Big shake-up in Nigerian politics as heavyweights join one party
Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi have chosen the African Democratic Congress (ADC) as their new political home after breaking away from their respective parties - the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP).
This is one of the biggest shake-ups in Nigerian politics since the end of military rule in 1999.
Some political heavyweights from Tinubu's All Progressives Congress (APC) party have also thrown their weight behind the new political movement.
The announcement of the ADC is the culmination of a series of talks between the leaders to put up a united front in the 2027 election, rather than splitting their vote.
Tinubu won the 2023 election with just 37% of the vote after opposition supporters were divided between Abubakar who got 29%, and Obi with 25%.
Obi had broken away from the PDP after the party chose Abubakar as its presidential candidate.
At the unveiling of the ADC, interim chairman David Mark said it was an attempt to save the country's democracy and to stop Nigeria from becoming a one-party state.
Both the PDP and LP are also battling internal crises which some believe were instigated by external forces.
Analyst Shehu Iliyasu said Abubakar and Obi are learning the lessons of the last election.
"Both Atiku [Abubakar] and Obi felt they came so close in 2023 and would have maybe won on a joint ticket so they want to amend their mistake by working together this time around," he told the BBC.
Tinubu's biggest challengers in the last elections, Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi are the face of the coalition.
Although there's a long way to go before candidates are officially announced, political commentators are predicting that Abubakar will have another shot at the presidency - it would be his fifth attempt - with former Anambra governor Obi as his vice-presidential pick.
Other political heavyweights in the coalition include former Senate President David Mark, who like Atiku is leaving the PDP, former Tinubu ally turned foe Nasir El-Rufai and powerful minister in the last dispensation Rotimi Amaechi.
Analyst Ben Kenneth say he believes the coalition has a better chance of defeating Tinubu than last time.
"If you look at what Atiku and Obi got in the last election, it's clear to see that they would've won assuming they worked together, so it's a good thing they have realised they need each other,' he noted.
However, another analyst Sani Hamisu feels Tinubu has a better chance now than in 2023.
"In Nigeria and Africa, when a leader is in office seeking a second term, he hardly loses, it is very rare and that's why I feel Tinubu has a better chance now than when he wasn't in office in 2019," he said.
The ruling party says it is not bothered in the least by the coalition which it does not see as a real threat.
Acting chairman Ali Bukar Dalori told BBC Hausa the coalition would have no impact on the APC.
"Nobody is talking about a coalition except in Abuja. Even in Abuja, they are in a hotel, and when they are defeated in elections, they will leave the country," he said.
The country's biggest opposition party, the PDP had since ruled out joining the coalition, preferring to face the APC on its own.
The Labour Party also called on its supporters to remain focused and resolute behind the party, denying any plans to join a coalition.
Nigeria's major tax overhaul explained
What is behind the wave of killings in central Nigeria?
Culture and colour come out in praise of a Nigerian king
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.
Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Focus on Africa
This Is Africa
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration can deport Djibouti detainees to South Sudan after judge denies emergency bid to block flight
The Trump administration will be able to send eight migrants held in Djibouti for weeks to South Sudan, where they fear they will face violence, after a flurry of court activity on Friday. A federal judge in Massachusetts denied an emergency request Friday evening from the migrants' lawyers to block their deportation to the country, where they said their clients could face torture. In a brief order, United States District Judge Brian E. Murphy wrote that he interpreted a Supreme Court decision delivered a day earlier allowing the deportation to South Sudan to move forward as 'binding' on the request, which he said raised 'substantially similar claims.' The nation's highest court on Thursday had ruled in the Trump administration's favor and cleared the way to remove the eight migrants to South Sudan. Earlier Friday, the migrants were handed a brief reprieve from a federal judge in DC that kept the migrants on the ground in Djibouti, while their lawyers transferred their case to Massachusetts federal court, where earlier procedures around the group had been held. Now that Murphy has denied the emergency petition, the flight from Djibouti to South Sudan could take off around 7 p.m. ET. 'Today, law and order prevails,' Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said on X following the decision. CNN has reached out to DHS to confirm the status of the flight. The detainees' lawyers had argued they will face torture if they are sent to South Sudan by the US, and say they will be deprived of their constitutional rights. They said the Trump administration is trying to unfairly hurt them with the deportation, which they cast in court filings as 'punitive banishment' and 'severe punishment' and warn the detainees could be put at risk of being 'arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured, killed or severely harmed' if they are released in South Sudan. Judge Randolph Moss in the DC District Court heard arguments in a pair of emergency hearings Friday afternoon before saying the case should be moved to Massachusetts. 