0815 671 6040 [email protected]

Tag: Labour Party

Bola Tinubu and Peter Obi

37 witnesses missing as Peter Obi, LP rest case against Tinubu


Mr Peter Obi and his Labour Party (LP) closed their petition at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Friday, without presenting 37 of the 50 witnesses promised.

Obi and LP are complainants in the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023, challenging the election of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the 25 February election.

Respondents in the petition are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima and the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The petitioners were given 21 days to prove their case against the respondents before the court.

But as they rested their case on Friday, only 13 witnesses testified. The remaining 37 did not show up.

Earlier, Counsel to the petitioners, Livy Uzoukwu SAN, informed the court that their 12th witness, Yunusa Tanko, was in court to be cross examined by the respondents.

Counsel to the respondents are Kemi Pinhero SAN for INEC, Wole Olanipekun SAN for Tinubu and Shettima, while Lateef Fagbemi SAN represented APC.

The 12th witness (PW12) was Yunusa Tanko, member of LP Situation Room, who testified and some documents were tendered through him.

Being cross examined by INEC, the witness told the court that the results given to them were mutilated and not readable.

When asked by Olanipekun how many party agents his party had during the election, he said over 130,000 while there were 176,974 polling units through the federation.

Tanko was also asked what he wanted the court to do with the 12 states where LP won and what would happen to Atiku Abubakar, who was declared 2nd.

He said that he was challenging the entire results of the election because after four months of the election, the results are still being downloaded from the IreV.

When asked by Fagbemi on why he did not provide the number of unlawful votes, he claimed that their expert had already given evidence on the number of disputed votes.

The respondents tendered through the witness judgments of Federal High Court, with FHC/ABJ/1454/2022, delivered on Jan. 23, 2023, concerning LP vs INEC.

Tendered also was a SC/CV/501/2023, Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 26, 2023, between PDP and INEC with three others.

The petitioners objected to the admissibility of the documents and reserved their reason in their final written addresses.

The court however admitted and marked the documents as exhibits.

Peter Yari, PW 13 , an adhoc staff of INEC, also gave his evidence.

Counsel for the petitioners, Uzoukwu after the testimony of PW13, informed the court that they are closing their case.

The respondents prayed the court to give them till next week to go home and celebrate the Sallah with their families and come back by July 3 to open their case.

The five-member panel presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned until July 3, for the respondents to open their case.

Bola Tinubu and Peter Obi

Tribunal throws out Labour Party, Obi’s request to question INEC

, ,

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Saturday dismissed the application filed by the Labour Party and Mr Peter Obi seeking an order to question INEC on the technology it deployed for the conduct of the general elections.

Obi and LP are petitioners in the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023 challenging the election which brought President Bola Tinubu into power.

Respondents are the INEC, President Bola Tinubu and Vice president Kashim Shettima and All Progressives Congress (APC).

Ruling on the application, the five -member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani held that it lacked the jurisdiction to grant the request as it was brought outside the pre-hearing session and therefore incompetent.

“It is an afterthought on the grounds that the pre-hearing period to file such an application elapsed on May 22.

“I have not disputed the fact that they did not call the attention of the court during the pre-hearing session.”

“It is for the applicant to take a step towards the hearing of his motion on notice. The court cannot do that for him.

“The petitioners’ counsel are very conversant with the provisions of the law and did not ask for an extension of time.

” They rather seek to employ the right to fair hearing as a magic wand to escape the consequence of their failure to comply with the law and blame the court for its inaction” the court held.

The court also held that the applicants failed to disclose any extreme circumstance that stopped them from filing within the statutory time.

In a unanimous decision, the court stated that motions cannot be heard at the hearing session and as such can be deemed as abandoned.

”Their application is incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it and accordingly, the application is struck out,” the court held.

The petitioners, among other reasons for disputing the outcome of the elections are accusing the electoral umpire of non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

Their concerns also included failure to transmit the results of the presidential election in real-time on the INEC results viewing portal as assured.

In their effort to support the grounds of their petition, the petitioners had asked the court to permit them to question INEC on the technology deployed to conduct the election including the quality of the ICT experts who oversaw the conduct of the election.

In two applications, the petitioners through their lawyer, Patrick Ikweto, SAN, urged the court to order INEC to supply the names and other details of its ICT professionals that deployed electronic devices for the conduct of the election.

