***Says Supreme Court Already Settled Eligibility Issue
The Obidient Movement has rejected recent comments attributed to retired Justice Isa Salami, which questioned Peter Obi’s qualification to contest the 2023 presidential election under the Labour Party, describing them as misleading and legally unfounded.
In a statement, the group’s Coordinator, Dr. Tanko Yunusa, insisted that the matter had already been conclusively addressed by the Supreme Court, which did not disqualify Obi on the grounds of party membership or eligibility.
“Nigerian law is clear: party membership is an internal matter. The Labour Party validly admitted Obi, granted him the required waiver, and submitted his name to the Independent National Electoral Commission,” the statement read. “No external individual or body has the authority to override a party’s decision on its members.”
The Obidient Movement also questioned the timing of the comments, pointing out that they came long after the elections and all related legal challenges had been exhausted. According to the group, reopening settled matters only risks public confusion and undermines trust in the judiciary.
While acknowledging broader concerns about the justice system, the movement urged focus on reforms that enhance judicial efficiency, transparency, and accountability, rather than revisiting issues already determined by the courts.
The statement defended Obi’s record as a public servant, highlighting his reputation for prudence, integrity, and accountability, noting that his candidacy in 2023 had drawn wide support from Nigerians seeking a credible alternative to the political status quo.
Reiterating its position, the Obidient Movement declared Obi’s participation in the 2023 election “valid, legitimate, and constitutionally grounded,” and called on supporters to remain calm, peaceful, and focused.
“Our mission to promote competent, people-oriented leadership remains unchanged,” the group added. “The vision of a reformed and inclusive Nigeria is achievable, and we will not be distracted by retrospective opinions lacking legal weight.”
