Flowerbud News

Category: Judiciary

  • How Emefiele Allegedly Awarded Multi-Billion Naira Contracts to Family & Associates-Witness  

    How Emefiele Allegedly Awarded Multi-Billion Naira Contracts to Family & Associates-Witness  

     

     

    By Biola Lawal

    Abuja: (Flowerbudnews): A Seventh Prosecution Witness, PW7, in the trial of a former governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, Godwin Emefiele on Monday, told Justice Hamza Muazu of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, High Court, Abuja, how Emefiele allegedly signed and approved award and payments of contracts to April 1616 Investment Limited and Architekon Nigeria Limited.

    The  companies allegedly belong to Sa’adatu Ramalan Yero,  his wife,  Margaret Emefiele and his in-law respectively.

    The witness,  Agboro Michael, an investigator with the ICPC,  led in evidence by the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo,SAN, was part of the investigation team that comprised the EFCC, ICPC, CCB, DSS and the Nigerian Police, EFCC Spokesman, Dele Oyewale disclosed in a statement.

    He testified on the count-charge of abuse of office and conferring  an unfair advantage to a public officer and relatives, preferred against Emefiele.

    “My Lord,  these companies were awarded about 45 contracts to supply Toyota Vehicles. We were worried as investigators as to how a particular company would get bids concurrently to supply vehicles. We did our investigation, and discovered that the company was not even accredited by Toyota.

    “In the companies my Lord, one has Sa’adatu’s husband and siblings as directors, and the other one has Sa’adatu as the director of the company while she is still a civil servant.

    “Document ‘F1’ shows the signature and approval of the defendant to pay the sum of N854, 700,000 (Eight Hundred Fifty-Four Million, Seven Hundred Thousand Naira)  His signature was number three on the document”,  he said.  Testifying further, Michael said in ‘F3’, the defendant approved 1, 85,700,000 (One Billion, Eighty-five million, Seven Hundred thousand) for the supply of 47 units of Toyota Hilux.

    While ‘F4’ was the defendants approval to purchase for the bank an armoured Toyota Avalon car at the cost of N99,900,000 (Ninety-Nine Million, Nine Hundred Thousand Naira), and ‘F5’ was the approval to procure two units of Toyota Hilux for the bank, and all were bought from April 1616 Investment limited.

    Speaking on the findings of the investigative team on exhibit P26, page 86 of 107 on November 6, 2021. Michael said; “It is a credit into the account from the CBN to the tune of N41, 943, 400, 34 (Forty-one Million, Nine Hundred and Forty-three Thousand, Four hundred and Thirty four kobo).

    “Page 87 was also a credit in April 2016 from the CBN, N304, 853, 50 (Three Hundred and Four Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand naira, Fifty kobo).

    “26 January, 2021, April 1616 Investment Nigeria limited also received N304, 853, 720, 55 (Three Hundred and Four Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Naira Fifty-Five kobo) from the CBN.

    “On the 10th of February, 2021, the CBN paid N201, 23, 323, 31 (Two Hundred and One Million, Twenty-Three Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty-Three Naira, Thirty-One kobo).

    The approval of payment of March 24, 2021 was  N304,843,720,85, April 27, 2021 was 60,976,744,17 (Sixty Million, Nine hundred and Seventy Six thousand, Seven hundred and forty-four naira, Seventeen kobo) May 31, 2021 was a payment of 60,976,744,17 (Sixty Million, Nine hundred and Seventy Six thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty-four Naira, Seventeen kobo), and February 21, 2021 was a payment of N50,547,508,30 (Fifty Million, Five Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, Five Hundred and Eight Naira Thirty kobo) were equally approved by the defendant.

    The witness further told the court that the team recorded the defendant’s statement under caution and video recorded in a conducive environment.

    Testifying further, the witness said; “In 2019, again,  we discovered the defendant also used his office and position to confer a corrupt advantage to one of the staff of CBN, Sa’adatu Ramalan Yero to supply  one unit of Toyota Land Cruiser V8 at the cost of N73, 800,000 (Seventy-Three Million, Eight Hundred Thousand to her company April 1616 Investment Nigeria limited where she is a director, and equally a director in the CBN.