Specifically, the petitioners maintained that given INEC’s reply to their petition, it should be compelled to answer 12 questions posed to them.

They asked INEC to specify the date the electoral body conducted functionality tests on the system it deployed for the elections, as well as names and details of those that conducted the test.

They further required INEC to answer the following questions: “Who created/deployed the four (4) Applications Patches/Updates to fix the HTTP 500 error that prevented the e-transmission of the results of the Presidential election on 25th February 2023?

“What was the exact time of the occurrence of the technical glitch which prevented the e-transmission of the result of the Presidential election on 25th February 2023?

“What time were the technological glitches fixed and or repaired?

“What percentage of the result of the Presidential election was uploaded on the I-Rev on Feb. 25?

“What percentage of the result of the Presidential election was uploaded on the I-Rev at the time of the declaration of the Result of the Presidential election on March 1?”

Bashir Apapa and Peter Obi

Obi’s election petition in jeopardy as court backs Apapa as Labour Party chairman


Justice Hamza Muazu of an Abuja High Court on Friday strengthened the hands of Lamidi Apapa as the acting chairman of the troubled Labour Party.

The ruling which stands till 19 May puts in jeopardy, the election petition of the party’s presidential candidate, Peter Obi.

Apapa as acting chairman had written the Presidential Election Petition Court that the party is withdrawing its case.

On Friday, after the court ruling on whether it has jurisdiction in the case filed by some members of the Labour Party (LP), Apapa declared he is now in charge.

He directed all the party’s lawyers handling its election petition before the presidential election petition court, to within 48 hours brief him on the processes so far

He said that justice had taken its natural course, saying that the judge acted in line with true justice.

According to him, “with this ruling, there is no doubt that I am in charge. As of today, I am the acting National Chairman of Labour Party”.

Justice Muazu gave his ruling in the suit seeking the removal of the chairman of the party, Julius Abure, the National Organising Secretary, Mr Clement Ojukwu and National Treasurer and Oluchi Opara,

Justice Muazu held that it was no longer the law that the court cannot adjudicate in poljtical parties’ matter.

The judge further held that if the party had been at peace with itself, there would not be any need for the court to interfere in its affairs.

“When there is no crack on the wall, there will not be need for an outsider to come mend it,” he said.

Muazu further held that the plaintiffs’ case is justiciable contrary to the submission of the counsel for Abure and Farouk, Alex Ejesieme SAN,

He added that the plaintiffs were equally right to have instituted the case through originating summons.

On the issue of locus standi of the plaintiffs to bring the matter before the court, the judge held that being members of the LP, they have the locus standi to institute the case.

Following the April 5 ex-parte injunction made by Justice Muazu, stopping Abure, the National Secretary of the party, Alhaji Umar Farouk and two other national officials, Ejesieme had on April 20 argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

The senior advocate had submitted that the matter before the court bordered on the internal affairs of the Labour Party, adding that criminal allegations made by the plaintiffs in the case, could not be ventilated in an origination summon.

He added that the eight plaintiffs that brought the case before the court were not members of the National Executive Council of the party and as such lacked the locus standi to institute the case.

“Our contention is very clear that those criminal allegations cannot be ventilated in an origination summon.

“The issue of locus standi is there. When you referred to LP’s constitution, the claimants are not members of NEC or the party.

“They have a duty to present their membership cards to the court which they didn’t,” the counsel argued.

While objecting to the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for Abure and Farouk, counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr George Ibrahim, urged the court to dismiss same.

According to him, the first to fourth defendants had yet to obey the April 5 order of the court as they were still parading themselves as national officers of the LP.

With the ruling of the court on having jurisdiction to hear the case, its order of April 5 subsists.

The judge adjourned until May 19 to hear the substantive case.

The eight plaintiffs in the case are Martins Esikpali John; Lucky Shaibu; Isah Zekeri; Omogbai Frank; Abokhaiu Aliu; Ayohkaire Lateef; John Elomah and Dr Ayobami Arabambi,.

They had in an ex-parte motion, marked M/7082/2023, sought the removal of Abure and the three other national officers of the party.

