Umar Sani

Spokesperson PDP Presidential Campaign Council 2019. Consultant: Media & PR, Space Host:#SirrinZucci & #ComeTalkYourOwn

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

The Judiciary Has Lost Its Voice

In 162 days, the highest court in Nigeria failed to determine the case brought by eleven PDP governors against the Federal Government. The matter was straightforward yet historic: a challenge to the removal of Governor Fubara and the appointment of a sole administrator in Rivers State. The file has remained on a dusty shelf, untouched. This silence is not accidental. It is deliberate. And it is tragic.

The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as the guardian of justice. Once, it stood tall as a symbol of fairness, where ordinary Nigerians could expect the law to prevail over power. Today, it has become a tool of regime protection. Where the matter pits the executive against public interest, the court grows mute. Neutrality is gone, and with it, the credibility of our judiciary.

This crisis is not new. Former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo recently mocked the judiciary in public, caricaturing its weakness when confronted with serious matters of state. His remark was less a joke than a sad reflection of reality. Even the international community now regards our judiciary with suspicion. No businessman will invest in a country where judgments are dictated by those in power. No investor will put money into a system where justice is compromised at the highest level.

The present Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere Ekun, rose from the Lagos bench to the Supreme Court. Her record has been marked by quiet acquiescence to the will of the executive. Under her leadership, the court has committed infractions that erode public faith. In one case, five justices departed from a precedent established by five other justices, without the mandatory full panel of seven and without offering sound reasons for such a departure. In another, the court overreached by deciding on the botched Rivers State local government elections, even though such matters are meant to terminate at the Court of Appeal.

Perhaps most damaging is the Supreme Court’s refusal to rule on the propriety of the emergency rule imposed in Rivers State. By avoiding the case, the court signaled its unwillingness to confront the executive on questions of constitutional importance. Nyesom Wike’s insistence that the PDP Governors withdraw their suit as a condition for peace suggests he feared the likely outcome if the matter had been decided. When that failed, the strategy shifted to delay, leaving the case suspended until Nigerians either lose interest or forget entirely.

This pattern is not just negligence; it is complicity. It is a betrayal of the traditions built by the giants of the bench Justices Kayode Eso, Chukwudifu Oputa, Mohammed Uwais, Karibi-Whyte, Lebo Kutigi, Aloma Mariam Muktar, Alfa Belgore, Anthony Aniagolu, and George Oguntade. These were activist judges who showed fearless courage. They understood that when matters of national importance arose, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Their landmark judgments remain reference points for students, lawyers, and judges alike.

Sadly, the era of landmark judgments is gone. Courage is in short supply at the Supreme Court. Nigerians no longer trust this bench, for it has shown its bias openly and shamelessly. Today, an ordinary citizen without any legal training can predict with near certainty the outcome of a politically sensitive case. That is the clearest sign of a captured state, where institutions that should protect the people now serve the ruling elite.

But silence is not an option. Citizens, the Bar, civil society, and the press must demand a judiciary that is truly independent and accountable. Judges must rediscover the courage to defend the Constitution, even against the powerful. If the courts remain compromised, Nigeria’s democracy will continue to decay. The only way to save the judiciary is to speak up, insist on reforms, and hold those entrusted with justice to the highest standards. For if the courts fail, the nation itself will fail.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

Perhaps that is your style, and you are merely projecting it onto others. As for me, I have no reason to mislead anyone or depart from the facts as I understand them.

Judging by the intensity of your reaction, I suspect that my analysis may have touched a nerve. After all, arguments are best answered with counterarguments, not assumptions about motives. If my interpretation is flawed, the proper response is to demonstrate where it is flawed. If not, then perhaps the discomfort stems from the strength of the points raised rather than any deficiency in the analysis itself.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

THE COURT OF APPEAL VERDICT: THE COLLAPSE OF THE PDP CARETAKER COMMITTEE’S LEGAL FOUNDATION

The Court of Appeal has delivered one of the most significant rulings in the ongoing leadership dispute within the PDP, fundamentally changing the legal landscape that the factional struggle has depended on.

At the core of the appeal was the judgment of the Federal High Court, Ibadan, which INEC relied on to extend recognition to the controversial Caretaker Committee linked to the Wike faction.

A thorough review of the Court of Appeal’s decision shows that the main issue before the Federal High Court was not the recognition of any caretaker committee. Instead, the substantive relief sought was an order of mandamus compelling INEC to recognize the outcome of the Ibadan National Convention.

However, before the appeal was decided, the Supreme Court ruled on the validity of the convention. Since the Supreme Court had already settled this matter, the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam, concluded that the key issue had become purely academic. Jurisprudence teaches that courts do not spend time deciding hypothetical or resolved disputes. Once the Supreme Court decided on the convention, there was no longer a live dispute requiring resolution by the appellate court.