    “Again my Lord, the defendant also approved the payment of renovation of the CBN Governors’ residence at No 2. Global road, Ikoyi Lagos to a company named; Architekon Nigeria Limited where his wife and brother-in-law are both directors.

    “Sometime in 2020, the defendant used his position as CBN Governor to confer on his wife and brother in-law corrupt advantage by awarding their company landscaping of the CBN governor’s residence in the sum of N39,46,000 (Thirty-Nine Million, Forty Six Thousand Naira”,he said.

    Continuing, Michael said a contract to procure furniture items was also awarded to his brother in-law in the sum of 97,000,000 (  Ninety Seven Million Naira), and again,  a contract to procure a power line at the same CBN Governor’s residence in the sum of N68,568,740 (Sixty-Eight Million, Five Hundred and Sixty-Eight Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty naira).

    While cross examining the witness, counsel to the defendant,  Matthew Burkaa SAN queried the witness  that though there are many signatories in the memo only his client was on trial. In response, the witness told him that the defendant was on trial because he was the approving authority, while others only minuted on the documents to justify the process, and didn’t  have the power to make such payments and approvals.

    Burkaa also wanted to tender the defendant’s  statement at the Nigerian Police force before the court,  but Oyedepo objected, stating it was a public document and needed to be certified before it can be tendered as an exhibit.  Burkaa then withdrew the document and promised to provide the true certified copy at the next adjourned date.

    Justice Muazu thereafter adjourned the matter till 25 and 26 April, 2024 for continuation of trial.  (Flowerbudnews)

     

     

     

     

  • CJN, others ask court to dismiss suit challenging appointment of 12 judges

    CJN, others ask court to dismiss suit challenging appointment of 12 judges

    Flowerbudnews

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, and others, on Thursday, prayed a Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja to dismiss a suit filed by a lawyer, Azubuike Oko, seeking to stop the appointment of 12 judges into the FCT High Court.

    Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, who appeared for Ariwoola, the Chief Judge (CJ) of FCT, Hussein Baba-Yusuf, and National Judicial Council (NJC), told Justice Inyang Ekwo while adopting their processes and presenting their argument against the suit.

    In a preliminary objection dated and filed March 1 by the senior lawyer, Kehinde urged the court to strike out or dismiss the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/205/3024 for want of jurisdiction.

    The counsel, who gave four-ground of arguments, said under Section 6(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution is non-justiciable.

    He argued that Oko, the plaintiff, lacked the locus standi to institute the action.

    “Under Section 245C(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the National Industrial Court of Nigeria has exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters relating to or connected with the employment of judicial officers.

    “Under Section 245C(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the National Industrial Court of Nigeria has exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters relating to or connected with and any dispute over the interpretation and application of Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution as it relates to the employment of judicial officers,” Kehinde argued.

    In the affidavit in support of the preliminary objection deposed to by Kemi Esene, a litigation secretary in the law firm of Kehinde and Partners, she told Justice Ekwo that on Sept. 30, 2020, the honourable court dismissed a similar suit.

    She said the sult, marked: FC/ABJCS/602/2020 filed by JRP Foundation Ltd against the former President Muhammadu Buhari and 24 others, was dismissed on June 10, 2020.

    Esene said the sult had challenged the recommendation of 21 persons by the NJC to Buhari for appointment as judges of the High Court of the FCT.

    She said the plaintiff had alleged that the Judicial Service Committee of the FCT acted In bad faith and grossly abused the power vested in it when it submitted the list of nominees for appointment as judges of the FCT High Court to NJC.

    The lawyer averred that the court, in its judgment, upheld the preliminary objection of the defendants and said that since the plaintiff was not a party to the procedure for the appointment of the judicial officers, the foundation had no locus to institute the action.

    Besides, she said the court held that FHC had no jurisdiction over the matter because the subject matter had to do with employment of the persons recommended by NJC to be appointed as judges by the former president.

    When the case was called on Thursday, plaintiff’s lawyer, Nkemakolam Okoro, told the court that the matter was adjourned for hearing and that they were ready to proceed.

    Okoro said he filed an originating summons dated and filed Feb. 16.