They informed the court, through their counsel, Ogwu Onoja SAN, that Abure and the three other national officials allegedly forged several documents of the FCT High Court, including receipts, seal and affidavits, to carry out unlawful substitutions in the last general election.

Onoja argued that following their indictment by police investigation, the four people are to be arraigned in court, adding that warrants for their arrest have already been obtained.

Peter Obi

APC tells tribunal: Peter Obi illegally sponsored by LP as candidate

, ,

The All Progressives Congress (APC), on Monday, prayed the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja to dismiss the petition filed by the Labour Party (LP) and its Presidential Candidate, Mr Peter Obi, against the emergence of Sen. Bola Tinubu as president-elect in the Feb. 25 election.

The APC, the 4th respondent, urged the PEPC to reject the petition in its notice of preliminary objection marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023 and filed at PEPC’s Secretariat, Monday night, by Thomas Ojo, a member of the party’s legal team led by Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, in Abuja.

The party asked the tribunal to dismiss the petition with substantial cost on the grounds that it lacked merit and was frivolous.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Obi, the 1st petitioner, and LP, the 2nd petitioner, had sued the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, Sen. Kashim Shettima and APC as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.

The petitioners are seeking the nullification of the election victory of Tinubu and Shettima in the Feb 25 presidential poll.

NAN reports that while former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) came second with 6,984,520 votes in the election; Obi came third with 6,101,533 votes.
Abubakar and PDP are also challenging the outcome of the poll.

However, in the petition marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023 filed by Obi and LP’s lead counsel, Livy Ozoukwu, they contended that Tinubu “was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the time of the election.”

The petitioners claimed there was rigging in 11 states, adding that they would demonstrate this in the declaration of results based on the uploaded results.

Obi and LP said INEC violated its own regulations when it announced the result despite the fact that at the time of the announcement, the totality of the polling unit results had yet to be fully scanned, uploaded and transmitted electronically as required by the Electoral Act.

Among other prayers, the petitioners urged the tribunal to “determine that, at the time of the presidential election held on February 25,, 2023, the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Tinubu and Shettima) were not qualified to contest the election.

“That it be determined that all the votes recorded for the 2nd respondent in the election are wasted votes, owing to the non-qualification of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

“That it be determined that on the basis of the remaining votes (after discountenancing the votes credited to the 2nd respondent) the 1st petitioner (Obi) scored a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election and had not less than 25 per cent of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of the states of the federation and the FCT and satisfied the constitutional requirements to be declared the winner of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

“That it be determined that the 2nd respondent (Tinubu), having failed to score one-quarter of the votes cast at the presidential election in the FCT was not entitled to be declared and returned as the winner of the presidential election held on Feb. 25.””

Responding, the APC prayed the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that Obi, the 1st petitioner, lacked requisite locus standi to institute the petition because he was not a member of LP at least 30 days to the party’s presidential primary to be validly sponsored by the party.

It said: “The 1st petitioner (Obi) was a member of PDP until May 24, 2022.

“1st petitioner was screened as a presidential aspirant of the PDP in April 2022.

“1st petitioner participated and was cleared to contest the presidential election while being a member of the PDP.

“1st petitioner purportedly resigned his membership of PDP on May 24, 2022 to purportedly join the 2nd petitioner (Labour Party) on May 27, 2022.

“2nd petitioner conducted its presidential primary on May 30, 2022 which purportedly produced 1st petitioner as its candidate, which time contravened Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act for him to contest the primary election as a member of the 2nd petitioner.”

The party argued that Obi was not a member of LP as at the time of his alleged sponsorship.

The APC argued that “by the mandatory provisions of Section 77 (1) (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2022, a political party shall maintain a register and shall make such register available to INEC not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses and convention.”

It stated further that all the PDP’s presidential candidates were screened on April 29, 2022, an exercise which Obi participated and cleared to contest while being a member of the party.

It argued that the petition was incompetent since Obi’s name could not have been in LP’s register made available to INEC as at the time he joined the party.

