Former Jigawa governor Sule Lamido said he’s truly sad that he had to drag the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the Federal High Court in Abuja after being barred from the party’s 2025 national convention.

Lamido, who served two terms as governor (2007–2015) and was once foreign affairs minister, recalled his long‑standing relationship with the PDP, noting that he built the party “with sweat and soul.”

He said he went to the party secretariat on 27 October to buy the national‑chairmanship nomination form, but officials refused to sell it to him. That denial pushed him to file an ex‑parte motion on 31 October, asking the court to restrain the PDP from holding the convention until his complaint was heard.

Justice Peter Lifu granted a restraining order, stopping the PDP’s convention (scheduled for 15–16 November in Ibadan) and barring the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from monitoring or recognising it.

The judge found the PDP had failed to publish the convention timetable to members as required by law and that Lamido’s exclusion would cause him “greater harm.”

The court also ordered the PDP to pay damages if the suit was later deemed frivolous.

Speaking after the ruling, Lamido lamented: “If my party lost, I also lose. I feel like crying, taking this path. When we fight as brothers, the trust is lost, the bond of brotherhood is also lost.”

He added that he still supports the opposition’s unity under the African Democratic Congress (ADC) but will never leave the PDP.

The case was adjourned for judgment on 13 November 2025.

(DDM) — The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh motion urging the Federal High Court in Abuja to halt plans to deliver judgment in the ongoing terrorism case brought against him by the Federal Government of Nigeria.

Diaspora Digital Media (DDM) gathered that Kanu’s legal team, led by Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and Ifeanyi Ejiofor, filed the motion seeking to restrain the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako, from proceeding with the judgment pending the outcome of other related appeals currently before the Supreme Court.

According to the defense team, going ahead with the judgment would amount to a breach of Kanu’s constitutional rights, particularly as several issues concerning the legality of his extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021 remain unresolved.

The motion, DDM learned, argues that the Federal Government acted unlawfully by continuing to prosecute Kanu despite the Court of Appeal’s 2022 ruling, which discharged and acquitted him of all terrorism-related allegations, citing procedural violations by the state.

Kanu’s lawyers insisted that the Supreme Court’s yet-to-be-delivered judgment in the government’s appeal against that decision must first be determined before any new ruling at the High Court level.

They also contended that any attempt to proceed with the terrorism judgment could prejudice Kanu’s right to fair hearing and amount to judicial overreach.

Sources close to the defense revealed that Kanu’s legal strategy is to ensure that the matter is not determined twice on overlapping issues, which could create confusion in the judicial process.

The Federal Government, however, is expected to oppose the motion, arguing that the High Court retains jurisdiction to continue hearing the matter pending any directive from the apex court.

DDM recalls that Kanu has been in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) since June 2021 after he was forcibly returned to Nigeria from Kenya in an operation widely condemned by international human rights organisations.

His detention has since sparked widespread agitation across the South-East region, with IPOB members and civil rights groups demanding his immediate and unconditional release.

Observers say this latest motion marks another chapter in Kanu’s long-running legal battle with the Nigerian state, one that has tested the boundaries of both national security and constitutional justice.

Analysts also note that the outcome of the case will have significant political and social implications, particularly as the South-East continues to grapple with economic disruptions, insecurity, and separatist tensions linked to IPOB activities.

Kanu’s supporters have maintained that his prosecution is politically motivated, while the government insists that he must face the law for allegedly inciting violence, broadcasting falsehoods, and promoting secessionist activities.

The court is expected to announce a new date for the hearing of Kanu’s motion, which will determine whether Justice Nyako can proceed with the planned judgment.

As of press time, neither the Federal Ministry of Justice nor the DSS had issued an official statement on the latest development.

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has given Nnamdi Kanu, the proscribed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a final chance to defend himself in his ongoing terrorism trial.

Justice James Omotosho ruled that Kanu must enter his defence or risk being foreclosed, after Kanu repeatedly refused to do so, citing lack of valid charges.

At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, Justice Omotosho said it was his duty as a judge in the case to accord the defendant sufficient opportunity to put in his defence.

The judge spoke while delivering judgment on an application by the prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, that the court should foreclose Kanu, who failed to enter his defence having spent five out of the six days the court granted him to conduct his defence.

Awomolo had noted that the court had on Tuesday, adjourned till Wednesday for Kanu to enter a defence in his trial or be deemed to have waived his right to do so.

He further noted that at the resumption of proceedings on Wednesday, Kanu still declined to open his defence as ordered by the court.

Awomolo urged the court to take note of the defendant’s position that he would not enter any defence because there is no valid charge against him.

He then prayed the court to foreclose the defendant and adjourn for judgment.

Earlier, Kanu, who represented himself, addressed the court from the dock.

He reiterated his position that there is no valid charge against him to warrant his being called to enter a defence.