    He said upon receipt of the counter affidavit jointly filed by FCT CJ, NJC and CJN, he filed a response on March 4.

    He said he equally filed a counter affidavit on March 4 to oppose their preliminary objection.

    Okoro urged the court to grant their reliefs.

    Akinola Fasanmi, who appeared for appeared for the Nigeria’s president and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), adopted all the processes filed by Kehinde.

    Justice Ekwo adjourned the suit until March 15 for judgment.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the judge had, on Feb. 23, rejected Oko’s ex-parte motion seeking to stop Baba-Yusuf from appointing 12 judges into the bench of the court.

    Justice Ekwo, in a ruling on the ex-parte motion moved by Emmanuel Emerenini, rather directed the plaintiff to put the defendants on notice of the motion ex-parte within 2 days of the order.

    Justice Ekwo also ordered Oko, a legal practitioner, to serve the defendants with all processes filed in the suit within two days of the order for the defendants to show cause why the prayers on the motion ought not to be granted in the next adjourned date.

    He, however, made an order for accelerated hearing.

    Oko, in the motion, had sued Baba-Yusuf, NJC and Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) as 1st to 3rd defendants.

    Also joined in the suit are the CJN, President of Nigeria and AGF as 4th to 6th defendants respectively.

    The plaintiff sought an order directing the parties in the suit to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the hearing and determination of his motion on notice.

    Oko said he hails from Ebonyi, which had been routinely excluded and marginalised with respect to the appointment of judges of the High Court of FCT by Baba-Yusuf, NJC and FJSC.

    The lawyer averred that, as a matter of fact, it was the CJ (Baba-Yusuf) that computes the names of qualified lawyers from selected states of the federation and transmitted to FJSC for recommendation to NJC for appointment by the President of Nigeria,as judges of the FCT High Court.

    He averred that the states mentioned for nomination of lawyers for appointment as judges into the 12 positions were Bauchi, Bayelsa, Enugu, Imo, Kogi, Kwara, Lagos, Oyo, Plateau, Rivers, Taraba, and Zamfara.

    He, however, alleged that currently, Oyo and Kogji “already had two serving judges in the FCT High Court, and the two states were given additional slots, to now have three judges, despite the fact that Ebonyi State has no single serving judge in the High Court of the FCT.”

    He prayed the court to grant their motion in the interest of justice.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

  • Court to hear detained Miyetti Allah’s president motion for unconditional release March 13

    Court to hear detained Miyetti Allah’s president motion for unconditional release March 13

     

    Flowerbudnews
    A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday, fixed March 13 to hear the motion filed by the detained President, Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, Bello Bodejo, seeking his unconditional release from Defence Intelligence Agency (NIA)’s custody.

    Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date following the Federal Government’s failure to produce Bodejo in court for arraignment after the expiration of the seven-day order directing the FG to file charges against him.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Ekwo had, on Feb. 22, gave the Federal Government seven days to file a charge against the detained Bodejo.

    The judge gave the order after the expiration of the earlier order granted the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to remand Bodejo for 15 days in the custody of DIA pending conclusion of his investigation.

    The court then adjourned until March 1 for Bodejo to take his plea, but on the adjourned date, the matter was not heard, and it was later shifted to today for plea.

    When the matter was called on Tuesday, Bodejo was not in court.

    AGF’s counsel, Y.A. Imana, told the court that though the matter was slated for arraignment, she said the investigating agency was yet to send Bodejo’s file to her office.

    “This matter is slated for arraignment. Unfortunately, up till now, due to some problems the investigating agencies are encountering, they have not been able to send the file to us,” she said

    Justice Ekwo then asked her what the problem was.

    Responding, Imana said from the last date of adjournment, her office had written three letters to the investigating agency to send the duplicate case file to them but due to the complexity of the nature of the investigation, they were yet to avail them with the file.

    But Bodejo’s lawyer, Mohammed Sheriff, told the court several efforts made to have his client release to them pending his arraignment.

    “On the 6th of February when my lord graciously granted the application to keep him (Bodejo), we filed a motion and my lord said the motion would be heard on 22nd of February,” he said.