The APC equally argued that the petition was improperly constituted having failed to join Atiku Abubakar and PDP who were necessary parties to be affected by the reliefs sought

“By Paragraph 17 of the petition, the petitioners, on their own, stated that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar came second in the presidential election with 6,984,520 votes as against the petitioners who came third with 6,101,533 votes;

“At Paragraph 102 (iti) of the petition, the petitioners urged the tribunal to determine that 1st petitioner scored the majority of lawful votes without joining Alhaji Atiku Abubakar in the petition.
“For the tribunal to grant prayer (iii) of the petitioners, the tribunal must have set aside the scores and election of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar,

“Alhaji Atiku Abubakar must be heard before his votes can be discountenanced by the tribunal,” it said.

The party said the petition and the identified paragraphs were in breach of the mandatory provisions of Paragraph 4(1)(D) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.

According to APC, Paragraphs 60 — 77 of the petition are non-specific, vague and/or nebulous and thereby incompetent contrary Paragraph 4(1)(d) of the Ist Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022;
It said that the allegations of non-compliance must be made distinctly and proved on polling unit basis but none was specified or provided in any of the paragraphs of the petition.

“Paragraphs 59-60 of the petition disclose no identity or particulars of scores and polling units supplied in 18,088 units mentioned therein,” it added.

The party, therefore, argued that the tribunal lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain pre-election complaints embedded in the petition as presently constituted, among other arguments
The APC urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition with substantial cost as same was devoid of any merit and founded on frivolity.

Bola Tinubu and Peter Obi

LP was like hurricane: Real reasons Peter Obi lost, Tinubu won

, ,

Chairman Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Prof Itse Sagay has explained why Bola Ahmed Tinubu won the February 25 presidential election and why Atiku Abubakar of PDP and Peter Obi of Labour Party lost.

Sagay, a phone-in guest on Sunday Politics, a Channels Television programme, also discredited numerous opinion polls that tipped Obi ahead of other contenders in the race.

“I was not surprised that Tinubu won. I had no faith in those polls. You just pick up your phones, sought views in urban areas.

“Look, do you know the views in massive northern population? Were they contacted? Nobody contacted them and their views were not taken into consideration. So, it was poorly exercised polls.

“It is a very unfortunate thing that those polls set up the stage that the LP was going to win. I, throughout the exercise of the polls, was just laughing.

“You picked up views of few in the urban centres to represent Nigeria when Nigeria has massive rural population.

“That was why there was such a contradiction between the results of those polls and the eventual result of the election. Those polls were not credible.”

He said: “For those who were very upset about the result because they were expecting to win, they have resorted to the court for objective jurists to look at the issue.

“And even if they fail at that level, they should look up to another four years when there will be general election.

“It is not a one-time exercise; it is something that will be done every four years and what I will suggest and advice those who failed, particularly, the LP is to go to the grassroots and begin to organise. They had no organisation.

“If you look at the performance of the Labour Party during the governorship election, it was an indication that the LP has no root in the country but was clearly a hurricane that just blew through the land at the time.

“So, what I will suggest to them is to begin to put their root on the ground instead of quarrelling, fighting and abusing everybody. They should start planning and organising in Tinubu’s way.

“We have to give to him (Tinubu) that he is a super organiser. This election showed that organisation in which his victory spread across the whole country except the Southeast.

“So, the LP has to begin to plan and organise in preparation for the next election in 2027. But, if they fail to do so, that will be a disaster.”

Dismissing allegation of wide manipulation of the poll, the eminent lawyer said the general election was credible.

He said the president-elect had good organisation and planning in place.

According to him Tinubu’s widespread victory, validated Tinubu’s ability to plan ahead.

He said he was not surprised over the outcome of the election, as the president-elect had super organisation and planning far ahead of others.

These, he added, gave him an edge over others in the race.

Attesting that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) introduced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) worked so well in the last election, the senior advocate appealed to those that lost out to allow the judiciary to do its job without any threat.

Sagay, who admitted that there were few challenges with the election, said the election was the best in Nigeria in comparison to past elections.

He said: “There could be few challenges, but no evidence of large manipulation of the election as being claimed. The BVAS was used successfully.

“Can you imagine the All Progressives Congress (APC) losing Lagos? I mean that should tell you that the BVAS worked. For that to happen, that tells you that the election was credible.

“It is unheard of for APC to lose Lagos in over 23 years.

In other areas like the Northwest, Atiku won because he comes from that side.

“But what made Tinubu to win was that where he was not number one, he was closely number two. This election is the best Nigeria has ever had.

“Tinubu was number one in the Southwest, number one in the North-central.

