Politics
Ibori Bombs Supreme Court, APC
Former governor of Delta State, James Onanefe Ibori has come down hard on the Supreme Court of Nigeria (SCN) and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) over the fiscal autonomy granted to Nigeria’s 774 Local Government Areas.
Following the handing down of the SCN’s decision on the matter on Thursday, the publisher of Daily Independent took to his verified X handle to vent his disappointment at the architects of what he termed “a severe setback on the principle of federalism” as enshrined in the Constitution.
Ibori could not hide his anger at the SCN’s decision, which he stated ran contrary to section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
In the tweet, which was signed with his full names, James Onanefe Ibori, he wondered why the apex court should turn blind eyes to section 162(6) of the constitution which states that, “Each State shall maintain a special account to be called “State Joint Local Government Account” into which shall be paid all allocations to the Local Government Councils of the State from the Federation Account and from the Government of the State.”
It is the considered opinion of the respected godfather of Delta politics that “The court’s ruling on the matter is an assault on true federalism.”
READ ALSO: BREAKING: Supreme Court Grants LGAs Autonomy
He expressed optimism that the ruling would be reviewed sooner than later to right the wrongs.
“It is my sincere hope that the judgement delivered today will be reviewed at the earliest time possible because it clearly stands the concept of federalism on its head,” he stated.
Ibori wrote, “The Supreme Court has dealt a severe setback on the principle of federalism as defined by section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The section expressly provides thus:
“Any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal and State Governments and the Local Government Councils in each State on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly”.
“Sections 6 provide further clarity on the subject matter.
(6) Each State shall maintain a special account to be called “State Joint Local Government Account” into which shall be paid all allocations to the Local Government Councils of the State from the Federation Account and from the Government of the State.
“The court’s ruling on the matter is an assault on true federalism. The federal government has no right to interfere with the administration of Local Governments in under any guise whatsoever. There are only two tiers of government in a federal system of government.
“I’m opposed to fiddling with the allocations to the Joint LG Accounts at the state level but that in itself does not call for this death knell to the clear provisions of section 162 of the constitution. The implications of the ruling are far reaching and the issues that readily come to mind are:
“1. Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court’s ruling appears to contradict the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution. This raises questions about judicial interpretation and whether the court has overstepped its bounds in reinterpreting clear constitutional language.
“2. Balance of Power: The ruling potentially shifts the balance of power between the federal government and states. By allowing federal intervention in local government finances, it arguably centralizes more power at the federal level, contrary to the principles of federalism.
“3. State Autonomy: This decision could be seen as an erosion of state autonomy. States are meant to have significant control over their internal affairs, including the administration of local governments, in a federal system.
“4. Financial Independence: The ruling may impact the financial independence of states and local governments. If the federal government can directly intervene in local government finances, it could potentially use this as a tool for political leverage.
“5. Precedent Setting: This decision could set a precedent for further federal interventions in areas traditionally reserved for state governance, potentially leading to a more centralized system of government over time.
“That Local Governments must be “democratically elected” goes without saying. Yes, I agree, that’s the position of the constitution but withholding their allocation is not the way to go. It’s wrong.
“In the coming days, we will begin to fully understand the implications of the Supreme Court decision. An assault on the constitution is not the answer to fiddling with the Joint LG Account. If the ruling is saying Governors cannot temper, touch, fiddle with the Joint Accounts, that’s fine because they shouldn’t be doing that in the first place. But asking the Federal Government to pay Local Governments allocations to the account of the Local Government directly will lead to utter chaos and avoidable friction in governance.
“Like the Hon. Justice Oputa JSC of blessed memory once said in describing the Supreme Court ” we are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final”.
“It is my sincere hope that the judgement delivered today will be reviewed at the earliest time possible because it clearly stands the concept of federalism on its head.”
A chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party, Dan Ulasi, has warned that the party stands little chance of defeating President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the 2027 general elections if Nyesom Wike continues to play a leading role while allegedly supporting the ruling government.
Ulasi, who spoke during an interview on Arise TV on Thursday, expressed deep concern over what he described as a “contradictory situation” within the PDP, stressing that such internal inconsistencies could weaken the party’s credibility and chances at the polls.
ALSO READ: ‘I Didn’t Mean It Literally’ — Nyesom Wike Clears Air as Atiku Abubakar Fires Back
“I don’t see my party as presently constituted challenging Tinubu with Wike as national leader,” Ulasi said, warning that he may be forced to leave the party if the issue is not addressed.
The PDP stalwart argued that Wike cannot effectively serve as a leader in the opposition while maintaining close ties with President Tinubu, describing the situation as “unconstructive” for a party seeking to reclaim power at the national level.
