Legal Practitioner & Managing Partner - LegalKraft // Real Estate & Property Lawyer// Human Right and Good Governance Advocate.
Lagos, Nigeria
Joined September 2013
- Tweets1.1K
- Following2.4K
- Followers1.3K
- Likes331
Pinned Tweet
Words on marble!!
No matter your age, you'll always wish you started younger, but today is the youngest you'll ever be. So start today.
Kenneth Nwimo retweeted
“I have no reason to steal public money. I have enough to go back home and relax, travel to where I want for the rest of my life. The only thing I can do now that will make meaning to my life is to pull people out of poverty.”
- My Presidential Candidate, Mr Peter Obi
Kenneth Nwimo retweeted
Omo NDC don cook another music with Peter Obi’s name😆 😂
Before tomorrow Obidients go don upload this NDC, Peter Obi full music for audiomake.
We all expected this statement.
I REJECT THE CONCOCTED RESULTS OF THE ADC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES
Following reports of widespread voter disenfranchisement in most parts of the country during the African Democratic Congress (ADC) Presidential Primaries yesterday, I unequivocally reject the concocted results being announced.
I had initially stated that I will only accept the outcome of the Primaries if the process was free, fair, and transparent, and I stand by my word. I will not accept results from a process that does not reflect the values that the ADC had pledged to uphold, to rescue Nigerians from the impunity and gross mismanagement that our country is currently facing in the hands of the ruling party.
There’s no way that about eighty percent of members of the party were not allowed to vote, and you expect me to accept such results. Then what makes us different from the others? The whole idea of the ADC was to give the Nigerian people a platform, to amplify the voices of the downtrodden, and make Nigeria a better place for everyone irrespective of backgrounds, ethnicity, or religion.
A party that criticizes the ruling APC and INEC for vote buying, rigging and writing of results, cannot be engaged in vote buying, writing of results, and other electoral malpractices that leads to the disenfranchisement of voters who are party members. This is not acceptable!
- Rt Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi
Kenneth Nwimo retweeted
NDC should immediately set up a strong legal team as soon as possible, across the country.
The legal team should consist of legal practitioners of conscience with core experience in electoral and constitutional litigation - not recycled politicians who simply have bachelor degrees in Law.
We must resist the shenanigans of those who are planning to destroy NDC, one Nigeria’s opposition party. Once APC captures all political parties with endless lawsuits and through proxies, then, our democracy is dead as dodo.
Eternal vigilance is the price we must pay for our liberty.
I am filled with warm joy,
The Obidient movement and the good people of Nigeria supporting this movement with all they have to see a better Nigeria, a Nigeria that works for all is such a refreshing thing to behold
Does the Electoral Act (2026) stop someone from leaving a party after register submission? Let’s clear the confusion.
There’s been a lot of talk today about whether the 2026 Electoral Act “traps” someone in a political party once their name has been submitted to INEC.
Let’s clear this up properly.
First, the starting point is not the Electoral Act — it’s the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Section 40 of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria, guarantees every Nigerian the right to freedom of association. That includes the right to join a political party and just as importantly, the right to leave one.
That right is fundamental. No statute, including the Electoral Act, can override it.
So the idea that once a party submits its membership register you are “stuck” there has no real legal foundation.
Now, what did the 2026 amendment actually do? It introduced a stricter position on dual party membership.
In simple terms: you cannot belong to two political parties at the same time. That’s where the law draws the line.
But that is very different from defection.
Leaving one party today and joining another tomorrow is perfectly lawful.
What the law prohibits is overlapping membership — not movement.
This is where the confusion comes in.
People assume that if your name appears on a party register already submitted to INEC, then you are still legally a member no matter what.
That’s not how it works.
Party registers are evidence, not destiny. Once you resign — and you can show it clearly — your membership in that party ends from that moment. Even if they haven’t updated their records yet.
So legally, what matters is simple:
When did you resign?
When did you join the new party?
Is there any real overlap?
If there’s no overlap, there’s no dual membership issue.
And if this ever gets to court, judges will look at the substance — not just whether a name is still sitting on an old list.