“Look at the north’s results, where Tinubu was not number one, he was close number two. So, he was able to marshal votes all over the country except in the Southeast. The others were not able to achieve this feat.”

On the judiciary, Sagay said: “I pray that the Nigerian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court lives up to expectation because it is the highest court in the land. So, let the judges go into this matter, look at it judicially and judiciously, using all their knowledge and experiences to do the needful.

“Let them not handle the case due to pressure or threat by anybody. I pray the judiciary in the end, takes right decision in this case.”

Adapted from The Nation

Julius Abure of Labour Party

Labour Party in forgery mess as court sacks chairman, 3 others ahead of trial


An Abuja High Court has stopped four principal officers of the Labour Party from parading themselves as national officers of the party over forgery of court papers.

Affected are the Chairman Julius Abure. Secretary Alhaji Farouk Ibrahim, Organising Secretary Mr Clement Ojukwu and the Treasurer of the party.

The order came days after the Edo ward of Abure suspended his membership.

Justice Hamza Muazu issued the restraining order while ruling in an ex-parte application argued by Ogwu Onoja, SAN

Onoja had in the application informed the court how the national officers allegedly forged several documents of the FCT High Court to carry out unlawful substitutions in the last general elections.

Among the documents were the receipts, seal and affidavits of the Court to carry out alleged criminal activities.

Onoja tendered several documents confirmed to the Judge that the Chief Registrar of the Court wrote the Labour Party to disown several documents used for the alleged criminal activities by Abure and three others.

Onoja said that following their indictment by police investigation, the four people are to be arraigned in court adding that warrants for their arrest have already been obtained.

In a ruling, Justice Muazu held that the application and the supporting affidavits have made out a good case for the request to be granted.

The judge subsequently ordered that the four officers should immediately stop parading themselves as National Officers of Labour Party.

He fixed April 17 as return date for the continuation of the matter.

Peter Obi and Datti-Ahmed

Labour Party has uphill task at tribunal against Tinubu


Elder statesman and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Robert Clark, said it would be difficult for the Labour Party, LP to prove that there were election malpractices in Lagos State during the March 18th presidential election.

Clark stated this in an interview on Arise TV on Tuesday.

The ruling All Progressives Congress, APC’s Asiwaju Bola Tinubu won the 2023 presidential election, beating close rivals, Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party, and Labour Party’s Obi.

But, Clark, said Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, have an uphill task before the election tribunal.

He said, “Let me be honest with you, let’s take for instance, the Obi, Labour Party. They had filed an election petition based on one- Bola Tinubu is not eligible to be voted for, two and even if he is eligible to be voted for, he did not get the two-thirds in Abuja, and even if he got it, the election was marred with gangsterism and different things.

“Those are the three elements that the Labour Party has brought forward to an election petition. Now let me draw from the pool of my own experience.

“The first one is that he is not eligible because he has been found guilty, but that is a non-starter. The issue has been settled and it is a non-starter. So the Labour Party can never make any headway on that ground. The second ground is that by virtue of the constitution that says to win an election despite and in spite that you have made the greatest number of votes, you cannot be declared elected if you don’t have two-thirds in 36 States and Abuja.

“The question to be considered by the Tribunal is what constitutes two-thirds of the 36 States in Nigeria and Abuja and how do you construct that word ‘and’ do you take 36 states first and you now take Abuja and now say that for you to be elected you must have two-third of 36 States and two-third of the federal capital and that is the view of the Labour Party which I do not agree with.

“Now, look at the scenario they are saying, If Tinubu had won two-thirds of all the 36 States and failed to win two-thirds of Abuja, then he cannot be elected. Does that make sense? Does that give any good reason for democracy to survive?

“Now the Supreme Court now says that look Abuja has been created as one of the 36 States, so it enjoys the status of a state, but the Supreme Court in one or two other cases would also say in determining whether Abuja is a state, you should not grant Abuja any privileges once you declared it as a state.

“The constitution itself says all votes cast in an election in Nigeria are equal, so how do you now add all these three principles that Abuja cannot have any special status, that all votes cast in Nigeria have equal states, then why do you want to interpret ‘and’ there to mean that even if I had 36 states, two-third and I don’t get Abuja, then I cannot be elected, it doesn’t make sense.

