Obi Calls Tinubu, Courts to Account Over NDC Crisis

— But Gov Sani Says Check Your Mirror First

Peter Obi stood before students at Madonna University in Anambra State last Friday. They pointed an accusing finger at President Bola Tinubu, declaring that the federal government was doing “everything possible” to stop him from contesting the 2027 presidential election.

Hours earlier, a Federal High Court in Lokoja, Kogi State, had reversed its December 2025 order compelling the Independent National Electoral Commission to recognise the Nigeria Democratic Congress, the party under whose banner Obi now seeks the presidency. The reversal, delivered by Justice Isah Dashen in Suit No. FHC/LKJ/CS/49/2025 came on an application filed by the Peace Movement Party, which argued it was a necessary party to the original suit and had been denied a fair hearing.

Obi’s camp described the ruling as a “bizarre temporary breakdown,” a calculated suppression of opposition, and evidence of institutional resistance to their movement. His supporters called it judicial banditry. His House of Representatives caucus called it a coup against democracy.

Then Kaduna State Governor Uba Sani stepped in with a different perspective — and a reminder.

Speaking on ARISE NEWS on Tuesday, Sani did not dispute that courts can make contestable decisions. He did not defend the Lokoja judgment or attack the NDC. What he did was turn the mirror toward Obi and the broader class of politicians who alternately venerate and vilify the judiciary depending on which way a ruling cut.

“Many actors who are involved were also beneficiaries of some judicial decisions in this country,” Sani said. “Whether the leader of NDC himself — I mean the presidential candidate, Peter Obi — remember he was also someone that benefited from a very strong judicial pronouncement when he was governor.”

The reference was precise. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Nigeria restored Obi to the governorship of Anambra State after his predecessor, Chris Ngige, was removed. The ruling not only reinstated Obi but extended his tenure, effectively resetting the clock on his administration and giving him the political foundation from which his national profile was built. That ruling, celebrated at the time by Obi’s supporters as justice prevailing, was a court decision — the same kind of institutional act now being labelled a tool of oppression.

Sani’s argument was not that the NDC ruling was correct. His argument was about consistency. Politicians who treat the courts as sacred guardians when verdicts go their way cannot credibly dismiss those same courts as instruments of tyranny when verdicts go against them.

ALSO READ

Sowore’s N200m Bail Terms Draw Protest, Groups Condemnation

“When it favours politicians, they feel the judiciary is the best place to go. When it goes against them, they feel the judiciary is the worst place to go,” the governor said.

The broader context sharpens the point. Obi, the PDP faction led by Tanimu Turaki, the NDC’s House of Representatives caucus, the Obidient Movement and the Kwankwasiyya Movement all condemned the Lokoja judgment, alleging it formed part of a wider plot to weaken opposition ahead of 2027. Obi directly accused Tinubu of using the courts to scuttle his presidential ambition, a claim the governor’s office has not publicly addressed.

Sani rejected that entire line of argument, demanding evidence before accepting the ruling-party-interference narrative.

“What is the evidence that the ruling party is involved in what is happening to them?” he asked. “If you ask me, sincerely speaking, it’s simply because they are only jumping from one party to another looking for just a platform to contest the election. They are not organised.”

The governor’s assessment touches a real structural weakness. The NDC’s own legal situation arose partly from a dispute with the Peace Movement Party over a logo — a procedural vulnerability that a more thoroughly organised party might have anticipated and resolved before it became a courtroom liability.

The NDC has since held emergency meetings involving Obi, National Leader Seriake Dickson, Kwankwaso and National Working Committee members to prepare an appeal at the Court of Appeal. The party’s national chairman, Senator Moses Cleopas, has insisted the NDC has not been deregistered and that all candidates, including Obi and Kwankwaso, remain on course for the 2027 election.

Senior lawyers have supported the NDC’s right to appeal. Senior Advocate Adedayo Adedeji confirmed that the constitution guarantees parties affected by Federal High Court decisions the right to seek redress at the Court of Appeal, and that the Lokoja ruling does not automatically prevent the party or its candidates from participating in future elections.

Sani did not argue that the courts are beyond criticism. He acknowledged directly that no judiciary anywhere in the world is perfect. What he insisted on was that democrats must maintain faith in the system even when it produces unfavourable outcomes — and must pursue redress through legitimate legal channels rather than media campaigns that corrode public confidence in judicial institutions.

“You have to understand, if you’re a democrat, believe in the system,” he said. “Our judiciary is not perfect. Neither is it perfect anywhere in the world. But in any case, can we have faith in the system?”

The question carries weight beyond the NDC. As Nigeria moves deeper into its 2027 election cycle, the pattern Sani describes — selective judicial allegiance — continues to define how political parties engage with the courts. Parties and candidates invoke judicial authority when it serves them and denounce it when it does not, a cycle that weakens institutional credibility with each repetition.

For Obi, whose 2023 presidential campaign was built significantly on a platform of institutional integrity and rule of law, Sani’s reminder presents a reputational challenge that goes beyond the NDC’s current legal battle.