Bottom line:
The law does not trap anyone in a political party. It only prevents you from standing in two places at the same time. That distinction is everything.
@PeterObi @ndc @Adc
Fellow Nigerians, good morning.
I woke up this morning after my church service with a deeply reflective heart, and despite every constraint, I felt compelled to share these thoughts with you.
Many people do not truly understand the silent pains some of us carry daily—the private struggles, emotional burdens, and quiet battles we face while trying to survive and serve sincerely in difficult circumstances.
We now live in an environment that has become increasingly toxic, where the very system that should protect and create opportunities for decent living often works against the people—a society where intimidation, insecurity, endless scrutiny, and discouragement have become normal.
More painful is when some of those you associate with, believing you would find understanding and solidarity among them, become part of the pressure you face. Some who publicly identify with you privately distance themselves or join in unfair criticism.
We live in a society where humility is mistaken for weakness, respect is seen as a lack of courage, and compassion is treated as foolishness—a system where treating people equally is questioned simply because you refuse to worship status, tribe, class, or power.
Personally, I have never looked down on anyone except to uplift them. I have never used privilege, position, or resources to oppress others, intimidate the weak, or make people feel small. To me, leadership has always been about service, sacrifice, and helping others rise.
Let me state clearly: my decision to leave the ADC is not because our highly respected Chairman, Senator David Mark, treated me badly, nor because my leader and elder brother, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, or any other respected leaders did anything personally wrong to me. I will continue to respect them.
However, the same Nigerian state and its agents that created unnecessary crises and hostility within the Labour Party that forced me to leave now appear to be finding their way into the ADC, with endless court cases, internal battles, suspicion, and division, instead of focusing on deeper national problems and playing politics built more on control and exclusion than on service and nation-building.
Even within spaces where one labours sincerely, one is sometimes treated like an outsider in one’s own home. You and your team become easy targets for every failure, frustration, or misunderstanding, as though honest contribution has become a favour being tolerated rather than appreciated.
And when you choose to leave so that those you are leaving can have peace, and you step out into the cold, you are still maligned and your character is questioned. Despite all your efforts to continue working for a better Nigeria and engaging people with sincerity and goodwill, those who do not wish you well continue to attack your character and question your intentions.
There are moments I ask God in prayer: Why is doing the right thing often misconstrued as wrongdoing in our country? Why is integrity not valued? Why is the prudent management of resources, especially when invested in critical areas like education and healthcare, wrongly labelled as stinginess? Why are humility and obedience to the rule of law often taken to be weakness rather than discipline?
Let me assure all that I am not desperate to be President, Vice President, or Senate President. I am desperate to see a society that can console a mother whose child has been kidnapped or killed while going to school or work. I am desperate to see a Nigeria where people will not live in IDP camps but in their homes. I am desperate for a country where Nigerian citizens do not go to bed hungry, not knowing where their next meal will come from.
Yet, despite everything, I remain resolute. I firmly believe that Nigeria can still become a country with competent leadership based on justice, compassion, and equal opportunity for all.
A new Nigeria is POssible. -PO
Does the Electoral Act (2026) stop someone from leaving a party after register submission? Let’s clear the confusion.
There’s been a lot of talk today about whether the 2026 Electoral Act “traps” someone in a political party once their name has been submitted to INEC.
Let’s clear this up properly.
First, the starting point is not the Electoral Act — it’s the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Section 40 of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria, guarantees every Nigerian the right to freedom of association. That includes the right to join a political party and just as importantly, the right to leave one.
That right is fundamental. No statute, including the Electoral Act, can override it.
So the idea that once a party submits its membership register you are “stuck” there has no real legal foundation.
Now, what did the 2026 amendment actually do? It introduced a stricter position on dual party membership.
In simple terms: you cannot belong to two political parties at the same time. That’s where the law draws the line.
But that is very different from defection.
Leaving one party today and joining another tomorrow is perfectly lawful.
What the law prohibits is overlapping membership — not movement.
This is where the confusion comes in.
