In a surprising turn of events, the legal team representing Rivers State Governor Sim Fubara withdrew an appeal before the Supreme Court on Monday, a move that has sparked widespread debate and misinterpretation.
Contrary to reports suggesting the Supreme Court dismissed the case on merit, activist lawyer Deji Adeyanju clarified that the withdrawal was a strategic legal decision, not a judicial dismissal.

The appeal revolved around the controversial re-presentation of the 2024 budget before the 27 pro-Wike lawmakers in the Rivers State House of Assembly. These legislators are aligned with Nyesom Wike, the current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and Fubara’s political rival.

In a brief session, the apex court, led by Justice Musa Uwani-Aba-Aji, acknowledged the withdrawal after Fubara’s lead counsel, Yusuf Ali, SAN, informed the court that the matter had been overtaken by political developments. The court proceeded to dismiss the case based on the withdrawal, not on its legal merits, and awarded N4 million in costs against Governor Fubara, payable to the House of Assembly and its Speaker, Martin Amaewhule.

Legal experts suggest that the withdrawal may signal a behind-the-scenes political realignment or an attempt to de-escalate tensions between the governor and the pro-Wike faction.

Addressing the confusion, Adeyanju took to X (formerly Twitter) to set the record straight:

> “The Supreme Court did not dismiss Fubara’s Appeal. The appeal was withdrawn by lawyers representing the governor because the subject matter has been overtaken by events. This is the correct representation of what happened in court today.”

This development adds a new layer to the political crisis in Rivers State, where the battle for control between Fubara and his predecessor Wike has led to legislative standoffs and legal battles. Observers are now keenly watching how this legal maneuver will impact the ongoing power tussle within the state’s political landscape.

***Did Nigeria Unknowingly Admit Guilt at the ICC?

The long-standing legal battle over the $6 billion Mambilla Power Project has taken a dramatic turn as former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari gave conflicting testimonies before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Court of Arbitration in Paris.
Their contrasting accounts have raised serious questions about Nigeria’s defense strategy in the case, potentially jeopardizing the country’s chances of avoiding a hefty $2.3 billion compensation claim by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company.
Testifying on January 22, 2025, Obasanjo outrightly dismissed the legitimacy of the 2003 contract, arguing that it was illegally signed by the then Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, despite the Federal Executive Council (FEC) rejecting it.
“The agreement relied on by Sunrise Power was never valid. A minister cannot single-handedly approve a contract after the Federal Executive Council had rejected it,” Obasanjo declared.
He insisted that a minister has no executive power to award such a high-value contract without presidential or FEC approval, implying that Sunrise Power’s claim is baseless.

However, Buhari’s testimony on January 23, 2025, provided a starkly different narrative—one that many believe undermined Nigeria’s defense.
When questioned, Buhari admitted that his administration had recognized and engaged with Sunrise Power over the contract.
“I directed the Attorney General, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and the Minister of Works and Power, Babatunde Fashola (SAN), to negotiate with Sunrise Power,” he stated.
His words contradict Obasanjo’s stance that the contract was invalid from the outset. By acknowledging negotiations, Buhari inadvertently strengthened Sunrise Power’s claim, suggesting that successive administrations recognized the contract, even if it was initially disputed.

Buhari also made a controversial statement, hinting that Nigeria—not Sunrise Power—was the extortionist in the dispute, a remark that further weakened the government’s position.
The contradictory testimonies have put Nigeria’s legal team in a difficult position. If Buhari’s admission is considered valid, it could be interpreted as an official acknowledgment of the contract’s legitimacy, making it harder for Nigeria to argue against paying the $2.3 billion compensation.
Meanwhile, Olu Agunloye, the minister accused of wrongfully awarding the contract, is currently facing trial in Nigeria for forgery, corruption, and abuse of office.
He has denied the allegations, arguing that he is being used as a scapegoat to discredit Sunrise Power’s claim.
With the case nearing its final stages at the ICC, legal experts believe Nigeria faces an uphill battle in proving its innocence. The conflicting testimonies from two former Presidents could be a major setback, as the arbitration panel may now question the credibility of Nigeria’s defense.

As the stakes remain high, observers are left wondering: Did Nigeria just lose its best chance to avoid a multi-billion-dollar payout?

The Edo State Gubernatorial Election Petition Tribunal, on Tuesday, expressed its displeasure with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, for failing to produce witnesses in their petition challenging the outcome of the September 21, 2024, governorship election.

Presiding over the tribunal’s first sitting in Abuja following its relocation from Benin, Justice Wilfred Kpochi criticized the PDP’s inability to utilize the scheduled time effectively, stating it had wasted judicial resources.

The tribunal, which was relocated to Abuja amidst security concerns and fears of possible arson, had cleared its docket on Tuesday to focus solely on the PDP’s petition. However, the party’s counsel, Adetunji Oyeyipo, SAN, cited travel disruptions as the reason for the absence of key witnesses, despite prior commitments.

“My lords, most of our witnesses faced travel difficulties. We assure you they will be available at the next sitting,” Oyeyipo pleaded.

Justice Kpochi, visibly irked, questioned the seriousness of the petitioners. “Why then did we reschedule other matters to prioritize yours? We could have heard other cases today.”

Despite Oyeyipo’s plea for understanding, the tribunal adjourned the matter to Thursday, emphasizing the need for expediency in the proceedings.
Earlier in the session, Mr. Oseyili Anenih, who served as the PDP’s Director of Research and Strategy during the election, admitted under cross-examination that his observations were based on reports from the party’s situation room, not direct interactions with polling units.
Anenih revealed that PDP is contesting the results from 765 of Edo’s 4,519 polling units, alleging that many valid votes were not properly transmitted to the state collation centers. He also confirmed the party’s reliance on screenshots of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines, as they lacked physical access to the devices.
While acknowledging inconsistencies in the stamping of results, Anenih argued that the stamped copies represented a significant sample of the alleged irregularities.
The PDP and Ighodalo have asked the tribunal to nullify the election of Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC). They allege widespread non-compliance with the Electoral Act and other irregularities, arguing that their candidate secured the majority of valid votes.
Governor Okpebholo’s counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, dismissed the claims, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence from the petitioners.
As the tribunal prepares to resume on Thursday, all eyes remain on the PDP to present its case and witnesses. The outcome of the petition could significantly impact the political landscape in Edo State.