    Sheriff said when the matter was adjourned on Feb. 22 and the prosecution was given seven days to produce his client for arraignment, they filed another motion on his behalf.

    “Today, the defendant (Bodejo) has spent 43 days in detention and there is no charge filed before any court of competent jurisdiction,” he said

    The lawyer argued that besides, the prosecution did not file any counter affidavit against their motion on notice, even though they gave impression that there were allegations against Bodejo.

    He said their latest motion was dated Feb. 23 and filed Feb. 26, adding that the prosecution was served same date.

    Justice Ekwo, therefore, said that since the prosecution had been given a date to be heard but they were not ready, the defendant would equally be given a date to be heard.

    “Counsel for the prosecution, have you seen where you have placed yourself now,” the judge asked rhetorically, before adjourning the matter until March 13 for Bodejo’s motion on notice to be taken.

    NAN reports that in the motion on notice filed by Sheriff, Bodejo sought an order directing the Federal Republic of Nigeria to release the defendant/applicant unconditionally or upon any condition as may be given by this honourable court pending his arraignment or trial before a court of competent jurisdiction.”

    In a seven-ground of argument, the lawyer said even if there was any criminal allegation against Bodejo, that cannot operate to curtail and restrict his fundamental rights.

    “The applicant was invited by the Nigerian Army on the 23 of January, 2024 and was later detained at DIA and has been in their custody since then.

    The allegations, if any, the respondents cannot justify the unlawful arrest, detention, incarceration, humiliation, harassment, and intimidation of the applicant forever without presenting him before any competent court,” he said.

    Sheriff described the prosecution’s action as “unconstitutional and flagrant abuse of the applicant’s constitutional rights, contrary to Section 34, 35 (1), (5) and (6) and 41 of the Constitution of The Federal Republic Of Nigeria, 1999.”(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

  • Appointment of judges: Lawyer reacts to FCT CJ’s claim on Oyo, Kogi vacancies

    Appointment of judges: Lawyer reacts to FCT CJ’s claim on Oyo, Kogi vacancies

     

    Flowerbudnews

    A legal practitioner, Azubuike Oko, has responded to the statement of the Chief Judge, FCT High Court, Justice Husseini Baba-Yusuf, that Oyo State and Kogi currently did not have two judges on the bench of the court.

    Oko, in a statement he signed on Sunday in Abuja, alleged that the chief judge lied on oath in paragraph nine of his counter affidavit filed in reaction to his (Oko’s) suit.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Oko, in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/205/2024 filed before Justice Inyang Ekwo of a Federal High Court, Abuja, had sought an order stopping the appointment of any person as judges from Oyo State and Kogi.

    He alleged that the two states already had two sitting judges in the High Court of FCT.

    He said going on with the appointment would be in violation of Sections 14(3) and 42 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s Constitution.

    The plaintiff, among other reliefs, rather sought the inclusion of Ebonyi among the list of other states from which 12 judges should be appointed to fill the existing vacancies in the FCT High Court.

    Justice Ekwo had, on Feb. 23, ordered Oko to put the defendants in the case on notice to show cause why his reliefs in the ex-parte motion should not be granted in the next adjourned date.

    The judge, who made an order for accelerated hearing of the matter, fixed March 4 for hearing.

    The defendants are Baba-Yusuf, National Judicial Council (NJC) and Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) as 1st to 3rd defendants.

    Also joined in the suit dated and filed on Feb. 16 by Nkemakolam Okoro are the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), President of Nigeria and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 4th to 6th defendants respectively.

    But in paragraph nine of his counter affidavit to the suit, the CJ averred that Kogi and Oyo did not have two judges on the bench of the court as claimed by the plaintiff.

    The counter affidavit, dated March 1, was deposed to by Kemi Esene, a female litigation secretary in the law firm of Kehinde and Partners, on behalf of the FCT CJ, the NJC and the CJN.

    Paragraph nine of the said counter affidavit reads: “In response to paragraph 3(m), Oyo and Kogi States do not have two serving judges in the High Court of the FCT.”

    But responding to the content of the counter affidavit, Oko, in the statement, described it as “bare faced lie.”