People assume that if your name appears on a party register already submitted to INEC, then you are still legally a member no matter what.
That’s not how it works.
Party registers are evidence, not destiny. Once you resign — and you can show it clearly — your membership in that party ends from that moment. Even if they haven’t updated their records yet.
So legally, what matters is simple:
When did you resign?
When did you join the new party?
Is there any real overlap?
If there’s no overlap, there’s no dual membership issue.
And if this ever gets to court, judges will look at the substance — not just whether a name is still sitting on an old list.
Bottom line:
The law does not trap anyone in a political party. It only prevents you from standing in two places at the same time. That distinction is everything.
@PeterObi @ndc @Adc
On the questions of " WHY DID OBI JOIN THE COALITION"
Peter Obi did not make a mistake by joining the coalition—if anything, it would have been a bigger mistake to stay out.
First, politics is about building broad alliances. By joining early, Obi demonstrated good faith and a willingness to collaborate in creating a credible alternative to the current system.
Had he stayed away, the narrative would easily have been twisted—that he was unwilling to work with others or that he rejected a united front Nigerians were calling for.
Second, Obi’s participation was driven by principles that have consistently defined his political journey: accountability, prudence, and people-focused governance.
The idea of a coalition was meant to be about rescuing Nigeria from poor governance—not serving as a vehicle for any one individual’s ambition.
Third—and very important—is the issue of zoning. There was a reasonable expectation that after eight years of northern leadership, power should rotate to the South. Obi entered the coalition with that understanding. If that principle is ignored, then it raises legitimate concerns about fairness and the true intentions behind the coalition.
So the issue is not that Obi joined—it’s whether the coalition itself is staying true to the ideals it was supposedly built on.
Peter Obi did not make a mistake by joining the coalition—if anything, it would have been a bigger mistake to stay out.
First, politics is about building broad alliances. By joining early, Obi demonstrated good faith and a willingness to collaborate in creating a credible alternative to the current system.
Had he stayed away, the narrative would easily have been twisted—that he was unwilling to work with others or that he rejected a united front Nigerians were calling for.
Second, Obi’s participation was driven by principles that have consistently defined his political journey: accountability, prudence, and people-focused governance. The idea of a coalition was meant to be about rescuing Nigeria from poor governance—not serving as a vehicle for any one individual’s ambition.
Third—and very important—is the issue of zoning. There was a reasonable expectation that after eight years of northern leadership, power should rotate to the South. Obi entered the coalition with that understanding. If that principle is ignored, then it raises legitimate concerns about fairness and the true intentions behind the coalition.
So the issue is not that Obi joined—it’s whether the coalition itself is staying true to the ideals it was supposedly built on.
Nigeria stands at a fragile crossroads—not just of leadership, but of identity, direction, and belief in itself.
This is not merely another election cycle. This is a moment of reckoning.
And in moments like this, history does not ask who can run—it asks who should.
Let me be clear: this is not a question of rights. Every Nigerian, including Atiku Abubakar, has the constitutional and moral right to aspire. Nor is it a coronation of Peter Obi as anyone’s birthright candidate.
This is something deeper.
This is about timing, symbolism, and national mood.
For decades, Nigeria has circled within the same political architecture—recycled promises, familiar faces, predictable outcomes. The frustration in the land today is not just about hardship; it is about a deep hunger for a break from the known.
A rupture.
A redefinition.
And whether one agrees or not, many Nigerians see an Obi presidency as that rupture—a sharp departure from the entrenched order. Not perfect, not messianic—but different enough to inspire belief again.
That belief is powerful. It is rare. And it must be handled with care.
Atiku Abubakar has paid his dues in the political arena—no one can deny his resilience, his consistency, his decades-long pursuit. But there comes a point where persistence must give way to perspective.
When the people begin to yearn—not just for a leader—but for a new language of leadership, the greatest act of statesmanship may not be to step forward…
…but to step aside.
To recognize that the moment has outgrown personal ambition.
To become not the candidate, but the catalyst.
Because history remembers not only those who led—but those who read the times correctly and chose the nation over self.
Nigeria today is not whispering.
