Tinubu, along with Senators Ameh Ebute and Abu Ibrahim, was arrested and detained at Alagbon, Lagos, as they attempted to reconvene legislative activities in defiance of the junta.

During this period, Tinubu reportedly funded and supported mass protests against the annulment, including the shutdown of major thoroughfares such as the Third Mainland Bridge. 

After Abiola’s arrest on June 22, 1994, Tinubu joined other pro-democracy activists in fleeing the country, living in exile for nearly five years while continuing to finance resistance activities.

“While Tinubu was away, agents of the junta bombed his home in Balarabe Musa Crescent, Victoria Island,” the statement revealed. 

It also highlighted Tinubu’s contributions to the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) and his support for NALICON, an international campaign led by Nobel Laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka.

The Presidency emphasized that Tinubu’s role in sustaining NADECO and backing the pro-democracy movement was pivotal to resisting military rule and restoring democracy. 

“It is well-known that Tinubu played a leading role in the agitation against the June 12 annulment. Many NADECO leaders and journalists in exile and at home openly admitted that Tinubu sustained them and provided them with funds for the struggle,” Onanuga said.

The statement also took aim at Lamido’s confusion regarding the timeline and origins of NADECO, saying “with his narrative, Lamido appeared confused about the role of NADECO. It was an offshoot of the June 12 crisis. NADECO provided a platform to channel the struggle.”

The Presidency dismissed Lamido’s remarks as part of a broader political agenda being advanced by what it described as the “Coalition of the Disgruntled.”

“We do not want to believe that Alhaji Lamido suffers from what psychologists call tall poppy syndrome. However, the conclusion is inevitable as it appears that Lamido is envious of Tinubu’s democratic credentials,” the statement said.

“Revisionism does not serve the cause of truth or our nation’s interests,” it added, calling on Lamido to fact-check his claims and avoid misleading the public.