Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the Supreme Court will hear the motion of the Peoples Democratic Party and Action Peoples Party respectively which applied to the apex Court to give effect to its judgment delivered on December 20, 2019, disqualifying Uche Nwosu from the Imo governorship election on the ground of double nomination on Tuesday, October 31st, 2023. The apex court had in a judgment delivered on December 20, 2019 found that Nwosu was nominated by both Action Alliance (AA) and the All Progressives Congress (APC) and consequently nullified his nomination. A political party is not capable of sponsoring two candidates for the same office in the same election. This informed the decision of the PDP and APP to file different applications at the Supreme Court seeking that the PDP candidate, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha be declared the winner of the election since APC is precluded from sponsoring two candidates in the Imo State governorship election. In an affidavit filed in support of the application which was deposed to by a legal practitioner, Adedamola Farokun, working in the Legal Department of the PDP, he averred thus: “The third Respondent/Applicant (PDP) is neither in any way seeking a review of the valid, subsisting and well considered judgment of this court delivered in this appeal nor seeking a review of the judgment of this court delivered on 14th January 2020 in SC/462/2019 but humbly seeking that this court give effect to its judgment delivered on 20th December,2019. “That this court has the constitutional, inherent powers and jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought and give effects to its judgment.“That it is in the interest of justice for this court to exercise its wide discretionary powers in favour of granting this application as prayed.” In the application, PDP is asking the court to declare that the governor of Imo State, Hope Uzodinma was not the candidate of the APC based on the court’s judgment that Nwosu was nominated by both the APC and the Action Alliance. PDP is also asking the court for an order enforcing or otherwise directing the enforcement and or giving effect to the judgement of the court in the case delivered on the 20th December 2019 wherein the court held that Nwosu was nominated by both APC and AA and consequently declared his nomination a nullity. PDP is asking the Supreme Court to hold that “both the Action Alliance (AA) and the All Progressive Congress (APC) did not sponsor and/or field any candidate for the governorship election held in lmo State on 9th March, 2019 in view of the double nomination of the Appellant/Respondent by the two political parties aforesaid, and his subsequent disqualification as their gubernatorial candidate, as found by this honourable court in the judgment delivered on 20th December, 2019.” The party asked the court for an order sequel to the above that Senator Hope Uzodinma was not a candidate by himself or of any party at the Imo State Governorship election held on 9th March, 2019. PDP also asked the court for an order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission to withdraw the certificate of return issued to Senator Hope Uzodinma. It asked the court “for an order further directing the 4th respondent to issue a certificate of return to the gubernatorial candidate of the 3rd Respondent/Applicant, Rt. Hon. Emeka Ehedioha in the lmo state Governorship election held on 9th March. 2019 as the duly elected governor of Imo state, having scored the second highest number of votes in the said election sequel to the judgment of this court in Appeal No SC/1462/2019 Hope Uzodinma & Anor vs Rt. Hon Emeka Ihedioha & Others delivered on 14th January, 2020.” The party further sought an order sequel to the above, directing that the said gubernatorial candidate of the 3rd Respondent/Applicant in the lmo state Governorship election held on the 9th March 2019 Rt. Hon. Emeka lhedioha be immediately sworn in as the governor of lmo State. PDP stated the grounds for the application thus: “The court found that the Appellant/Respondent was nominated by both APC and AA as their gubernatorial candidate for the lmo state governorship election and conclusively held that he was disqualified by the provisions of S. 37 of the Electoral Act (as amended), for double nomination. b. That after the said election, the governorship candidate of the 3d Respondent/Applicant Rt. Honourable Emeka lhedioha, was returned by the 4th Respondent as the winners of the election and consequently sworn into office. That subsequently, the return of the governorship candidate of the 3rd Respondent/Applicant was challenged up to this court by one Senator Hope Uzodinma who claimed to be the gubernatorial ‘candidate of the APC.’ That the Supreme Court in its judgement delivered on 14th January, 2020 held that it was the said Senator Hope Uzodinma and not Rt. Honourable Emeka lhedioha that scored the highest number of votes in the election and ought to be returned as the duly elected governor of lmo State. That by the clear terms of the judgement in this appeal, neither the AA nor the APC fielded any candidate for the lmo state governorship election held on 9th March 2019 and as such the said Senator Hope Uzodinma could not have been returned as the winner of the lmo State Governorship election as a candidate of the APC. That APC could not have substituted the appellant with a view to further nominating the said Senator Hope Uzodinma as their candidate because that right was not available to the party under the Electoral Act. That Senator Hope Uzodinma could not have been a candidate in the election as an independent candidate as such right is not available to him. That the 3rd respondent Applicant, PDP, as the main beneficiary of the judgment ought to enjoy the fruits of the said judgement. That Rt. Honourable Emeka lhedioha, who is the candidate nominated by the 3rd Respondent /Applicant, and who scored the second highest number of votes after Senator Hope Uzodinma, from the judgment of this court ought therefore to be issued a certificate of return by the 4th respondent and sworn in accordingly. That it will advance the cause of justice to grant this application particularly as none of the parties will be prejudiced by its grant.
Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Limited has announced plans to appeal a recent ruling of the Federal High Court ordering the forfeiture of certain assets.
The company’s Secretary, Nnenna Onyeaso, disclosed this in a statement on Thursday, maintaining that neither the firm nor its leadership was found guilty of any wrongdoing.
Onyeaso said the company views the ruling as a civil asset forfeiture order based on suspicion rather than proof, she emphasise that the judgment did not establish any criminal liability against the organisation.
She added that the firm has instructed its legal team to file an appeal, expressing confidence in the judicial process and optimism that a comprehensive review of the case will yield a favourable outcome.
“To be clear, this ruling is a civil asset forfeiture order with no finding of wrongdoing against Oceangate or its leadership.
“The court’s decision rested on a legal standard of suspicion, not proof, and it is one we intend to pursue fully through the appeals process,” she said in a statement.
The firm secretary also said that Oceangate has reiterated its belief in the rule of law, noting that the appellate system exists to address such outcomes.
She added that the company remained confident that the facts of the case will ultimately affirm its integrity and business practices.
Onyeaso said that the firm also emphasised that its operations remained unaffected, stating that it continues to provide employment for many Nigerians while contributing to the country’s energy sector and broader economy.
“We have always believed in the ability of the judicial process, and that belief has not wavered,” she added.
She noted that Oceangate further expressed appreciation to its employees, partners, and clients for their continued support amid the development, assuring stakeholders of its commitment to transparency and accountability.
The Secretary said that the company reaffirmed its confidence in Nigeria as a viable destination for investment, describing the country as a land of equity, growth, and opportunity.
“We remain committed to the continued growth of our business and the communities we serve as we are optimistic that justice will prevail at the end of the legal process.
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has asked the Federal High Court in Lagos to issue injunctive orders restraining the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) from further extending the moratorium on the prohibition of the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol in sachet format.
The Rights Group also asked for order restraining them from interfering with the statutory powers of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) to enforce the ban.
Specifically, SERAP is seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, privies, and all persons or authorities acting through them from extending any moratorium on the sachet alcohol ban.
The organisation is also asking the court for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from directing, preventing, blocking, or stopping NAFDAC from enforcing the prohibition, in line with its statutory functions under Sections 5 and 30(c) of the NAFDAC Act, the Spirits Drink Regulation, and the Memorandum of Resolution executed on 19 December 2018.
In the suit marked FHC/L/CS/2568/25, SERAP is asking the court to compel the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, through its supervisory authority, to immediately direct NAFDAC to fully enforce the existing nationwide ban on the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol in sachet format.
The defendants in the case are the Minister of Health and Social Welfare and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The group argues that the continued delay by the relevant federal authorities in enforcing the ban amounts to a failure to implement long-standing public health regulations designed to curb alcohol abuse, protect public safety, and safeguard citizens’ well-being.
The suit was filed on SERAP’s behalf by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, alongside a team of lawyers from Tayo Oyetibo LP.
In an originating summons dated 15 December 2025, SERAP contends that the ongoing circulation of sachet alcohol violates the National Health Act, 2014, the NAFDAC Act, the Spirits Drink Regulation, 2021, and the Memorandum of Resolution of 19 December 2018, which collectively mandate a nationwide ban on sachet alcohol.
SERAP is asking the court to determine whether the Minister of Health can lawfully refuse or fail to enforce the prohibition, and whether any federal authority has the power to interfere with or delay NAFDAC’s statutory duty to enforce the ban.
The organisation also wants the court to decide whether, given the acknowledged dangers of alcohol abuse, judicial intervention is required in the interest of public health, public safety, and public order.
According to SERAP, sachet alcohol, often cheap, highly potent, and widely accessible, has been linked to rising cases of alcohol abuse, particularly among young people and low-income communities. It argues that the 2018 Memorandum of Resolution and subsequent regulations were adopted precisely to address these risks.
Among the reliefs sought are declarations that the sachet alcohol ban is a valid regulation under the NAFDAC Act; that the Minister of Health has no legal authority to grant or extend any moratorium on its enforcement; and that it is unlawful for any federal authority to interfere with NAFDAC’s enforcement responsibilities.
SERAP is also asking the court to affirm that the defendants have a duty to ensure the full implementation of the ban nationwide.
The legal action follows recent unverified social media news suggesting there is an attempt to further postpone the long overdue enforcement of the ban championed by a few operstors bent on continued violation of the regulation, despite earlier regulatory directive and broad industry commitments. The issue has gained renewed attention after the Senate in full plenary session passed a unanimous resolution setting a December 2025 deadline for full enforcement of the ban, citing public health concerns.
SERAP insists that continued delays undermine Nigeria’s health laws and expose citizens to preventable harm, urging the relevant authorities to prioritise public interest over selfish profit objectives of a few non-compliant businessmen.
The court is expected to fix a hearing date once the defendants enter their appearance.