It is crying out.
For something new. For something different. For something that feels like a future—not a continuation.
And in answering that call, the question is no longer:
“Who has the right to run?”
But rather:
“Who best represents the turning of the page?”
Nigeria stands at a fragile crossroads—not just of leadership, but of identity, direction, and belief in itself.
This is not merely another election cycle. This is a moment of reckoning.
And in moments like this, history does not ask who can run—it asks who should.
Let me be clear: this is not a question of rights. Every Nigerian, including Atiku Abubakar, has the constitutional and moral right to aspire. Nor is it a coronation of Peter Obi as anyone’s birthright candidate.
This is something deeper.
This is about timing, symbolism, and national mood.
For decades, Nigeria has circled within the same political architecture—recycled promises, familiar faces, predictable outcomes. The frustration in the land today is not just about hardship; it is about a deep hunger for a break from the known.
A rupture.
A redefinition.
And whether one agrees or not, many Nigerians see an Obi presidency as that rupture—a sharp departure from the entrenched order. Not perfect, not messianic—but different enough to inspire belief again.
That belief is powerful. It is rare. And it must be handled with care.
Atiku Abubakar has paid his dues in the political arena—no one can deny his resilience, his consistency, his decades-long pursuit. But there comes a point where persistence must give way to perspective.
When the people begin to yearn—not just for a leader—but for a new language of leadership, the greatest act of statesmanship may not be to step forward…
…but to step aside.
To recognize that the moment has outgrown personal ambition.
To become not the candidate, but the catalyst.
Because history remembers not only those who led—but those who read the times correctly and chose the nation over self.
Nigeria today is not whispering.
It is crying out.
For something new. For something different. For something that feels like a future—not a continuation.
And in answering that call, the question is no longer:
“Who has the right to run?”
But rather:
“Who best represents the turning of the page?”
I am
Kenneth O Nwimo Esq.
The implication of Obi-Kwankwaso NDC gamble
The biggest political foul Obi and Kwankwaso will make is to part ways with the ADC coalition. No matter how charismatic a leader is, people do not follow him to a grave. As long as ADC is alive, NDC will not fly.
If APC can plant Nafiu in the biggest opposition coalition ADC, why do you think they cannot create another Nafiu in NDC or PRP to destablise them. The problem bedeviling ADC is not Nafiu, but corrupt judiciary and biased electoral umpire. As long as no opposion party has control over judiciary and INEC, these challenges will persist.
My advice is: stay in ADC to fight together. A boat cannot go forward if everyone is rowing in his own way.
Defeating a ruling party like APC and a politician like Tinubu is not an easy task, even if all the political parties in Nigeria will gang up against him.
Kenneth Nwimo retweeted
Anybody that thinks Atiku Abubakar will step down for anyone in ADC for the party to forge ahead is simply daydreaming.
If you study the nature of Atiku Abubakar closely, you would almost conclude that somewhere, somehow, a witch doctor must have told him that if he doesn’t become President in this life, his afterlife may never know peace.
Atiku Abubakar has been on this journey six times already. If he contests again in 2027, it will be his seventh attempt.
His first outing was as far back as 1993, when he stepped into the ring under SDP and contested the primaries against Moshood Abiola, finishing third.
In 1999, he abandoned his chances of becoming a Governor and settled for Vice President under Obasanjo. Even that partnership was anything but smooth, as both men eventually became fierce rivals.
By 2007, he risked everything. He dared Obasanjo openly, and it cost him dearly. His seat as Vice President was declared vacant. Still, he pushed forward, moved to Action Congress, contested against Yar’Adua, and lost.
He didn’t stop.
In 2011, he returned to PDP, contested the presidential primaries against Jonathan, and lost again. Then he moved to APC.
In 2015, he became part of the 2015 political experiment that brought Buhari to power. Yet again, he contested the primaries and lost to Muhammadu Buhari. And just like that, he returned to PDP.
In 2019, when the PDP ticket was zoned to the North, he contested, won the primaries, and went on to the general election, only to lose to Buhari.