“Democracy means polarity of the people, for the people and for all the people.

“Therefore, my own view, which I think is a reasonable view, but I am subject to other views from my learned colleagues and the Supreme Court, is that in determining whether Tinubu has made that provision of two-thirds of the states, it must be the 36 states plus Abuja which is 37 states, so if he has made the polarity of two-third votes in all these states added together, then he becomes elected.

“But as I said, this is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. But I am basing my submission on what the Supreme Court has said on Abuja, what it has said about votes, and what it has said about the equality of votes among the states. But I am subject to my opinion being rejected, but that is my view.

“Even if the Labour Party decides that Tinubu has not qualified by virtue of past precedent, they still have to surmount the principle that the election was marred with many irregularities.

“The law says there is a presumption of regularity attached to whatever INEC does. The Evident Act in Nigeria gives INEC that privilege.

“The Supreme Court is now in a difficult position to look at all the evidence to be brought by the Labour Party regarding malpractices. Now the notorious place the Labour Party is holding is Lagos. They are claiming that in Lagos, they were cheated, and voters were not allowed to vote.

“Now when they prove it, they still need to go a step outside the proving to show how it has affected the election. So they have an uphill task.

“So my own view from my own experience in election matters, it is an uphill task for them, but you never know. You never know the circumstances of these malpractices, you never know how many votes were not allowed to be cast, so I cannot pitch my tent to say that they would not succeed, but my belief is that they have an uphill task,” he said.

Reported by Miftaudeen Raji of Vanguard Newspaper

Julius Abure of Labour Party

Labour Party chairman Julius Abure kicked out by ward


A ward in the Edo State chapter of the Labour Party (LP) has suspended the national chairman Julius Abure, over alleged anti-party activities.

The suspension comes one week after Senator Iyorchia Ayu, National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was suspended by his ward in Benue State.

That action led to the eventual removal of Ayu as chairman of the PDP as a court ordered his removal based on the suspension.

At a press conference, Martins Osigbemhe, the Ward Chairman, said Abure was suspended by the executive, pending the determination of the numerous petitions and cases against him in courts.

But the National Secretary of the party, Malam Farouk Umar, dismissed the suspension as illegal.

“They also made some spurious allegations against him which is untrue and concocted by the sponsors of the Press Conference. We however deemed it fit to make some responses.

“The Young men we saw on that visuals are apparently not anybody from Labour Party in Edo State as claimed. The executives of the party in the state, Local Government and my ward are well known to the party.

“None of them were at the press conference. We make bold to say that they are people assembled and rented from some Abuja slums and paid to read a prepared speech given to them,” Umar said.

He said that the LP’s Constitution is clear on who can suspend and who cannot suspend the National Chairman.

“They should go and read the party constitution. It is only the National Convention that can suspend the National chairman of the Labour Party. It also must be through such a convention called for the purpose of the suspension of the National Chairman.”

He also said that the sudden suspension was an after-thought of some opposition parties purely to distract the leadership of the Labour Party at this time.

Read more in Daily Trust

Peter Obi

Peter Obi’s supporters protest at Joe Biden’s White House: APC USA alerts


Press Release

For Immediate Release

Date: 30/03/2023

Re: Protest at the Park in Front of White House

We wish to inform the public that a group of the Nigerian 2023 Presidential election losers are currently protesting at the park in front of the White House. It is important to note that the US government is not involved or in support of the protest, as anybody can get approval for a peaceful protest.

We also wish to state that this protest was sponsored by Peter Obi, who lost the election in Nigeria. It is our belief that the Nigerian Presidential election was free and fair, and Asiwaju Ahmed Bola Tinubu won the election. The majority of Nigerian voters gave him their mandate, and no propaganda, manipulation or tissue of lies can stop his inauguration.

The Chairman of the All Progressives Congress APC in the United States, Prof. Tai Balofin, assures Nigerians not to be perturbed by the actions of the protesters. We have mobilized true Nigerians to come out in support of their mandate, and we believe that the protesters will not succeed in their mission to disrupt the peace and stability of Nigeria.

We want to assure Nigerians that Nigeria will not secede, and it will remain united. We must work together to salvage it. Prof. Balofin, who spoke to the press today, says that the opposition who lost will meet the winner at the protest ground.

