Justice Peter Odo Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has issued a final order stopping the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) from proceeding with its 2025 National convention scheduled for Ibadan, in Oyo state.

The convention was slated to hold between November 15 and 16 in the Oyo state capital for the purpose of electing national officers for the PDP.

However, Justice Peter Odo Lifu in his final judgment on Friday afternoon in a suit filed by former Jigawa state governor, Sule Lamido, barred the PDP from proceeding with the convention until it complies with its Constitution and Guidelines on the convention.

He ordered that the Ibadan convention must be put on hold until Sule Lamido is allowed to purchase a nomination form for the office of the National Chairmanship and campaign to realize his aspiration

The Judge prohibited the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from supervising, monitoring, or aiding the Ibadan convention until the former Jigawa state governor is allowed to participate in the convention.

The judge held that PDP is under a strict obligation to adhere to its own rules and regulations by giving opportunities to eligible members to realize their individual aspirations.

He said that it was wrong of the PDP to have denied Lamido the opportunity to purchase a nomination form for the office of the national chairman of the party.

Justice Lifu said that PDP is in clear of utter breach of its own Constitution and guidelines by denying some members the opportunity to access the nomination form for elective offices at the convention.

An indication that all will not be well with the convention first emerged on October 31, when
Justice James Omotosho restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, from recognizing the outcome of the forthcoming 2025 National Convention of the PDP.

Justice James Omotosho had issued the order while delivering judgment in a suit challenging the legality of the convention.

The judge had predicated the court decision because the PDP failed to comply with relevant conditions and laws for the conduct of such conventions.

The judge held that evidence provided by the electoral umpire and some of the respondents showed that congresses were not held in some states of the federation in breach of the law.

In addition, the court held that the signing of notices and correspondences of the PDP by its National Chairman without the National Secretary violated the law and consequently made such notices and correspondences a nullity.

Besides, Justice Omotosho had held that the PDP failed to issue the mandatory 21-day notice of meetings and congresses to enable INEC carry out its mandatory duty of monitoring such meetings and congresses.

Justice Omotosho held that the failure of the PDP to comply with the law has put the planned convention in jeopardy, and subsequently advised the PDP to do the necessary before going ahead with the election.

Three aggrieved members of the party who instituted the case are Austin Nwachukwu (Imo PDP chairman), Amah Abraham Nnanna (Abia PDP chairman), and Turnah Alabh George (PDP Secretary, South-South).

The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/2025 was instituted on their behalf by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Joseph Daudu.

PDP suffered the second blow on November 11, when Justice Lifu issued an order of interim injunction which restrained the PDP from holding its 2025 National Convention scheduled for Ibadan, Oyo State, between November 15 and 16.

The court had also barred the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, from supervising, monitoring, or recognizing the outcome of the National Convention, where national officers are expected to be elected.

Justice Lifu had issued the second order while delivering a ruling in an application brought by a former governor of Jigawa state, Sule Lamido.

Lamido, a foundation member of PDP, had dragged the party before the court, complaining that he was denied the opportunity to buy the Chairmanship nomination form to enable him to participate in the convention.

The judge predicated the restriction order against PDP because the party refused, neglected, and failed to comply with relevant conditions and laws for the conduct of such conventions.

The judge held that evidence from Lamido showed that the timetable for the convention was not published for the attention of its members as required by law.

Justice Lifu also held that the balance of convenience tilted towards Lamido because he would suffer more if allowed to be unlawfully excluded from the planned convention.

To make a remedy, the Judge said that the former governor had undertaken to pay damages to PDP in the event that his suit was found to be frivolous.

According to the Judge, in a Constitutional system, due process of law must be strictly followed by those in charge, adding that to do otherwise will endanger democracy itself.

He also said that in line with section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, a court of law must not abdicate its role of dispensing justice without fear or favour.

Justice Lifu had held that anarchy would be the order of the day any time, any day, and anywhere the court abdicates its constitutionally assigned functions.

By Aaron Parnas

We have massive breaking news in the past several hours. I’ve spent the day reading through the 23,000 pages released by the House Oversight Committee, and simply put: I’m disgusted by what I’ve read. I’m even more disgusted that it took this long for any of it to see daylight…

While the politics are moving quickly, the documents themselves are the true earthquake. After spending long hours with the Oversight release, it’s clear to me that the public has only seen the tip of the iceberg. There are threads in these pages that—if pulled—could expose how influence, money, and access intertwine with media, foreign governments, and the highest rungs of business and politics.

Below are some of the most consequential revelations, as reflected in the documents. They deserve rigorous, public scrutiny and—crucially—swift congressional action to secure, authenticate, and release the underlying records in full. The bottom line is unmistakable: these materials demand transparency.

Click here to continue reading.

The commencement of the 2025 Law Week of the International Federation of Women Lawyers, FIDA Nigeria – Abuja Branch, with the theme “Advancing Women’s Representation: The Reserved Seats and the Future of Nigeria’s Legislature,” opened with a strong call for women’s political inclusion.

