Category: General News

Mr Tunde Omosebi, a former presidential aspirant on the platform of All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2023 elections, has sued the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and others for 990 trillion pounds in damages for allegedly violating his fundamental rights.

Omosebi, in the suit filed before Justice James Omotosho of a Federal High Court in Abuja, also prayed the court for an order converting the CBN to a Reserve Bank of Nigeria (RBN).

He also urged the court to make an order that the commercial banks involved in the alleged financial irregularities operating and contributed to the disadvantaged economy be converted to “DRIG BANK” at the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

He equally sought exemplary damages against the defendants in the sum of £99 trillion pounds.

Omosebi, who sought a 10 per cent interest on the total recoverable amount, prayed the court for the sum of N5 million as cost of filing the suit.

He urged the court to grant his reliefs over alleged traumatic torture he went through and in line with the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedures) Rules 2009 as guaranteed by 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/766/2024, the plaintiff named CBN, United Bank for Africa (UBA), Guarantee Trust Bank (GTB), Zenith Bank, the Senate and House of Representatives as 1st to 6th defendants respectively.
The claimant, who listed other banks in the suit, also sued the Ministry of Finance as 7th defendant.

The suit was filed pursuant to Order , Rules 1, 2, 3, & 5 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009; Sections 34(1)(a), 35(1), 36(1), 41(1), 46(1) – (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

The applicant, in the affidavit he personally deposed to, described himself as a businessman and politician.
Omosebi also described himself as the Chairman, Federation Executive Council (FEC) and the Prime Minister of Federal Republic of Nigeria, even though these positions are unrecognised in the Nigeria’s constitution.

According to him, the applicant gets paid based on his role, projects and contracts executed by his businesses, investments portfolio as contained in the corporate resolution.
“At the trial of this suit, the applicant shall rely on the terms of the corporate resolution and schedule of Distribution,” he averred.
He alleged that the defendants breached the assembly industrial agreement/arrangement, denied him his Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rule 2009, Sections 35, 43, 45 and Fundamental Objectives and Directives of State Policy 14(2)(b), 16(1)(a-b).
“That approximately four years ago, the applicant opened and operates few corporate and personal accounts with defendants 2 with aim managing these finance per the constitution.
“That, with no just cause approximately seven (7) months till date, applicant’s corporate and personal accounts have been unaccessible due to defendants 2 & 3 negligence, oppressive and abusive conduct which violates the constitution and purpose of operating a bank.
“That, defendant (2) agreed to deposit $50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Dollars) in applicant’s account with the bank in 2022 in the interim, and till date such has not been credited.
“That, additionally Defendant (2) suggested that DRIG BANK operation be moved to Defendant (2) building at Maitama to justify herein entrusted funds.
“That, over £500,000,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Billion Pounds) were entrusted with defendants 1, 2 and 3 among other funds with herein co-defendant(s) /banks that have not been credited nor accounted for till date to the applicant.
“That defendant 1 commits perjury by presenting to the general public a vague statement claiming to be signed by applicant, which in turn breached the other of the Assembly and affects the credibility of the applicant.
“That defendant(s) as of January 2024 breached the industrial agreement consented to during the assembly of Business Owners, FEDERAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, AND THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL EXECUTIVE COUNCI.
”The defendant (s) also infringed on the applicants Intellectual property and obstructed the applicant from operating his accounts, access to cash among other concerns as guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rule 2009 in accordance with the Constitution.
“That, defendants 5 & 6 deliberately denied applicants of his Fundamental Rights and Entitlements till date as agreed and guaranteed under the Constitution and the Gazette 485.
“WHEREFORE, based on the facts and defendant(s) abusive conducts, disregard for Rule of the Assembly and Constitution, applicant respectfully prays that this honorable court grants applicants relief and enter judgement as prayed,” Omosebi averred.
Justice Omotosho fixed Feb. 5 for hearing.
NAN recalls that Omosebi was evicted from his Abuja residence on Nov. 15, 2024, after a lengthy dispute over unpaid rent and a broken lease agreement.
The eviction took place when a court enforcement team, supported by police officers, arrived to execute the order at Omosebi’s property located at a highbrow area of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
The landlord, who requested anonymity, explained that Omosebi’s tenancy had expired more than four years before the order was gotten from the court.
According to the landlord, Omosebi claimed ownership of the property but never appeared in court to defend his position, leading to a final court judgment in the landlord’s favour.

A Lawyer, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq.FCIArb., has prayed the Supreme Court to set the appeal against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, seeking an order compelling the AGF to promulgate the order to bring Part 1 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, CAP. F35, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria into operation, down for accelerated hearing.

Ekpenyong dragged the AGF to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal, in appeal number: CA/A/132/2020, between Ekpenyong and AGF, dismissed the appeal on May 12, 2022.

