A member of the House of Representatives, Kafilat Ogbara, has attracted attention after refusing to shake hands with Mayor Dele Oshinowo, who defeated her in the All Progressives Congress, APC, primary for Kosofe Federal Constituency.

The incident occurred at the inaugural Seyi Tinubu Colloquium in Lagos, where Oshinowo, a former Executive Chairman of Agboyi-Ketu Local Council Development Area, approached Ogbara and extended his hand in greeting.

However, Ogbara remained seated and turned away as he reached out to her.

In a video of the encounter, the lawmaker was heard telling Oshinowo, “Welldone, how are you? I cannot shake you.”

Oshinowo reacted animatedly before walking away.

The incident comes months after Oshinowo emerged as the APC candidate for Kosofe Federal Constituency in May 2026, ahead of the 2027 general election.

His victory marked a significant development in the political contest for the constituency, which Ogbara currently represents in the House of Representatives.

The two politicians have also been linked to previous political disagreements, including disputes in 2025 over the demolition of the Owode-Onirin market.

The latest encounter has drawn attention amid lingering political tensions in Kosofe following the APC primary.

Oshinowo is expected to represent the APC in the constituency in the 2027 general election, subject to the relevant electoral processes.

See here

“I cannot shake you’ – Lagos Rep, Kafilat Ogbara snubs APC rival Dele Oshinowo

The Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has warned judges against romancing with political parties in the resolution of disputes that will arise in the conduct of the 2027 general elections scheduled for January next year.

The CJN warned that on no account should any judge exhibit conduct or behaviour that jeopardise absolute impartiality expected of them.

Justice Kekere-Ekun issued the warning on Monday in Abuja on the occasion of the commencement of the 2026 Legal Year of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

She said, “Elections inevitably generate heightened political activity and strong emotions. They also bring before the courts disputes that may have significant consequences for individuals, political parties and the country.

“The judiciary must approach such matters with the same calmness, detachment and fidelity to the law that it brings to every

other dispute.

“Judicial officers must remain conscious that every word they speak and every action they take during an electoral period will be subjected to scrutiny.

“They must exercise restraint, avoid political association or conduct capable of creating an appearance of partiality and remain firmly within the boundaries imposed by their oath and the Constitution.

“There is also a need for greater professional responsibility by lawyers in the

institution of proceedings arising from political and electoral disputes.

“Forum shopping, whether by the deliberate choice of commencing an action in a court or division perceived to be more favourable to a particular party or by the institution of multiple proceedings seeking substantially similar reliefs, can result in conflicting orders, undermine orderly judicial process and expose the judiciary to avoidable embarrassment.

“It can also create the unfortunate impression that parties are seeking not justice according to law but a particular outcome from a particular court.

“There is, moreover, a broader institutional concern. It does not augur well for our judicial system or the administration of justice if the courts become so overwhelmed by political disputes that other cases in their dockets are

consequently delayed or denied the timely attention they require.

“The judiciary must remain available to all litigants, and the urgency or public

prominence of political litigation should not come at the expense of other legitimate claims awaiting determination.

“Counsel must exercise the professional judgment expected of members of the Bar before commencing proceedings, particularly where related proceedings are already pending before another court.

“The duty of counsel to the court requires full candour as to the existence of related

proceedings and respect for the jurisdiction and processes of other courts.

“The responsibility of counsel extends beyond securing an immediate advantage for a client; it includes a duty to protect the integrity and orderly functioning of the judicial process.”

The CJN also canvassed adequate protection of processes leading to the appointment of judicial officers.

According to her, the appointment of judicial officers is one of the most consequential responsibilities entrusted to the National Judicial Council, NJC, and the Federal Judicial Service Commission, FJSC.

“A judge does not merely occupy an office; he or she carries the authority of the Constitution and the confidence of the people. For that reason, the processes through which judicial officers are selected must command public confidence.

“The recent appointments have reflected a deliberate effort to strengthen the evaluation of candidates through structured assessment, professional and peer feedback, background checks and, in the case of shortlisted candidates, an opportunity for members of the public to comment on their integrity and professional reputation.

“This process must be protected from abuse. It should never become a trial by publicity or an avenue for settling personal disagreements and professional scores.

“The same restraint is required in the wider public space, where social media

is increasingly used to turn professional disagreements into personal attacks,

ridicule, threats and harassment. We must resist this culture.

“There are proper channels for criticising judgments, reporting professional misconduct and complaining about the conduct of judicial officers or legal practitioners.

“The administration of justice cannot be left to anger, intimidation or trial by social media.

“A judge should be able to decide according to law without fear of personal retaliation. A lawyer should be able to make a legitimate submission without being subjected to intimidation.

“A member of staff should be able to perform his or her duties without harassment. The dignity of the profession is the collective responsibility of the Bench and the Bar,” she added.

The CJN expressed happiness with the performance of the Supreme Court in the outgoing legal year.

“My Lords, the performance of the court during the Legal Year under review  is encouraging, yet it reminds us that there is still much work to be done.

“During the 2025/2026 Legal Year, the Supreme Court handled 2,456 matters, comprising 1,179 general civil motions, 573 criminal motions, 13 Sharia-related motions and 676 appeals.

“The appeals comprised 433 general

civil appeals, 212 criminal appeals, 19 political appeals, 12 Sharia appeals and 10 Originating Summons. From these matters, 411 judgments were delivered.

“During the preceding Legal Year, the court handled 2,280 matters and delivered 369 judgments and rulings.

“These figures provide a useful measure of institutional activity, but they cannot tell the full story. One area to which I have continued to attach particular importance is the effective management of the court’s docket.

“When I addressed this gathering last year, I spoke about the need for deliberate case-management strategies to confront delay and the accumulation of pending matters.

“I am pleased to say that we can now point

to concrete steps taken in furtherance of that objective.

“Between the 23rd day of March and 17th day of December 2026, the E-Diary Office scheduled 1,385 matters for regular sittings of the Court, comprising 1,021 motions and 364 appeals.

“Significantly, 733 of these were old matters deliberately brought forward for hearing. In addition, 178 moribund matters were disposed of in Chambers, while 125 matters that had already been concluded were identified and removed from the active pool,” the CJN said.

2027: Avoid contact with political parties in election disputes – CJN warns judges