Addressing a press conference on Friday, Chairperson of FIDA Abuja, Chioma Onyenucheya-Uko, who pointed out that the theme is urgent because Nigeria stands at a constitutional crossroads, asserted that: “Reserved seats for women is not a gift; it is a corrective tool, a long-overdue restructuring, and an investment in national stability and inclusive governance.”

She argued that democracy cannot grow while half the population remains excluded from leadership, adding that leadership ability does not depend on gender or privilege.

Again, Onyenucheya-Uko stated that future legislatures must reflect the populations they claim to represent.

Giving a historical context to show why women deserve structural support in politics
She recalled that the right to vote came late to many Nigerian women, especially in the North which was in 1979.

Also, the FIDA Abuja Chair noted that decades of military rule blocked women from political leadership and created an unfair advantage for men in public office.

According to Onyenucheya-Uko, the push for reserved seats not only aligns with FIDA’s 2025 goals for political empowerment of women, but it would also strengthen national stability and inclusive governance.

She emphasized that women must become leaders, influencers, and active decision-makers.

She moved on to clear calls for action to all stakeholders, urged policymakers to pass the Reserved Seats Bill without delay, and asked political parties to open their doors to capable women across Nigeria.

Meanwhile, she encouraged the media to promote visibility for women in leadership; appealed to development partners to fund long-term advocacy efforts, and urged Nigerian women to claim their space in governance.

She concluded that any future legislature without women cannot be called democratic.

Likewise, Chairperson of the 2025 FIDA Abuja Law Week Committee, Wendy Kuku, SAN, in her address disclosed that: “The objective and essence of this year’s Law Week is to promote understanding of how mechanisms such as reserved seats can bridge the gap in women’s representation, strengthen democracy, and enhance governance outcomes. Further, it is to spark dialogue that moves from talk to tangible reform, ensuring that Nigeria’s future legislature is reflective, inclusive, and just.”

The Senior Advocate further stated that: “FIDA’s mission is to promote, protect, and preserve the rights and welfare of women and children. This year’s Law Week theme perfectly aligns with that mission—advocating for women’s representation and empowerment as critical tools for achieving gender parity, justice, and sustainable national development. FIDA envisions a Nigeria where laws and governance structures guarantee equal access to opportunity, leadership, and Voice.”

A heated exchange has erupted between British broadcaster Piers Morgan and Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yusuf Maitama Tuggar.

The clash followed Tuggar’s public demand that his full interview on Morgan’s show be aired unedited.

The minister appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored to address allegations of Christian persecution in Nigeria.

He said he wanted to present what he called a “factual and contextual perspective” on the issue.

In a post on X, Tuggar warned against what he described as media manipulation.
He insisted that “for the sake of integrity and transparency, the full interview must be aired exactly as recorded.”

He added that “Nigeria’s truth must not be distorted to fit external biases.”

Morgan quote-tweeted the post and accused the minister of panicking. “You seem to be panicking, Foreign Minister,” he wrote. “Rest assured, we will air your comments in full. The show is called Uncensored for a reason. Whether people believe what you said remains to be seen.”

Meanwhile, the minister’s remarks continue to spark a storm of reactions online.

Political analyst Goldie Ghamari sharply criticised Tuggar’s performance during the interview.
She accused him of dodging Morgan’s questions and called his responses “embarrassing.”

According to Ghamari, the minister was “caught in several lies” while trying to defend the Nigerian government’s record.
She reposted Tuggar’s statement on X and labelled him “a liar and a genocide denier.”

Ghamari argued that while such behaviour might go unchallenged in Nigeria, it fails on international platforms.
She said global media outlets demand accountability and facts, not political spin.

Tuggar, however, stood by his comments, saying his statements were backed by verifiable data.

He maintained that his explanations may not have aligned with “preconceived expectations,” but were truthful.

The controversy has since stirred fresh debate on Nigeria’s global image and how its officials handle sensitive issues.

As of now, Morgan has not announced when the full interview will be released, but tensions between both sides remain high.

The United Nations and the World Bank have sounded the alarm over worsening hunger and poverty in Nigeria, warning that millions face deepening hardship amid soaring inflation, insecurity, and weak economic growth.

In a joint report released Wednesday, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) listed Nigeria among countries of “very high concern” for severe food insecurity, alongside Afghanistan, Somalia, and Syria.

The agencies said global hunger is worsening due to conflict and economic shocks, with millions at risk of starvation.

“We are on the brink of a completely preventable hunger catastrophe,” warned WFP Executive Director Cindy McCain, urging urgent international support.

The report revealed that only $10.5 billion of the $29 billion required for emergency food assistance has been received, forcing aid cuts in several countries.

FAO said urgent funding is needed to sustain agricultural livelihoods through seed and livestock support before planting seasons.