    He said it was a desperation by the CJ to achieve the appointment of judges from the listed states at all cost to the exclusion of Ebonyi.

    “Does it mean that the Chief Judge of the High Court of FCT forgot that he is from Ankpa, Kogi State.

    “Did he also forget that Hon. Justice E.Enenche is also from Kogi State?

    “How did he not remember that Hon Justice Mohammed Alhaji Madugu and Hon Justice Ajoke Adepoju, both of Saki and Ibadan South West of Oyo States, are both from Oyo State?

    “Between 2019 and 2022, lawyers from different states of the Federation have all been appointed to fill the vacancies for judges of the High Court of FCT.

    “These vacancies ought to be filled in accordance with Section 14(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which provides as follows:

    “The composition of the government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria.

     

    ”It is also to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or in any of its agencies,” he said.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

  • Obasanjo’s ex-minister files N1bn suit against EFCC for declaring him wanted

    Obasanjo’s ex-minister files N1bn suit against EFCC for declaring him wanted

     

    Flowerbudnews

    Dr Olu Agunloye, former Minister of Power and Steel under ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo, has filed a N1 billion suit against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over allegations that it published his name on its website’s wanted list.

    Agunloye, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/167/2024 and filed by his team of lawyers led by Mr Adeola Adedipe, SAN, also joined the Attorney-General of Federation (AGF) as 2nd defendant.

    The case, presently before Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court, Abuja, has now been fixed for April 18 for hearing.

    The originating summons, dated and filed Feb. 8, was sighted by the News Agency of Nigeria on Friday.

    The ex-minister sought six reliefs, including a declaration that the EFCC cannot lawfully exercise its discretion, powers and or functions under Sections 1(2\(c\, 6, 7, 13 of the EFCC Act, 2004, ditto Section 4 of the Police Act 2020, by declaring him wanted on its official website or any other related platform.

    Agunloye said this was without recourse to any safeguard in Sections 34({1)(a), 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), including a judicial intervention, order or leave of court pursuant to Sections 1(1), 8(1) & 42(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

    He, therefore, sought an order for the EFCC, its agents, privies, representatives and other related affiliates to forthwith remove his picture, name, references, details and or particulars from the wanted list published on its official website or any other related platform.

    He also sought a perpetual injunction restraining the EFCC and the AGF, “both jointly or severally, whether by themselves or their staff, from further declaring the plaintiff wanted in relation to the particulars and subject matter of this suit, either on the EFCC official website, newspaper publication or any other related platform, except by a judicial intervention and recourse to all constitutional safeguards available to him in law and equity.

    “General damages of one billion baira (N1, 000, 000, 000 00) against the defendants, especially the 1st defendant

    “Cost of this action.”

    In the affidavit which he personally deposed to, Agunloye said he sought a redress and judicial intervention from court having regard to some very disturbing actions of the anti-graft agency, which he said, ought not to occur under the watch of the AGF, who is the chief law officer of the federation.

    He said he sought a judicial determination on the propriety or otherwise, of the exercise of the EFCC’s discretion or power to declare him wanted without recourse to any judicial intervention or relevant constitutional safeguards.

    “As at the time of filing this suit, my picture, name, particulars and othe details are currently uploaded on the official website of the 1st defendant,” he said.

    The plaintiff said he was declared wanted for corruption and forgery.

    According to him, as a result of this action by the 1st defendant, I have become a subject of ridicule, stripped of my dignity, freedom of movement and even presumption of innocence, with respect to a criminal trial which I am currently boing prosecuted of, by the 1st defendant.

    He alleged that the deliberate act of the EFCC was orchestrated to negatively project him in the international community.

    Agunloye said this was so because sometime in November 2002 to May 2003, while he served as Minister of Power and Steel, he awarded contract to Messrs Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited for the construction of the Mambila Power Project by the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN).

    “The award of the said contracts followed all the necessary administrative and authoritative due process, obtaining the necessary approval.

    “Moreover, since the award of the contract, successive administrations have continued to interface with the company, Sunrise Power and Transmission Limited, so much so that the government entered into a settlement agreement with it over a dispute.