The Court of Appeal made an important observation. It noted that the trial court failed to properly address the real subject matter of the suit. Typically, such a failure could justify an order for a retrial. But because the substantive issue was already overtaken by the Supreme Court’s decision, the appellate court reasoned that a retrial would be unnecessary.

However, the most significant part of the judgment lies elsewhere.

The appellate court clearly stated that the recognition given to the Caretaker Committee was never an issue that was brought before the Federal High Court. In effect, the lower court ventured into grounds neither pleaded nor argued by the parties. According to established legal principles, such a decision cannot stand because courts must stick to issues properly brought before them.

This finding strikes at the very basis of the recognition granted to the Caretaker Committee.

The court also went further, affirming the suspension of A.K. Ajibade and ruling that he lacked the authority to act on behalf of the party. This significantly undermines the legal standing of actions taken by suspended party officials, including those associated with Sen Samuel Anyanwu and Umar Bature.

The practical effect of this ruling is profound. The Federal High Court decision relied upon by INEC to recognize the CTC has effectively lost its legal effect. More importantly, the Court of Appeal clarified that recognizing that committee was not even a matter arising from the litigation.

Therefore, the legal basis for INEC’s continued recognition of the CTC has been greatly weakened. If INEC faithfully follows the reasoning and implications of the appellate ruling, it will be forced to derecognize the CTC.

The sensible course of action is to recognize the properly formed Interim National Working Committee led by Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, SAN.

In conclusion, this ruling is not just a procedural victory for one faction. It reaffirms a fundamental legal principle: courts cannot grant reliefs that were never requested, nor can institutions rely on judicial decisions that have been invalidated or nullified. The Court of Appeal has spoken, and its judgment has dramatically reshaped the legal reality surrounding the PDP leadership dispute.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

I believe it is you who should take a closer look at yourself. It is both absurd and indicative of a lack of maturity to label someone a liar simply because they have expressed an informed opinion in the public domain. In any civilized discourse, differences in interpretation, analysis, or opinion should be addressed with facts and reasoned arguments, not with personal attacks or derogatory labels. Disagreement does not make a person dishonest; it is merely a reflection of differing perspectives on the same set of facts.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

No, I am not misleading the public. I am stating the facts as I understand them from the records and proceedings before the court.

Those who know me can attest to my fidelity to facts, accuracy, and intellectual honesty. I have no interest in distorting the issues or promoting a narrative that is unsupported by the law and the evidence. My position has been consistent: the judgments should be read carefully, in their entirety, and within the context of the issues that were actually submitted for determination.

Reasonable people may disagree on the interpretation of the judgments, but disagreement is not the same as misinformation. I have presented my understanding of the case and the legal implications flowing from it. If anyone believes otherwise, they are free to advance a contrary interpretation, but that does not make my position dishonest or misleading.

Ultimately, the truth is not determined by the loudness of competing opinions but by the facts, the law, and the eventual consequences of the decisions taken by the relevant institutions.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

There were three issues for determination:

1. The request for an order of mandamus compelling INEC to recognize the Ibadan convention. However, following the Supreme Court’s determination of the matter, that issue has effectively become academic. The Court of Appeal has no basis to revisit or pronounce on it beyond acknowledging that it no longer presents a live controversy requiring adjudication.

2. The issue of the caretaker committee was neither pleaded nor canvassed by either party before the court. The legal position is that a court is bound by the pleadings and reliefs sought by the parties, and its jurisdiction is limited to matters properly placed before it for determination. If the caretaker committee was not an issue submitted for adjudication, then it is difficult to justify its inclusion as part of the judgment. The criticism advanced is that the court ventured into a matter that was not before it and granted reliefs or made pronouncements that were neither sought nor contested by the parties.

3. AK Ajibade the erstwhile National Legal Adviser recruited and instructed the lawyers who filed the defence on behalf of the party. However, the court reaffirmed that, having been suspended, he lacked the requisite locus standi to take such steps on behalf of the party. The effect of the suspension, according to the court’s reasoning, was to deprive him of the authority to act for or represent the party in that capacity.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

That is the narrative that has been presented to you, but the legal position appears more nuanced. The Court of Appeal’s point, as many understand it, is that there was no issue before the Federal High Court, Ibadan, concerning the caretaker committee. A court is bound by the pleadings and reliefs sought by the parties, and its jurisdiction is confined to matters properly placed before it.

Consequently, only the issues pleaded and contested can validly form the basis of a court’s pronouncement. Once it is accepted that the caretaker committee was not an issue before the court, any argument that the court either validated or invalidated the committee becomes questionable.