The Appeal Court upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja, delivered by retired Justice Anwuli Chikere, that the AGF has absolute discretionary powers under Section 3 (1) of the Act to promulgate an order to bring Part 1 of the Act into operation.

But the Supreme Court had on May 27, 2024, granted leave to Ekpenyong to appeal the judgement of the Appeal Court which dismissed his appeal against the AGF.

A five-member panel of the apex court, in a unanimous ruling delivered by Justice Adamu Jauro, granted the appellant’s prayer for leave of the apex court to seek redress against the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Meanwhile, Ekpenyong of the law firm of Fred-Young & Evans LP filed his Appellant’s Brief marked: SC/CR/92/2024 dated and filed on Oct. 17, 2024.

The human right and constitutional lawyer therefore said that more than two months since he filed his brief at the apex court, the respondent (AGF) was yet to respond.

He therefore filed a motion on notice pursuant to Order 4, Rule 1, Order 16, Rules 2(1), Rules 4(1) and 12 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024, Section 22 and 27 of the Supreme Court Act and under the inherent jurudiction of the court.

In the motion he filed on Jan. 17, 2025, Ekpenyong sought an order to set down appeal number: SC/CR/92/2024; between him and the AGF, for hearing on his brief of argument dated October 17, 2024 alone.

He also sought, “an order of this Honorable court for accelerated hearing of Appeal No. SC/CR/92/2024; Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. v AGF in the interest of justice and national interest.”

The Lawyer, in his six-ground of arguments, said he filed his Appellant’s Brief of Argument within the time stipulated under the rules of the court.

According to him, the 30 (thirty) days period stipulated under the rules of this Honorable court for the AGF to file his Respondent’s Brief of Argument has since expired.

He submitted that the AGF had not filed his brief of argument because he does not have a formidable response against the issues of law raised and argued in the Appellant’s Brief before the court.

“Since the enactment of the Foreign Judgment Reciprocal Enforcement Act, CAP. F35, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 (“the Act”) in 1960, shortly after Nigeria’s independence, the Act has not come into operation because successive Attorney Generals of the Federation have not promulgated an Order pursuant to Section 3 (1) of the Act to bring the Act into operation.

“This appeal is in the interest of justice and national interest because Nigeria, Nigerians and Nigerian businesses lose several millions of dollars every day in business opportunities and international trade because Nigeria does not have a modem legislation on recognition and registration of foreign judgments.

“Accelerated hearing of this appeal will clear the air on the extent of the AGF’s administrative discretion under Section 3 (1) of the Act as well as that of other public officers under Nigeria’s constitutional democracy and lead to a landmark decision which will improve Nigeria’s legal system,” he argued.

Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court in Abuja has returned the case file of a suit filed by 18 suspended Edo local government chairmen against Gov. Monday Okpebholo and others for reassignment.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the suit was filed by the suspended chairmen to seek an order of status quo ante bellum to restrain Gov. Okpebholo from giving effect to the house of assembly’s resolution for their removal.

The matter, which was held on Jan. 6 when Justice Nwite was a vacation judge, NAN reliably gathered, had been remitted back to the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, for reassignment after the vacation ended.

Court activities resumed officially on Jan. 7 after the Christmas holiday which began on Dec. 16, 2024.
It was also gartered that the case may either be reassigned back to Justice Nwite or another judge.

NAN reports that the judge had, on Jan. 6, ordered all the parties in the suit to maintain a status quo.
Justice Nwite, in a ruling, gave the order after counsel to the plaintiffs moved a motion ex-parte to the effect.
The judge, who said extreme carefulness needed to be exercise in granting the reliefs, said he would only make order for parties to maintain a status quo pending the hearing and the determination of the substantive suit.
The matter was subsequently adjourned until Jan. 20 for hearing of the substantive suit.
The aggrieved 18 LG chairmen and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had filed the motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1952/V/2024.
In the motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, but filed Dec. 24, 2024, the chairmen and the PDP sued Speaker, Edo State House of Assembly; Edo State House of Assembly; Executive Governor of Edo State; Government of Edo State as 1st to 4th defendants.
Also joined in the suit include the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Edo State; Attorney-General of the Federation and Inspector-General of Police as 5th to 7th defendants respectively
They sought an order of interim injunction compelling or directing the 1st to 5th defendants, their servants, agents, privies, any person, institution or successors howsoever called, acting or purporting to act on their behalf to maintain status quo ante bellum, as at 15th December, 2024, pending the determination of the substantive suit, filed contemporaneously with this application.

They sought an order of interim injunction restraining the 3rd to 5th defendants from further acting on the resolution of the assembly, suspending the plaintiffs and their deputies pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit filed contemporaneously with this application.