Nehemiah Ifeanyi Nwosu - NIN ❤️🇳🇬🐐

Good governance begins at the very foundation of society, the family. Peter Obi reflects that order: a man who has been faithfully married for over 30 years with no scandals and no estranged children. In that quiet moment, his smile says more than words; Discipline, devotion,consistency, and respect. Because how a man leads his home often mirrors how he leads a people. A man who can stay grounded at home is more likely to stay grounded in leadership.

OUR LAWS AND DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES The Nigerian Bar Association has closely monitored recent political and legal developments as the nation gradually approaches the 2027 General Elections. These developments, particularly those arising from the interpretation and potential application of provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, raise serious constitutional, democratic, and rule-of-law concerns that require immediate intervention. We particularly deprecate the disturbing involvement by lawyers and courts in the internal affairs of political parties despite the clear provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which stipulates in Section 83 of the Act that “No court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.” Not only are courts denied jurisdiction to entertain any matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party, but they are also precluded from granting any interim or interlocutory injunction even where any action has been brought in violation of the Act. The section further provides that “Where such an action is brought in negation of this provision, no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the Court, but the Court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment and shall give accelerated hearing to the matter”. What we now see are situations where actions are not only instituted in Courts by lawyers in clear violation of the Act, but Courts purportedly grant interim and/or interlocutory injunctions in clear contempt of statutory provisions of the law. This does not augur well for our democracy. Democracy will not thrive in a situation where lawyers and courts take actions and decisions that not only negate our laws but also do violence to them. This emerging trend of subverting the clear letters of the Electoral Act and dragging courts into the internal affairs of political parties through disingenuous litigation, forum shopping, and malafide applications designed to secure undemocratic political advantage, bodes no good for our democracy. Such practices, if not immediately curbed, would directly contradict the clear intendment of the Electoral Act and risk transforming the judicial processes into avenues for political score-settling or electoral manipulation. We must reiterate that these provisions were clearly designed to curb abuse of court processes and discourage forum shopping in political disputes. This is therefore why the NBA is concerned that the abuse, misapplication, or selective deployment of these provisions may create opportunities for manipulation capable of undermining democratic competition and shrinking the political space. Members of the Bar are reminded that they are Ministers in the Temple of Justice and not political agents seeking judicial endorsement of partisan objectives. The filing of actions intended to draw courts into internal political party disputes, particularly where jurisdiction is expressly excluded, constitutes an abuse of court process and a violation of professional responsibility. The NBA will take firm steps to deter such conduct. Lawyers who deliberately file actions aimed at procuring judicial interference in intra-party affairs, or who seek ex parte or interlocutory orders in clear violation of statutory provisions, risk facing disciplinary proceedings. We will not hesitate to present petitions before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) against any Legal Practitioner found to be engaging in such conduct. This will be pursued decisively to serve as a deterrent and to preserve the sanctity of the judicial process. The Nigerian judiciary must stay vigilant and resist being drawn into political theatrics. Courts should firmly decline invitations, no matter how artfully crafted, to intervene in matters the law explicitly bars them from.

This is another COURT ORDER stopping the ADC Congress in Adamawa State, Atiku's homestate. This time, it is from Senator Ishaku Abbo. Sebi it is Atiku that can't manage ADC in his Adamawa State that will be able to manage Nigeria. Mtcheeeew

Those brandishing Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act will pretend as if Section 83(6) does not exist. The purported exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Courts from internal party affairs is more in terms of form than substance. - File whatever you want to file if you are sure that you have a good case, e.g where your party’s constitution has not been followed - don’t ask for interim or interlocutory relief, - ask for accelerate hearing and - get your N20,000,000 ready (especially if the final decision goes against you) That’s all. Ubi jus, Ubi remedium!

Mr. President, It was Lord Denning In Parker Vs Parker who said "What is the argument on the other side? Only this, that no case has been found in which it has been done before. That argument does not appeal to me in the least. If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still whilst the rest of the world goes on…" There are numerous instances where judicial pronouncements have been utilized as an avenue to change the 'norm' in relation to how certain things are done. In Mojekwu Vs Mojekwu, Ukeje Vs Ukeje, et Al, the Supreme Court expressly condemned harmful customary practices that exclude women from inheritance, stating that No matter the circumstances of the birth of a female child, she's entitled to inherit from her deceased father’s estate. Imagine Ukeje did not approach the Court, afterall, 'it has been the law before I was born, why should I challenge it?' In Adediran v Interland Transport Ltd, Residents of Ire-Akari Housing Estate sued for public nuisance caused by the Defendant transport company's operations.  The Supreme Court made its first pronouncement that private individuals can sue for public nuisance without the Attorney-General's consent, based on Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution which guarantees right of access to court. Imagine they didnt make that move and everyone has to apply to the AGF for consent to institute an action in public nuisance? 😂🤣😂 Issuing subtle threats to refer Lawyers who approach the Court in respect of these issues is a disguised military offensive to deprive our laws of being tested, thereby curbing the development of our legal jurisprudence. There are numerous problems plaguing our profession and the judiciary at large, but this is not one that requires this much dissipation of energy. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

I agree. Here is the only solution for ADC members interested in the 2027 elections. However, in the alternative: 1. Have a meeting with Nafiu Bala and agree to make him the National Chairman. 2. Agree to withdraw/discontinue all pending suits.

Any lawyer who has ANY issue with this statement must stand to be counted as one of the very enemies of Nigeria’s democracy. God bless you, Mr President.

Festus, any Lawyer that has an issue with it is not an enemy of Nigeria. If all lawyers were to agree on every point of law and reason alike, there would be no disputes for judicial determination. There would be no Plaintiff or Defendant. The vitality of the legal system lies in the ability of counsel to interrogate the same facts and principles from differing perspectives, and to advance reasoned arguments both in support of and in opposition to a given position. It is through this contest of ideas that the law evolves and justice is ultimately served.