In law, a court does not pronounce on, validate, or invalidate matters that were never submitted to it for determination. To argue that the judgment rendered the caretaker committee null and void is, in effect, to concede that the court exercised jurisdiction over that issue and made a binding determination on it. That reasoning appears inconsistent with the position that the matter was never before the court in the first place.

The more fundamental question, therefore, is not whether the court upheld or struck down the caretaker committee, but whether the committee was ever a subject of adjudication at all. If it were not, then neither legitimacy nor illegitimacy could be derived from that judgment concerning its existence.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

You may think this is amusing, but I would advise against treating it lightly. In due course, the facts and legal realities will become clearer, and you may come to realize that the joke was never on me.

Time has a way of exposing misconceptions and separating political narratives from legal truths. When that moment comes, I hope you will revisit the issues with the same confidence you display today.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

You appear to be misunderstanding the crux of our concern. Our focus is not on the Ibadan convention. The real issue is the formation and recognition of the caretaker committee.

As the court itself observed, the caretaker committee was not a subject of the suit and did not form part of the issues submitted for determination. That is precisely why many of us maintain that attempts to derive legitimacy for the caretaker arrangement from the judgment are misplaced.

The central question is whether the caretaker committee can lawfully stand. If it collapses, then the entire structure built around it also collapses. In practical terms, the collapse of the caretaker committee would signify the collapse of what many regard as the Wike-backed contraption that has sought to exert control over the party’s affairs.

That is why the debate is not about the convention. It is about legality, legitimacy, and whether a structure that was never properly before the court can continue to derive authority from a judgment that did not directly address its existence.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

You need to carefully study and properly digest the judgments with an open mind. Once you do so, you will appreciate that neither of the judgments is favourable to Wike’s position.

What appears to be sustaining the current momentum is not the strength of the legal arguments or the judicial pronouncements, but the Tinubu factor. However, political influence can only endure for so long. Ultimately, it must give way to the truth, the rule of law, and the clear implications of the court decisions.

At the end of the day, facts remain facts, and no amount of political maneuvering can permanently override the law or the will of those committed to upholding it.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

The Wike matter must ultimately be resolved, and what many regard as an illegal contraption, allegedly sustained with the backing of President Tinubu to ease his path to the 2027 elections, must give way to the authentic PDP.

No political party can thrive on arrangements that undermine its constitution, democratic principles, and internal processes. We cannot be expected to submit to what is perceived as judicial brigandage or administrative manipulation by INEC. Respect for the rule of law, due process, and the decisions of competent courts remains essential to the survival of democracy.

In the end, the right thing must be done. The will of party members, the provisions of the party’s constitution, and the dictates of the law must prevail over political expediency and vested interests.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

@boaz_gaiya You're welcome

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

Adefarasin’s Uncomfortable Truth

Pastor Paul Adefarasin’s statement that “Nigeria is dead” and that “once you are counting in naira, you are poor” sparked outrage across the country. Predictably, critics quickly dismissed the remark as exaggerated, insensitive, and economically inaccurate. Yet beneath the controversy lies a painful truth many Nigerians prefer to ignore.

The first criticism points to Adefarasin’s own recollection that his father earned about N18,000 in the 1970s or 1980s and was able to comfortably support his family. Critics argue this example contradicts his claim because his father earned, spent, and saved in naira. They contend the issue isn’t the naira itself but its decreasing value.

However, this criticism misses the core of his argument. He wasn’t condemning the naira as a currency but lamenting what it has become. His father’s N18,000 salary once represented significant purchasing power, capable of acquiring assets, supporting a family, and creating wealth. Today, the same amount would barely cover basic living costs for a week. His point was that the naira has degraded so much that figures which once signified prosperity now indicate hardship.

Another criticism traces back to the Shehu Shagari era. It’s argued that the naira was never truly strong because the government artificially maintained its value through exchange-rate controls rather than through productive economic activity. When oil prices fell, the economy faltered, leading to the Economic Stabilization Act and austerity measures in the early 1980s.

There’s truth to this, but it doesn’t disprove Adefarasin’s point. A currency can be poorly managed yet still hold substantial purchasing power. The fact that the economy faced difficulties later on doesn’t erase the reality that Nigerians could buy more, save more, and plan better when the naira was more stable.

Indeed, critics are correct that exchange rates alone don’t determine economic health. A strong currency doesn’t automatically mean a strong economy. Conversely, a severely weakened currency often reflects deeper issues like low productivity, declining industrial capacity, heavy reliance on imports, and persistent inflation. These are precisely the concerns Adefarasin aimed to highlight.

Those who focus only on past exchange-rate policies risk missing the bigger picture. The question isn’t whether the naira was perfectly valued in 1980 but whether Nigerians are economically better off today than when the currency enjoyed greater confidence and purchasing power. For millions struggling with inflation, unemployment, and rising costs, that’s increasingly hard to defend.