In 2023, when it was clearly the turn of the South, he still stepped forward, contested, won the PDP primaries, and again lost the main election, this time to President Tinubu.
Now, the same man is in ADC, positioning himself once more, and you expect him to suddenly step down as a statesman?
Lol.
To Atiku Abubakar, this is no longer just about what the people feel. It is about the years, the energy, the resources, the sheer investment he has poured into this singular ambition.
A man who did not step down for Abiola at the peak of his popularity.
A man who did not step down even when his own Vice Presidential seat was on the line.
A man who did not step down in 2023, despite the loud call for power to shift to the South.
Tell me, who exactly will make him step down now?
Nobody.
I am Ekene Aninze Esq.
2007 Atiku ran- and lost.
2011 Atiku ran- and lost.
2015 Atiku ran- and lost.
2019 Atiku ran- and lost.
2023 Atiku ran- and lost.
2027 Atiku wants to run- and lose.
He doesn’t care whether it’s the turn of the north or the south, he must run. This desperate foolishness and selfishness really needs to end.
In 2015, his desperate foolishness is a huge part of why this satanic APC happened. If he stayed with GEJ, maybe APC wouldn’t have won and GEJ may have done a second term and then supported him to be president in 2019. But then again, desperate foolishness at play.
In 2023, it was the turn of the South. His desperate foolishness again at play, is why Tinubu happened.
This is 2027, it is still the turn of the South, but his desperate foolishness has consumed him, he will run, he will ruin himself and everyone else in the opposition.
And when he does this,
Tinubu will then likely return not because he deserves to but because we have a perpetually selfish politician who has had no commonsense in 20 years to put the country first and think beyond himself.
Even his own son, as I type this, is currently in APC working for Tinubu. Even his own son can see that his father’s desperate foolishness and selfishness for 20years needs to end.
Kenneth Nwimo retweeted
If you are planning to marry a woman, stop asking childish questions like:
“What’s your favorite color?”
“What’s your favorite food?”
“Who is your celebrity crush?”
Those questions won’t help you know her.
Ask her THESE instead- and you will know who she really is......
Kenneth Nwimo retweeted
Pretty interesting rhethorics from the Atiku camp, so it's important to do a recap of some sacrosanct facts:
1) That Atiku, as vice president to president Olusegun Obasanjo, moved to truncate Obasanjo's second tern bid by insisting that Obasanjo should step down and support him to become president in 2003. It took the intervention and mediation of all the elder statesmen to get him to back down
2) That Atiku decamped to the APC from PDP in 2014 to contest the APC presidential primaries with the reason that the presidency should return to the North.
3) That in 2018, he decamped back to the PDP after his failed bid of 2014/15 in order to contest the PDP primaries ahead of the 2019 presidential election. In this instance, it was agreed that no southern politician should stand for the primaries as it was still the turn of the North
4) That when Atiku won the PDP primaries in 2018, he sought the backing of Obasanjo who made him agree to two conditions: a) that he'd choose Peter Obi to be his running mate (Peter Obi had to be persuaded to accept). 2) that regardless of the outcome of the 2019 presidential election, that he'd not contest for the 2023 presidential election, and that he'd throw his weight behind Peter Obi in 2023 as the presidency had to return to the South. Upon agreement, Obasanjo supported him and convinced Peter Obi to run with him
5) That while Peter Obi delivered the South in the 2019 election, Atiku failed to deliver the North, losing to Buhari in his stronghold.
6) That in 2022, when it fell on Atiku to keep to his words, he reneged on them, and not only refused to support Peter Obi, but threw his hat in the ring for the 2023 presidential election, effectively forcing Peter Obi to seek another path.
7) That this singular move in (6) above led to the collapse of the PDP as a political party.
8) That in 2027, the presidency is supposed to remain in the south, and that the honourable thing, yet again, would be for Atiku to stand down and throw his weight behind Peter Obi and whoever Peter Obi chooses as his running mate, in order to redeem himself for his 2023.
Having recapped these publicly verifiable events, the entire nation now watches keenly in the hope that Atiku will, for once, put the interest of the nation above self.
