Home Cover

2023: Northern Christians rise against Muslim-Muslim ticket

July 29, 2022

in Cover

VIEWS

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

*Urge Northern Christians to “punish” APC by rejecting Tinubu, Shettima ticket

Ahead of the 2023 general elections, Northern Christians have rejected in its ramifications the Muslim-Muslim Ticket of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) which produced Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Sen. Kashim Shettima as the presidential candidate and running mate of the party, describing the action as an agenda to economically and politically marginalise Northern Christians.

The decision which was made public Friday at the Nicon Luxury Hotel, Abuja during the APC Northern Christians Leaders’ Summit in conjunction with Christians from the north.

According to them, what the APC did has proved that Tinubu and Kashim would face the herculean task convincing Christains of Northern extraction to vote for them in the 2023 poll.

The Christian leaders vowed that no Christian would vote for the present arrangement of the APC.

Speaking as the Chairman of the event which brought together Christians from the Northern States, former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Mr. Babachir Lawal stated that the Muslim-Muslim ticket was an extension of the exclusion of christains from the scheme of things in the North and in the country.

He stressed that the measure would disrupt the peace and social development of the country, arguing that the Muslim-Muslim ticket remained part of the subterranean plot to Islamise the country.
The former SGF who gave detailed reference of the marginalisation of Christains in the APC NWC, Federal Executive Council (FEC), state and federal owned institutions of learnings in the country, charged Christains across the country not to be deceived the APC leadership on the Muslim-Muslim ticket since matters of religion cannot be divulge from the politics in the country.

He said: “We are not the ones that started this fight. APC started it. They should be ready to carry this cross. We are open to discussion with whoever discuss with chrustain community in good faith.”
Lawal gave a statistical data of appointments to public institutions in the North, stressing that the appointment of leadership to those institutions are sqewed against Northern Christians which must not be allowed to worsen.
On his part as the Guest Speaker, former Speaker, House of Representatives, Hon. Yakubu Dogara, described as “hogwash” the argument that the choice of Shettima was based on consideration of competence rather than his religious leanings.
According to Dogara, notwithstanding his love for Tinubu, the argument that Christian votes would not count as that of the Muslims lacks any logical basis as Nigerians irrespective of their religious leanings had ensured the emergence of former president Goodlick Jonathan and Olusegun Obasanjo in the past.

Dogara implored Christians to reject the actions of the APC by using their voters card as they ought to do.

He stressed that Northern Christians are not opposed to Tinubu or Shettima becoming president or vice-president, but about doing what is right.

Ex-Buhari’s Minister goes to court, seeks order disqualifying Tinubu, Atiku

Double Nomination: AA seeks disqualification of Tinubu, Shettima

Opinion

Suspension of Mike Ozekhome SAN: A Hasty Decision By The LPPC And The Prejudicial Effect Of Same

by Newsdesk Africa

June 26, 2026

By Sheriff. C. ADELE, Esq On June 23, 2026, the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC), at its 173rd General Meeting, approved the suspension of Chief Mike Ozekhome from the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). The suspension, announced pursuant to Paragraph 26(6) of the Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is to remain in force pending the final determination of disciplinary proceedings before the LPPC’s Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee. While the LPPC asserts that the suspension is intended to "safeguard the integrity, dignity and prestige of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria", this decision raises profound concerns about procedural propriety, jurisdictional overreach, and the prejudicial effect it portends for both the legal profession and the administration of justice. This article critically examines the hasty decision of the LPPC, its implications, and why it constitutes a premature verdict that undermines the very principles of natural justice the legal profession is sworn to uphold. Chief Mike Ozekhome, a prominent constitutional lawyer and human rights advocate, is currently facing disciplinary proceedings before the LPPC’s Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee. The proceedings relate to his involvement in a controversial property dispute in the United Kingdom concerning a property located at 79 Randall Avenue, London. Chief Ozekhome is also standing trial before an FCT High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on a 12-count charge, to which he has pleaded not guilty. What is particularly significant and troubling is that the same issues before the LPPC are also pending before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), the body statutorily charged with the responsibility of sanctioning legal practitioners for professional misconduct. The LPDC is yet to make any determination on the substantive allegations against chief Ozekhome. Yet, the LPPC has proceeded to impose a suspension that, in practical effect, constitutes a pre-determinative sanction. The Distinct Jurisdictions of the LPPC and LPDC To appreciate the gravity of the LPPC’s decision, it is essential to understand the distinct and separate roles of the LPPC and the LPDC under Nigerian law. The LPPC is a statutory body established under Section 5 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Its primary function is to consider and determine eligible applicants for the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. Chaired by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the LPPC is also empowered to make rules as to the privileges to be accorded to Senior Advocates of Nigeria. While the LPPC has disciplinary powers over SAN holders, these powers are ancillary to its primary function of conferring and regulating the rank. The LPPC's disciplinary authority is derived from its guidelines, including Paragraph 26(6) of the Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. However, this authority is limited to matters pertaining to the rank itself and the privileges associated with it. The LPDC, by contrast, is a committee of the Body of Benchers established under Section 10 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Its mandate is far broader and more fundamental: it is the primary disciplinary body for all legal practitioners in Nigeria. The LPDC exercises jurisdiction over all lawyers called to the Nigerian Bar and is empowered to investigate allegations of professional misconduct and impose sanctions ranging from admonition to suspension and disbarment. The Critical Distinction The distinction between these two bodies is not merely academic, it is fundamental to the proper administration of justice in the legal profession. The LPPC is primarily a conferring and privilege-regulating body. The LPDC is the disciplinary body par excellence. While the LPPC may have incidental disciplinary powers over SAN holders, these powers cannot supplant or pre-empt the primary disciplinary jurisdiction of the LPDC. When the same issues are pending before both bodies, as they are in chief Ozekhome’s case, the LPDC’s determination on professional misconduct must logically precede any disciplinary sanction from the LPPC. The LPPC cannot independently determine facts of professional misconduct that are the exclusive province of the LPDC. The Hasty Decision: A Premature Verdict The LPPC’s decision to suspend chief Ozekhome from the rank of SAN pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings is, with respect, a hasty and premature verdict that suffers from several fundamental flaws. Procedural Impropriety ...