Critics also argue that many wealthy Nigerians still measure their assets in naira and are not poor. But this takes a figurative statement too literally. Adefarasin wasn’t suggesting every naira millionaire is destitute. He was emphasizing that wealth measured solely in naira can create an illusion of prosperity in global terms. A billionaire in naira today has far less international purchasing power than someone in that position decades ago.

The controversy around Adefarasin’s remarks exposes a deeper national issue. Nigerians often spend so much energy debating the wording of warnings that they ignore the underlying conditions that prompted them. Whether or not one agrees with his choice of words, his core message remains hard to deny,a nation blessed with abundant human and natural resources should not see its currency, economy, and living standards in ongoing decline.

Sometimes, strong language is necessary to wake a society that has grown comfortable with its struggles. That, more than anything, was the point Adefarasin was trying to make.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

Why don’t you challenge my arguments with concrete facts instead of dismissing them without providing any solid or verifiable evidence? You argue something like comparing apples and oranges? Provide the substance. Without mincing words, you have clearly shown your jingoistic ignorance, primarily supporting your ethnicity rather than genuinely pursuing patriotism.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

THE BURDEN OF LEADERSHIP AND THE QUESTION OF CAPACITY

The political decline of former US President Joe Biden offers an important lesson on the demands of leadership and the need for physical and mental alertness in governance.

Biden had hoped to return to the White House for a second term. However, concerns over his public appearances, verbal disjointedness, memory lapses, and debate performances became increasingly difficult to ignore. His first presidential debate drew widespread criticism, with even members of his own party questioning his clarity, coherence, and ability to effectively communicate. Fearing electoral disaster, Democrats mounted pressure on him to step aside, and he eventually withdrew from the race.

Today, many Nigerians are expressing similar concerns about Bola Tinubu.

Recent public appearances and interviews by the Tinubu have generated criticism and renewed questions about leadership capacity. Moments that should have reassured citizens have instead sparked controversy.

Among the incidents that have attracted public attention are:

The widely criticised “Yakubu, manage it” remark, viewed by many as dismissive of citizens’ suffering.
The awkward microphone incident at the Africa CEO Forum, which became a subject of public ridicule.
His grammatically confusing statement that “Africa needs to put its money where its mouth is.”
Repeated assertions that economic hardship is a “necessary sacrifice” despite worsening living conditions.
The declaration, “I asked for the job,” which many considered insensitive.
Claims that economic reforms are yielding positive results despite persistent inflation and insecurity.
Comparisons suggesting Nigeria is faring better than other African countries while citizens continue to face severe hardship.
Most recently, while addressing insecurity and killings, the President drifted into animal analogies rather than directly confronting the security crisis, further fueling concerns about clarity and coherence.

No serious democracy should ignore recurring public concerns about the fitness of its leader. Presidential leadership demands alertness, precision, clarity, and consistency. A nation battling terrorism, banditry, unemployment, inflation, and social instability cannot afford uncertainty at the highest level of government.

This is not about ethnicity, hatred, or partisan politics. It is about national interest and constitutional responsibility.

The Constitution anticipated situations in which a President might become unable to discharge the duties of office. Section 144 provides a framework for addressing permanent incapacity. It states that a President may cease to hold office if two-thirds of the FEC members declare that he is incapable of performing his functions and that declaration is confirmed by a medical panel.

This provision exists to protect the nation from leadership vacuums, governance paralysis, and ineffective executive authority.

If the President is struggling with the demands of office, patriotism requires honesty rather than denial. Nigerians deserve transparency, not carefully managed optics designed to shield realities from public scrutiny.

There is also a growing perception that governance is increasingly influenced by an unelected Lagos-based political establishment, often described by critics as the “Tinubu cabal,” while ordinary Nigerians bear the burden of economic hardship, insecurity, and institutional decline.

This should not be viewed through a partisan lens. It is a patriotic appeal for accountability, constitutionalism, and responsible governance.

President Tinubu has repeatedly stated that leadership is not a retirement home. If the burdens of office become overwhelming, statesmanship requires sincere reflection on what best serves the nation.

Nigeria needs competent, energetic, and fully capable leadership. The country deserves a fresh start founded on clarity, capacity, compassion, and a shared national purpose.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

@JohnsonAde23179 All you needed to do was to ask @grok where I was and who I was supporting rather than throwing wild tantrums of ethnic or tribal sentiments.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

@Fumeco25 How is that your problem? At least you are savoring the sweet taste of your Ogogoro convention while it’s last.

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

@farman4x 14

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

@renabaddie_ 4

[Umar Sani @UmarSanithecat]

@Dannymasterp You should properly check that his lawyer Deji Adeyanju has legally debunked the video and that it is in circulation.