This one has not even entered yet he has started lining up loyalists for meet and greet.
His own queue would definitely be longer than Tinubu.
May affiliction not rise a second time.
Kenneth Nwimo retweeted
As Obidients, you cannot shame us about it again.
We are party prostitutes.
The goal is fielding Obi and ensuring he becomes GCFR.
We have no business with party loyalty.
If we can not use Labour, we will use ADC - if er cannot use ADC, we will use ACCORD.
Kenneth Nwimo retweeted
To whom it may concern as copied from Taiwo Aromolarn on LinkedIn.
Young lawyers, if you walk into court with these 7 authorities, no objection will take you off guard:
1. Atanda & Ors v. Ajani & Ors (1989)
When to use this:
Opposing counsel tries to introduce evidence or elicit testimony on facts not pleaded in the statement of claim or defence.
Your response:
“My Lord, this evidence goes to no issue. The facts it seeks to establish were never pleaded. We urge the court to discountenance it as it is inadmissible.”
2. Section 1(1) of the Evidence Act
Torti v. Ukpabi (1984), citing Kuruma v. The Queen (1955)
When to use this:
Opposing counsel objects to your evidence on the grounds of how it was obtained e.g., arguing it was improperly or illegally obtained.
You respond:
“My Lord, relevance is the basis of admissibility. Once the evidence is relevant to the matters in issue, it is admissible.
How it was obtained is of no moment at this stage.”
3. Ndu v. State (1990); FRN v. Saraki
When to use this: Opposing counsel discloses information not contained in his pleadings or affidavit from the Bar.
Your response: “My Lord, the law is trite. No matter how brilliant Counsel’s oral address is, it cannot take the place of evidence.
The court of law is a court of facts and facts are established when supporting evidence is adduced.
4. Akpan v. Bob & Ors (2011)
When to use this:
The opposing counsel suggests that your brief is defective and should be struck out.
Your response:
“My Lord, even where a brief is alleged to be bad, the only consequence the court may visit upon it is an adverse comment.
It has no jurisdiction to regard such a brief as no brief at all… It cannot strike it out on the premises of being bad.”
5. NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd. (2011)
When to use this: After winning, opposing party resists a costs order;
Your response:
“My lord, costs follow the event in litigation. A successful party should not be deprived of the fruits of litigation unless there are specific reasons why he should be deprived of his entitlement.”
6. Sodipo v. Lemminkainen & Anor (1986)
When to use this:
Opposing counsel objects to an affidavit because it was deposed to by a lawyer.
How to respond:
“My Lord, an affidavit sworn by counsel is not objectionable in principle.
It is only improper where the subject-matter involves privileged client communication or places counsel in a position of being cross-examined. Neither condition is present here.”
Which of these stood out to you?
P.S: Lawyers, what case law will you recommend as no. 7?👇👇
Save this post for later
Repost for other lawyers
Best legal write up I’ve seen all week.
You are absolutely spot on.
There is no basis for a coalition that cannot agree on a consensus candidate.
Any coalition without a prior power sharing arrangement is going to eventually coalesce into chaos and confusion.
I sincerely hope ADC would not eventually coalesce in chaos and confusion
Politicians really don’t learn or maybe they just choose to ignore history.
How do you have four heavyweight aspirants forming a coalition against a single candidate who doesn’t even have internal competition? It simply doesn’t add up. If Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, RMK, and Amaechi all have presidential ambitions, then basic political strategy demands that they first settle, among themselves, who flies the flag. Anything short of that is just setting up for chaos.
I have seen this movie before. During the 2021 Oyo State APC congress, Teslim Folarin held one flank, while Bayo Adelabu, Joseph Tegbe, Niyi Akintola, Adeolu Akande, and Bayo Shittu gathered at Premier Hotel, issuing statements and projecting unity yet each with a personal ambition to be Governor. Predictably, the alliance collapsed under the weight of competing interests.
So what exactly is the logic behind forming a coalition when there is no prior agreement on leadership or ticket ownership? That is not strategy, it is confusion dressed up as unity.