    “On an allegation of breach of contract by the company, Sunrise Power and Transmission Limited resorted to take out an arbitral proceeding before the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, France – in Case No: 26260/SPN/AB/CPB between Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited Vs. FGN

    “It is in connection to this arbitral proceeding that the 1st defendant invited me for interrogation on 3rd of May, 2023 and I did honour same on 16th May, 2023, despite my frailties and hailing health conditions.

    “Upon my release on administrativ bail, the 1st defendant persisted in hounding me to return for further grilling which I frowned at because I was undergoing serious medical treatment related to heart.

    “When the threat and disturbances became alarming, in June 2023, I filed a suit in court to challenge the unnecessary harassment because I was not running away, but only attending to my health with notice to the 1st defendant.

    “It was however traumatising on the night of Tuesday, 12th December, 2023, when I started receiving calls from all around the globe that I had been declared wanted by the 1st defendant.

    “Knowing fully well that I was not on the run, I reported at the EFCC headquarters here in Abuja the next day, 13th December, 2023 where I was served with a criminal charge and was detained till 18th December, 2023.

    “On 10th January, 2024, I was arraigned in court and admitted to bail on 11th January, 2024, because I am presumed innocent of all the criminal allegations,” he averred.

    Agunloye said despite the fact that the law presumes him innocent of the criminal charge, EFCC continued with the unlawful publication on its website

    He described the action of the anti-graft agency as “arbitrariness, oppression, violation of its statutory powers and functions and unlawful.”(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

  • Kogi: Appeal Court vacates inspection order granted to SDP by tribunal

    Kogi: Appeal Court vacates inspection order granted to SDP by tribunal

     

    Flowerbudnews

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Friday, set aside the inspection order granted Murtala Ajaka, the candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) by the Kogi Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the tribunal had, on Nov. 25, 2023, granted an ex-parte order, allowing the SDP and its candidate in the Nov. 11, 2023 governorship poll to carry out forensic examination of all the Bimordal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) used in the election, among other reliefs.

    The three-member panel of justices led by Justice J.O.K. Oyewole, in a unanimous ruling, vacated the inspection order on the grounds that it went outside the provisions of the Electoral Act.

    The appellate court held that while inspection is allowed under the Electoral Act, it must be jointly carried out with the respondents and the scope of the inspection should be within the strict limit allowed under the Electoral Act.

    “The ex parte order made by the trial tribunal on the 25th November, 2023 at the instance of the 1st and 2nd respondents are within the jurisdictional competence of the said tribunal.

    “However, paragraphs ‘g’, ‘k’ and ‘n’ thereof are beyond the scope of Section 146 (1) of the Electoral Act 2022. The said paragraphs ‘g’, ‘k’ and ‘n’ are hereby expunged.

    “The inspection purportedly done pursuant to the said orders of the trial tribunal without the presence of the appellant violates paragraph ‘h’ of the said orders and it is hereby set aside,” the panel ruled

    NAN reports that while the SDP was represented at the Court of Appeal by Pius Akubo, SAN; Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, appeared for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was represented by Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN.

    Gov. Usman Ododo of Kogi was represented by J.B. Daudu, SAN, while the All Progressives Congress (APC) was represented by Abdulwahab Muhammed, SAN.

    Other members of the Appeal Court panel include Justices A. I. Banjoko and A.B. Mohammed.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

  • Nigeria’s Supreme Court: CJN Swears In 11 New Justices

    Nigeria’s Supreme Court: CJN Swears In 11 New Justices

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, has administered the oath of office to 11 new justices of the Supreme Court.

     

    The newly sworn-in justices include Jummai Sankey, Chidiebere Uwa, Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, Haruna Tsammani, and Moore Adumein.

     

    Others are Obande Ogbuinya, Stephen Adah, Habeeb Abiru, Jamilu Tukur, Abubakar Umar, and Mohammed Idris.

     

    These appointments to the apex court mark the first significant additions since 2020. With the swearing-in of the new justices, the Supreme Court has reached its full complement of 21 members as mandated by the constitution.

     

    During his speech on Monday, the CJN advised the newly sworn-in justices to let their consciences serve as a guiding principle and filter for their actions.