He further questioned what role Wike would play if another candidate emerges as the PDP’s presidential flag-bearer ahead of the 2027 election, asking whether the former Rivers State governor would actively participate in party rallies or align with the ruling party’s activities.
Ulasi warned that the party’s next meeting could be his last if its leadership fails to provide satisfactory explanations, insisting that he cannot continue to be part of a process riddled with contradictions.
In a related development, Ulasi revealed that Peter Obi had visited him several times this year, including a recent meeting following an appearance in Enugu.
He spoke positively about Obi’s vision for Nigeria, noting that the former presidential candidate offers a sense of hope for the country’s future, although he stopped short of declaring any political alignment.
Reflecting on his longstanding ties to the PDP, Ulasi recalled his role during the party’s formation alongside late former Vice-President Alex Ekueme and other founding members.
Despite his deep connection to the party, he maintained that he would rather step aside than remain in a system he considers inconsistent.
He added that if he eventually exits the PDP, he has no plans to join another political party, stating that he would instead operate as a private consultant.
There was tension within the Ogun State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) on Monday after former Governor and Senator representing Ogun East, Otunba Gbenga Daniel, alleged that he was barred from attending a stakeholders’ meeting of the party held in Ijebu Ode.
The meeting, which took place at Adeola Odutola Hall, was reportedly convened to bring together key party stakeholders, including current and former local government chairmen, councillors, and serving as well as former lawmakers from both state and national levels.
However, the senator, in a viral video circulating online, claimed he was denied entry into the venue despite being part of the expected attendees.
ALSO READ: “APC Failure in Disguise?” — Dickson Tears Into ADC Coalition
Speaking from his branded campaign bus parked at the venue, Daniel expressed disappointment over the situation, saying he and his team were stopped from accessing the meeting.
He further questioned the legitimacy of any resolutions reached at the gathering, suggesting that the outcome of the meeting should not be considered valid.
As of press time, the Ogun State APC leadership had yet to issue an official response to the allegation.
The lingering leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) is set for a crucial legal test as the Supreme Court of Nigeria prepares to hear an appeal filed by former Senate President, David Mark.
Mark is challenging a legal action brought by a former Deputy National Chairman of the party, Nafiu Bala, over the control and leadership structure of the ADC.
The case, scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, is expected to determine the direction of the party amid deepening internal divisions.
SEE MORE: 2027: Why ADC, Opposition Leaders Stormed INEC in Abuja
Through his lawyer, Realwan Okpanachi, Mark is seeking an order to stay the execution of a Court of Appeal judgment delivered on March 12, pending the final resolution of the matter.
He also urged the apex court to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from making any alterations to the party’s leadership as currently constituted under his faction.
In addition, Mark is asking the court to suspend further proceedings in a related suit before the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite.
The dispute dates back to a September 4, 2025 ruling by the Federal High Court following an ex parte application filed by Bala, which has since fueled competing claims to the party’s leadership.
The ADC has, in recent months, been embroiled in a bitter factional crisis, with rival camps asserting legitimacy.
The situation has been worsened by conflicting court orders and administrative uncertainty surrounding who truly leads the party.
Tensions escalated after INEC reportedly removed Mark as the party’s national chairman from its official records, sparking protests by his loyalists.
The demonstration drew prominent political figures, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, ex-Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola, former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi, and former Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi.
In response, the Bala-led faction staged a counter-protest, insisting on recognition by INEC as the legitimate leadership of the party.
As the battle shifts to the Supreme Court, political observers say the outcome could decisively shape the future of the ADC, particularly as political alignments begin to take form ahead of upcoming elections.
Dangote Refinery Exports 1.1bn Litres of Aviation Fuel to Europe, Supplies 95% of Nigeria’s Jet A1 – AON
NNPC Ltd, Algeria’s Sonatrach Ink MoU for Research, Innovation
Peterside Harps on Strong Leadership at NCDMB Book Reading Series
NGA Calls for Risk Reduction Policies to Lift Oil, Gas Industry
Middle East Crisis Sparks Most Severe Supply Shock in History — IEA
Political Earthquake Brewing? Peter Obi, Bala Mohammed in Closed-Door Talks
Trump’s Family Unveils New Cryptocurrency Platform
Senate Denies Receiving Petitions Against Tinubu’s Ambassadorial Nominees
Dangote Cement Lights Up Benue Host Communities With CSR Initiatives
Reps Recommend 3-year Jail Term For Aviation minister
Tems Sets New Record On Billboard Hot 100 Chart