We urge all Nigerians to remain calm and peaceful, as we believe that justice will prevail, and the mandate of the Nigerian people will be respected.

Prof. Tai Balofin
All Progressives Congress, APC
United States.

Obidient Movement a.k.a. Labour Party supporters

Obidient movement may push Nigeria into crisis


By Fredrick Nwabufo

I had expected the Obidient movement to abandon its punitive expedition after the elections and evolve into an ideological pressure group – a worthy opposition. But the movement is still anything but ideological and civil. It has become more brutish, more desperate, nastier, and feral. The Obidient movement is shaping up to be a gaggle of insurrectionists.

For all intents and purposes, the movement seems to be gearing up to make the country ungovernable.

Diligent and disciplined opposition is essential for democracy. In fact, there is no democracy, if there is no educated opposition. No government is short of opposition. In a democracy, the residence of an animated opposition signals the buoyancy of the system. Where there is democracy, there is opposition. Opposition is the mitochondrion of a republican system – it keeps the government on the mill working according to purpose.

But one thing that drives genuine opposition and that should be the nucleus of every group is national interest. National interest and security should dictate the terms of engagement of any movement.

Any movement not guided by the national interest is a threat to the security of all Nigerians. The Obidient movement appears unconcerned about the deleterious effects of its methods on national security and the national psyche. I fear that some members of the proscribed group, IPOB, may be within the commanding heights of the movement.

The resort to malicious falsehood, threats of violence and violence on those who differ betokens a grimier trajectory. The Obidient movement may just be the political platform for those waging a war against Nigeria by other means.

The movement’s methods are worsening the already deteriorating relationship among Nigerians of different ethnic backgrounds. This is how inter-ethnic dissension is born. There is the assumption that it is the Igbo against the Yoruba or the Yoruba against the Igbo, but this is not true. It is ‘’Obidients’’ against the rest of Nigeria.

The Obidient movement does not represent the Igbo. Let me make that very clear. It is peopled by a melange of persons who pursue the illusory ambition of one man. They are powered by the ambition of one man, and not the interest of any ethnic group. It is important Nigerians situate the present confusion within this context. The Obidient movement does not represent any ethnic group.

Political actors and lovers of Nigeria must wade in with their voices and actions to tame this babel. Nigeria is on a slippery slope. This is not a time for politics, but a time for statesmen and stateswomen to rise and defend the country against internecine strife. National interest and security should govern public comments at this time.

We must put the peace and security of this nation first.

I have no doubt that we will come out stronger as a nation. From chaos comes change. Nigeria will always triumph – over the pestilence of the night; the darkness of Edom, principalities, and powers; snakes and scorpions. Nigeria has survived pestilence, riots and unimaginable chaos that split countries. It is still going.

But why does Nigeria always win – in the end? It is because you, me, they, them, we, us. It is because of all of us who despite our dissatisfaction with the system, come together to steady the ship and steer it aright against the blizzards and tempests.

It is because of you who despite your financial challenges refuse to compromise the public purse; refuse to steal public funds or cut corners; it is because of you who decline to take bribes to get jobs done; it is because of you who against personal trials and tribulations refuse to join the choir of the scoffers who do not see anything good in the country and who will neither make an effort nor contribute a mite to its progress. It is because of all of you who do not give up but stand to fight for the country.

When I say ‘One Nigeria’ I do not deny the very obvious threats to our unity. I do not live in denial of the chasm keeping us apart, but I believe in that uncommon facility of Nigerians to close this gap and work together for the common good. When it comes down to it, Nigerians are their brother’s keeper. We have seen this rare quality in display all the time.

One Nigeria’ is not a political placebo; it does not mean the absence of conflict or a denial of the present realities; it is a term that should evoke hope and promise for us all.

To me, Nigeria means hope and promise of a greater now and future; it means resilience and courage to rise from dust and nothing; it means purpose in disarray, unity in diversity, brotherhood in divergence and love even in dangerous times.

By Fredrick Nwabufo, Nwabufo aka Mr OneNigeria is a media executive.


Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a man of many traditional honours across the country, from north to south, west to east. The array of titles he has garnered was only comparable to that of Chief Moshood Abiola, winner of the 1993 Presidential election.


Subscribe to our Newsletter to be updated.