'It seems self-evident the US government can't take human beings and send them to a place where their physical well-being is at risk,' such as in South Sudan, either to punish them or to warn other possible migrants to the US of the consequences of illegal immigration, Moss said. He ordered the Trump administration not to move the migrants until 4:30 p.m. ET and told the migrants' lawyers they must move fast to try to get a judge to intervene in Massachusetts. The detainees' lawyers filed their new claims just after 4 p.m. in Massachusetts' federal district court. Attorneys for the migrants said sending them to war-torn South Sudan would be further punishment than the sentences they've already served for crimes. A lawyer argued to Moss in court that the administration's actions in this situation are unprecedented and 'unlike anything that has ever been done by the US with deportations before.' The Justice Department, however, argued that the latest ask for relief should've been filed earlier, in a different type of claim and a different court than Moss'. 'They can't justify their claim-splitting,' said Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan. The Justice Department lawyer also expressed frustration to the court that the detainees' legal approach appears to be an attempt to 'drag … out' their being moved out of Djibouti, and said that the US diplomatic relations could be hurt by the multiple rounds of the court fight, as it negotiates with other countries to take migrants it seeks to deport. The eight detainees in Djibouti are from countries including Myanmar, Sudan, Mexico, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba, according to court filings, but the administration since springtime has moved fast to put detainees like them and others on planes and send them to other countries, often with a history of significant safety risks and brutality. The administration also revealed in court Friday additional details on the diplomatic correspondence between the United States and South Sudan, saying that upon arrival, the migrants would be granted an immigration status in accordance with South Sudan laws and immigration procedures, and that the US did not ask for them to be detained there. Moss said on Friday he believed the lawyers for the detainees were 'doing their best to protect the lives and well-being of human beings.' He also cited a stark travel warning from the State Department cautioning Americans headed to the country. 'It does appear placing people in South Sudan does pose significant risks to their physical safety,' Moss said. Still, Moss limited how much he intervened over the US' plans. The judge explained the very short stay he issued Friday afternoon by saying he didn't believe courts should issue administrative stays that last longer than is necessary. This headline and story have been updated with additional developments.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Trump administration preparing to deport detainees to South Sudan
A federal judge in Boston on Friday rejected an 11th-hour plea to spare eight immigrants from imminent deportation to conflict-ridden South Sudan, saying the U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the transfers. U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy's brief ruling followed frantic efforts from the migrants' lawyers to block the Trump administration from sending them to a nation that has been on the brink of civil war — and to which none of the men has citizenship. In May, Murphy had halted a U.S. government flight with the men headed to South Sudan, saying the administration could not send them to the African nation without giving them a chance to argue that they could face persecution there. Since then, the men have been marooned in a shipping container on a U.S. Naval base in the East Africa nation of Djibouti awaiting their fate. The Supreme Court last month cleared the way for Trump officials to deport immigrants to third countries where they do not have citizenship, when it temporarily blocked a decision by Murphy that said migrants must have a 'meaningful opportunity' to contest their removal. On Thursday, the court clarified that its order covers the detainees headed to South Sudan. The court's majority did not provide any reasons for their ruling, which is typical for emergency orders. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which has helped represent the men in court, called the legal outcome 'deeply troubling' and said the Trump administration's move to send the men to South Sudan is 'unconstitutionally punitive' Murphy's ruling Friday capped an extraordinary legal saga that has stretched on for weeks and left the men in legal limbo. Though the Supreme Court appeared to settle the matter Thursday, lawyers for the men led a final attempt afterward that spilled over into the Fourth of July holiday to block their transfer to South Sudan by arguing in a federal court in Washington, D.C., that they would face imminent danger. The lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss to declare the deportations 'punitive' and block the deportations, arguing that federal law bars the United States from sending anyone — even criminals — to nations where they could have a reasonable fear that they could be tortured or killed. Moss, who held two hearings on the matter Friday, expressed concerns for the men's safety and transferred the case to Murphy, where it had begun in May. The eight men are not citizens of South Sudan and have no ties to that country, their lawyers said. They said the men come from Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Sudan and Mexico. The Justice Department argued in court Friday that the detainees are among the 'worst of the worst,' most with convictions for violent crimes, including murder. 