Former presidential aspirant of the Democratic Leadership Alliance (DLA), Mrs. Abisayo Busari-Akinnadeju, has confirmed receiving a refund of ₦10.8 million from the party following her withdrawal from the 2027 presidential race.

Busari-Akinnadeju disclosed this in a statement on Friday, noting that while the party had returned the bulk of the nomination fee she paid in April 2026, an outstanding balance of ₦1.2 million was yet to be refunded.

According to her, the refund followed her resignation from the DLA on May 28 after disagreements over the party’s candidate selection process.

“I acknowledge receipt of ₦10.8 million out of the presidential nomination fee I paid. While I appreciate this action, a balance of ₦1.2 million remains outstanding,” she stated.

The former aspirant, however, stressed that the refund did not address what she described as fundamental concerns surrounding the integrity of the party’s presidential primary process.

She alleged that efforts were made to prevent her participation in the screening exercise and claimed that a disciplinary procedure was later deployed to remove her from the contest after she declined to endorse a consensus arrangement.

According to Busari-Akinnadeju, the issues at stake go beyond the reimbursement of funds and raise broader questions about internal democracy and compliance with electoral regulations.

“The return of the money does not resolve the concerns surrounding the process. It only addresses one aspect of a much larger issue involving transparency, fairness, and adherence to democratic principles,” she said.

She further alleged that state chairmen of the party were instructed not to attend the presidential primary but instead submit figures to the national secretariat as part of a process intended to produce a consensus candidate.

The former aspirant argued that the Electoral Act requires the consent of all cleared aspirants before a consensus candidate can emerge, insisting that such conditions were not met in her case.

She maintained that her experience points to the need for stronger safeguards to protect aspirants seeking elective offices, regardless of their financial capacity or political influence.

“My concern is no longer limited to the money. It is about ensuring that future aspirants are protected from similar experiences and that political participation remains fair and accessible to all Nigerians,” she said.

She thanked supporters, civil society groups, and members of the public who followed developments surrounding the matter, noting that public scrutiny played a key role in securing the refund.

Having resigned from partisan politics, Busari-Akinnadeju said she would now focus on the Dare Agenda Movement, a platform she described as dedicated to promoting purposeful leadership and citizen-driven governance.

According to her, the movement aims to mobilise Nigerians toward active engagement in nation-building beyond electoral cycles.

“The work of building a better Nigeria cannot wait until 2027. The Dare Agenda is already in motion, and we remain committed to pursuing leadership accountability and national development,” she added.

Edo South Nigeria Democratic Congress, NDC, Senatorial aspirant, Ehiozuwa Agbonayinma, has alleged that the just concluded party’s primary election was massively rigged.

Speaking during an interview on Arise Television on Friday, Agbonayinma said he won the primaries despite the rigging, and asked for the announcement of the result.

Recall that the NDC is yet to announce the result of her primary election which was held last week.

Agbonayinma said, “I won Edo South NDC primaries despite the process being rigged. I won the election honourably, with a large turnout, and ward chairmen, local government chairmen, and other party leaders all affirmed that I clearly won.

“There is no ambiguity about the result. What is delaying the announcement of the results since May 29th? Today is June 5th, so what exactly is being hidden or held back?

“We went through the primaries, and those who win should be allowed to move forward.

“If I had not won, I would have conceded to the rightful winner, but since I won, I should be given the opportunity to proceed based on the outcome of the election.”

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has filed a suit before a High Court in Abuja involving the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, over concerns arising from an ongoing leadership dispute within the party.

Also joined in the suit is the National Judicial Council (NJC), which the party said had not addressed issues it raised regarding the handling of a case challenging the leadership of former Senate President, Senator David Mark, within the ADC.

The suit, dated June 4, 2026, was filed by the National Welfare Secretary of the ADC, Nkemakolam Ukandu, who is seeking to be joined in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe against the Mark-led leadership of the party.

According to the suit, Ukandu expressed concerns about the handling of the matter and alleged that the actions of both Justice Tsoho and Justice Peter Lifu, the judge assigned to hear the case, could affect confidence in the proceedings.

The suit further stated that the assignment of the case to Justice Lifu had generated concerns among some members of the party, who believe the process may not guarantee a fair hearing.

The legal action marks a fresh twist in the leadership dispute within the ADC, which has attracted significant political attention ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Meanwhile, a group known as the Grassroots Mobilization Network (GMN) also raised concerns about the handling of the matter and called for transparency in the judicial process.

The group alleged that the judiciary was being used to target opposition parties.

However, these claims remain allegations, and no official response had been issued by the Federal High Court or Justice Lifu as of the time of filing this report.

The group expressed concern over what it described as growing public distrust in the judiciary and called on relevant authorities to ensure fairness and transparency in the handling of politically sensitive cases.

Neither the Federal High Court nor the National Judicial Council had publicly responded to the issues raised at the time of this report.