Former governor of Borno State, Ali Modu Sheriff, has said the African Democratic Congres, ADC, presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, should wait till 2031 to become Nigeria’s president because President Bola Tinubu will complete his eight-year term.

Sheriff also said the North will not back the Nigeria Democratic Congress, NDC, presidential candidate, Peter Obi, even though he has Rabiu Kwankwaso as his running mate.

Appearing on Channels Television’s Politics Today on Monday night, Sheriff stated that the North will never vote for Obi.

Sheriff said: “I don’t worry about Peter Obi because I know Northerners will never support him.

“The situation is different now. During Peter Obi’s time as governor, he worked to get Northerners to leave Anambra State. This is what people in Kano are telling Kwankwaso now.

“They claim they have always stood by him and will keep doing so if he runs for president, but they won’t support him if he sides with Peter Obi.

“For Atiku, this is not the North’s turn. He is a well-respected leader and very qualified, but he has to wait until 2031. President Buhari has finished eight years of being in charge, so now it’s the South’s turn.”

***Court awards N100m fine against ADC chieftain over suit against judges

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA — The Court of Appeal in Abuja will today hear substantive appeals seeking to set aside the judgment that ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to deregister African Democratic Congress, ADC, and four other political parties.

The appeals will be heard by a three-member panel, led by Justice Abba Mohammed.

The panel had, on June 25, okayed a full-blown hearing of the appeals after house-keeping proceedings that enabled the parties in the matter to identify and regularise all the processes they had filed.

Aside from the ADC, the other parties seeking nullification of the Federal High Court judgment are the Action Peoples Party, APP; Action Alliance, AA;  Accord Party, AP; and the Zenith Labour Party, ZLP.

It will be recalled that the Appeal Court had, on June 16, ordered a stay of execution of the High Court judgment, even as it slammed the trial judge for disregarding the judicial hierarchy.

The panel berated Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for disobeying an order it had made on May 22, which directed him to stay proceedings in the case, pending the outcome of an appeal by the parties.

According to the appellate court, though the trial judge’s attention had been drawn to the order for a stay of proceedings, he intentionally flouted it and went ahead to deliver the judgment.

It held that Justice Lifu’s action was “a form of judicial impertinence,” stressing that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judge who acts in such a manner “is unfit for the bench, as the conduct amounts to judicial rascality.”

The High Court had directed INEC to deregister the five political parties, which it said had failed to meet the constitutional requirements needed to warrant their continued existence and participation in future elections.

It also barred INEC from further according recognition to the parties, accepting nominations of candidates from the affected parties, or giving effect to their activities for purposes of participating in the 2027 general elections.

Justice Lifu ordered the defendants to stop parading themselves as registered political parties in the country, saying he found merit in the suit filed against them by the National Forum of Former Legislators, NFFL.

The NFFL had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, asked the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove political parties that fail to meet the electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s regulations.

It was the plaintiffs’ position that the five political parties listed as defendants had persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration.

The former legislators stressed that the requirements include winning at least 25 per cent of the votes in a state during a presidential election, or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.

They told the court that the ADC and the four other parties had performed poorly in both the 2023 general elections and the by-elections conducted by INEC, thereby failing to win seats across key tiers of government.

The litigants insisted that the continued existence of the ADC and the other defendants as recognised political parties is unlawful and undermines the integrity of the country’s electoral system.

Notably, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who is also a defendant in the matter, threw his weight behind the plaintiffs.

In processes filed before the court, the AGF argued that the continued existence of the said political parties violates extant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and ultimately undermines the nation’s electoral integrity.

The AGF argued that unless the court intervened, INEC would continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

However, dissatisfied with the trial court’s verdict, all the defendants, including INEC, have urged the appellate court to set it aside.

Court awards N100m fine against ADC chieftain over suit against judges

Meanwhile, the Federal High Court, Abuja, yesterday ordered the National Welfare Secretary of  African Democratic Congress, ADC, Mr. Nkemakolam Ukandu, to pay the sum of N100 million for filing a suit against judges.

It ordered the plaintiff to pay N50 million each to the Chief Judge, John Tsoho, and a judge of the court, Justice Peter Lifu.

The court made the orders in a ruling delivered by Justice Salim Ibrahim, following an oral application made by counsel to the two judges, Mr. J. U. K. Igwe.

According to the court, the cost must be paid within 14 days.

Moreover, Justice Ibrahim struck out Mr. Ukandu’s case for lack of diligent prosecution.

It will be recalled that the ADC chieftain filed the action against the two judges, accusing them of bias and disobedience of a directive of the Supreme Court on the leadership crisis rocking the party. He also cited the National Judicial Council (NJC) as a defendant in the matter.

In his suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1165/2026, the plaintiff sought an order to compel the NJC to investigate allegations of corruption, abuse of judicial powers, and bias levelled against the two judges.

He specifically queried the reassignment of the suit challenging the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC — which was previously being heard by Justice Emeka Nwite — to Justice Lifu.

Meanwhile, when the case was called on Monday, neither the plaintiff nor his lawyer was in court.

Consequently, Justice Ibrahim, who had on June 30 threatened to dismiss the suit after the litigant failed to appear for the hearing, proceeded to do so on Monday with punitive costs.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the National Welfare Secretary of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Nkemakolam Ukandu, to pay a total of N100 million in damages to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, and Justice Peter Lifu over a suit the court struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.

Justice Salim Ibrahim, who delivered the ruling on Monday, ordered Ukandu to pay N50 million each to Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu within 14 days.

The order followed an oral application by counsel to the two judges, Mr J. U. K. Igwe, SAN.

Earlier, Justice Ibrahim struck out Ukandu’s suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1165/2026, after finding that the plaintiff had failed to diligently prosecute the matter.

Ukandu had sued the National Judicial Council (NJC), Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu over allegations of judicial bias and disobedience to court orders. He sought an order compelling the NJC to investigate claims of corruption, abuse of judicial powers, and bias allegedly committed by the two judges.

However, the plaintiff and his lawyer repeatedly failed to appear before Justice Ibrahim after the case was assigned to him.

The judge had, on June 30, warned that the suit could be dismissed if neither Ukandu nor his counsel appeared at subsequent proceedings.

The case arose from the ongoing leadership dispute within the ADC involving an aggrieved party member, Nafiu-Bala Gombe, whose substantive suit is pending before Justice Lifu.

Gombe is seeking a court order restraining the leadership of the party, led by former Senate President David Mark, from presenting themselves as the legitimate leaders of the ADC.

Ukandu, who is seeking to be joined in that case, accused Justice Tsoho and Justice Lifu of manifest bias and alleged that they were acting in the interest of certain individuals against the party.

In his originating suit, Ukandu challenged the decision of the Chief Judge to reassign the leadership dispute from Justice Emeka Nwite to Justice Lifu, arguing that the reassignment violated both an earlier order of Justice Nwite and a decision of the Supreme Court.