'We have planes that are imminently going to go,' Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan told Moss during an afternoon hearing. Lawyers for the migrants said it is illegal and immoral for the U.S. government to deport people to places where they could be killed. Most of the men cannot speak the language in South Sudan, their lawyers said, and the Trump administration has publicized the men's names and photos — potentially putting them in greater jeopardy. The men had served criminal sentences in the United States for their crimes and were being deported by the Department of Homeland Security under civil immigration laws. The State Department has urged people not to travel to South Sudan because of the risk of 'crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.' 'The idea of sending human beings into a place where they may be tortured and harmed … cannot be sustained,' said Mary Sameera Van Houten, an attorney representing the detainees. 'That can't possibly be the law in this country.' Mooppan said the South Sudan government has agreed to accept the detainees temporarily, and he added that he does not expect them to be incarcerated. He said they are expected to be granted an immigration status with permission to stay temporarily in the country. 'We certainly haven't asked for them to be detained,' he said. The case centers on one of the most sacred provisions in federal immigration law: the principle that the U.S. government will not deport people to nations where they might face persecution. But the Trump administration has been frustrated in its attempts to ramp up deportations, in part by countries that delay or refuse to accept the return of their citizens deported from the United States. In the case of the eight migrants being sent to South Sudan, Mexico has said it would accept the return of the man from that country. Murphy, the judge in Massachusetts, had ruled in April that the government could not deport immigrants to countries other than their own without giving them a meaningful opportunity to challenge it based on their fears of persecution. But the absence of an explanation left judges and lawyers grasping for direction from the highest court on what lawyers for the immigrants consider a life-and-death issue. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said Thursday that the eight men had been convicted of violent offenses — including homicide, attempted murder and sexual assault. At least one has a lesser conviction of robbery and other offenses. 'These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,' McLaughlin said in a statement Thursday. She called it a 'win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people.' Jennie Pasquarella, a lawyer for the immigrants, told Moss on Friday that what set the case apart is that the men could face dangerous consequences — even death — if they are sent to South Sudan. Deportation is not supposed to be punitive, the lawyers argued. Moss agreed, temporarily halting the deportations and then transferring the case to the Boston court, saying that was the proper venue. Moss said that based on State Department's warnings, 'it does appear that placing people in South Sudan does pose or could pose significant risks to their physical safety' and that it would 'shock the conscience' to send even criminals to a country where they might be harmed or killed. He said even people convicted of a 'terrible crime' cannot be punished after they have served their sentences. But Moss ruled that the men's lawyers had filed in the wrong court. Moss gave the men's lawyers until 4:30 p.m. — less than 90 minutes from his ruling — to contact the judge in Boston and ask the court to halt the removals. Murphy denied the request a few hours later. Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.
New York Times
3 hours ago
- New York Times
Judge Pauses Transfer of Eight Migrants to South Sudan
The fate of eight men, now held on a U.S. military base in Djibouti, is once again unclear after a district court judge in Washington issued a very brief administrative stay that blocked the government from deporting them to South Sudan. On Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could move forward with its plans to send the men on from Djibouti to the violence-plagued country of South Sudan. The men have all been convicted of serious crimes in the United States. Before coming to the United States, they hailed from Vietnam, Mexico, Laos, Cuba and Myanmar. Just one is from South Sudan. After the Supreme Court ruling, lawyers for the eight men filed a new lawsuit arguing that the deportation plan is 'impermissibly punitive' under a Supreme Court precedent that bars summarily deporting migrants to places where they will experience an 'infamous punishment,' such as hard labor. On Friday, the attorneys asked Judge Randolph D. Moss of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia to issue an order blocking the transfer to South Sudan. After the Supreme Court ruled, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Homeland Security Department, said these 'sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,' and, on Friday, a government lawyer said a plane would take off with the men at 7 p.m. Eastern time. That timeline now seems to be in jeopardy. Judge Moss ruled that the case should be transferred back to the District of Massachusetts, where Judge Brian E. Murphy had been considering an earlier lawsuit brought by the migrants, the one that had led to the Supreme Court ruling. Shortly after 3 p.m., Judge Moss barred the government from deporting the men before 4:30 p.m., which he said was enough time for their lawyers to refile their claim in Massachusetts. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