Meanwhile, the World Bank’s latest Nigeria Development Update paints a grim picture of the nation’s poverty rate, showing that over 129 million Nigerians — or 56% of the population — now live below the poverty line, up from 40% in 2018.

It attributed the spike to inflation, insecurity, flooding, and slow growth, warning that “being employed is no guarantee of escaping poverty” due to low wages and poor job quality.

India High Commission, KADIFF screen short movies in Abuja

The report also showed a surge in urban poverty, rising from 18% in 2018 to 31% in 2024, as economic pressures spread beyond rural areas.

While commending the federal government’s expanded cash transfer initiatives, the Bank urged deeper structural reforms to stabilise prices, boost productivity, and create sustainable jobs to reverse the worsening poverty trend.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Jibrin Okutepa, has unleashed a scathing attack on the nation’s judiciary, accusing some judges of turning courts into “weapons of oppression” rather than temples of justice.

In a fiery post on his X handle on Sunday, Okutepa lamented that Nigeria’s justice system is being crippled by corruption, compromise, and abuse of power by those entrusted to uphold the law.

“There is an urgent need for institutions of justice in Nigeria to wake up and give hope to the hopeless,” he said. “In those days, the oppressed ran to the courts for protection. But today, some judges have become instruments of persecution rather than justice.”

The senior lawyer accused certain judges of abandoning their constitutional oaths and serving as “willing tools” for powerful individuals determined to silence or punish innocent citizens.

“Some of these judges have become available instruments to unjustly keep Nigerians in prison custody,” Okutepa fumed. “There are no immediate remedies for victims of judicial persecution. Judges can’t be sued for judicial acts, and Nigerians are now at their mercy.”

Describing the situation as “alarming,” Okutepa said many judges now act like “judicial emperors” — openly displaying bias in court and taking sides depending on their interests.

He also cited instances where judges disregard constitutional provisions, especially regarding the Attorney-General’s powers under Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution.

“When the Attorney-General applies to take over or discontinue a case, the judge must strike it out,” he explained. “But some judges, out of arrogance or bias, adjourn such matters for flimsy reasons that defy logic and justice.”

Okutepa warned that public trust in the judiciary is hanging by a thread.

“Nigerians fear the golden days of justice are gone,” he wrote. “We must act fast to restore confidence in our courts. The way some judges behave today is destroying the judiciary’s integrity.”

He called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) and Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to send monitoring teams across courts to expose and discipline erring judges.

“When a judge keeps adjourning a case meant to set an accused person free, people will see bias,” he warned. “This is wrong — and it’s killing justice in Nigeria.”

Okutepa’s fiery outburst has reignited public debate over corruption, arbitrary detentions, and politically motivated trials, highlighting the growing crisis of confidence in Nigeria’s justice system.

Access to justice remains a global challenge for the poor and marginalized.
Pro bono legal services are closing that gap by offering free or low-cost assistance.

At the 2025 Law for Humanity Summit, experts explored how pro bono can drive reform without lowering ethical standards.

Ehusani Abel Simpa presented a groundbreaking paper highlighting practical pro bono models and their success across continents.

From Ukraine to Rwanda, lawyers are helping bridge justice gaps through community mediation and free legal defense.

In Malawi and Kenya, paralegals are trained to handle disputes, cutting court congestion by nearly half.

Rwanda mandates legal representation for all appeal cases, ensuring no one faces justice unrepresented.

In Nigeria, pro bono work by the Bar Association and NGOs has achieved milestones but still faces deep-rooted apathy.

Lawyer indifference, limited resources, and inconsistent engagement slow the nation’s justice efforts.

Simpa calls for reforms like mandatory pro bono assignments and automated systems to match lawyers with clients in need.

He proposes a “National Pro Bono Hall of Fame” to celebrate outstanding contributions.
The reforms also encourage duty solicitor schemes and legislative drafting support to decongest prisons.

Pro bono, he argues, must extend to civil cases—like family, land, and environmental disputes—not just criminal ones.

Such efforts could reduce crime by addressing underlying social and emotional issues early.
Ethics remain central, with lawyers urged to handle pro bono cases with the same passion as paid work.

The paper also highlights pro bono’s role in promoting restorative justice over punitive systems.

By aligning with the UN’s Nelson Mandela Rules, pro bono can improve prison welfare and human dignity.

Simpa calls on lawmakers to integrate correctional reforms into state laws through volunteer-driven drafting.

He envisions artificial intelligence tools that connect lawyers, automate pro bono matches, and monitor case outcomes.

A proposed “Distinguished Pro Bono Advocate” rank would honor lawyers who champion justice for the vulnerable.

In conclusion, Simpa’s message is clear—justice must not depend on wealth but on will, ethics, and compassion.

With innovation, accountability, and empathy, pro bono can turn justice from a privilege into a shared right.

Click here to download the paper, Productive Pro Bono Models and Practical Solution for Reform

Click here to download the PowerPoint slides.