     

    Acknowledging the elevated expectations placed on justices of the highest court in the land, where appellants’ hopes are consistently lofty, Ariwoola cautioned the incoming justices to prepare themselves for potential verbal abuse or criticism from litigants, who may be unsuccessful in their cases.

     

    He said: “There is no way you can please human beings, especially litigants. The easiest way to fail in life is by trying to please everyone. The only deity you can fear is the Almighty God”, he said.

     

    “Once your judgment is in consonance with what God expects from you, and is also in accordance with the constitution, you should consider yourself the happiest and freest person on earth

     

    Your moral uprightness, integrity and respect for the constitution and other extant laws in operation, must be unwavering and unassailable.

     

    “Any judgment given at this level can only be upturned in heaven.” CJN remarked.

  • Lawyer drags AGF to Supreme Court over inoperative Foreign Judgment Reciprocal Enforcement Act

    Lawyer drags AGF to Supreme Court over inoperative Foreign Judgment Reciprocal Enforcement Act

     

    Flowerbudnews

    A lawyer, Emmanuel Ekpenyong, has dragged the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to Supreme Court over alleged failure to promulgate an order to bring Part 1 of the Foreign Judgment Reciprocal Enforcement Act, 1990 into operation since its enactment in 1960 to commence on Feb. 1, 1961.

    Ekpenyong, in his notice of motion for leave to appeal dated and filed Feb.15 at the Supreme Court, listed the AGF as sole respondent.

    In the motion marked: SC/CR/92/2024, the lawyer sought five orders, including an order extending time for him to seek leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja delivered on May 12, 2022 in appeal number: CA/A/132/2020 between him and the AGF.

    He also sought an order of the court granting leave to him to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, among others.

    It would be recalled that the Court of Appeal, Abuja had in an appeal number:: CA/A/132/2020, between Ekpenyong and AGF, dismissed the appeal on May 12, 2022.

    It, thereafter, upheld the judgement of a Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja that the AGF had absolute discretionary powers under Section 3 (1) of the Act to promulgate an order to bring Part 1 of the Act into operation.

    Ekpenyong of Fred-Young & Evans LP had, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/755/2017 dated and filed on June 21, 2017, sued the AGF as sole defendant before retired Justice Anwuli Chikere of a FHC in Abuja.

    In the originating summons, the lawyer urged the court to determine whether there is a mandatory legal duty on the AGF under Section 3{1) and 9 of the Foreign Judgment Reciprocal Act, CAP F35, Law of the Federation, 1990 (the 1990 Act) to promulgate an order to bring Part 1 of 1990 Act into operation.

    “Whether there is a mandatory legal duty on the defendant under Section 5 of the Foreign Judgment Reciprocal Act, CAP F35, Laws of the Federation, 1990 (the 1990 Act) to make rules to regulate the procedure for registration of foreign judgments in Nigeria,” among other questions.

    Ekpenyong, therefore, sought an order of mandamus compelling the AGF “to exercise the mandatory legal duty stipulated in Section 3(1) of the 1990 Act to promulgate an order extending the applicability of part 1 of the 1990 Act to judgments of superior courts of foreign countries with substantial reciprocity treatment with Nigeria and deeming the courts stipulated in the order as superior courts in the foreign countries for the purpose of applicability of Part 1 of the 1990 Act.

    “An order for mandamus compelling the defendant to exercise the mandatory legal stipulated in Section 9(2) of the 1990 Act to promulgate an order to bring Part 1 of the 1990 Act into operation and for the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance, 1958 (the 1958 Ordinance) to cease to have effect in Nigeria,” etc.

    The plaintiff averred that he was a member of international law networks like IR Global, Global Law Experts, Legal Finest and International Credit Network and that evidence had shown that he had sufficient interest in the subject matter contrary to the AGF’s argument.

    He stated that he had suffered some injuries and hardship as a result of the AGF’s failure to promulgate the order.

    In addition, he contended that he had lost business for registration of foreign judgments in Nigeria because of the AGF’s failure to promulgate the order to bring Part 1 of the 1990 Act into operation.

    Ekpenyong said that the promulgation of the order would make foreign businesses to do more businesses with Nigerians and Nigerian companies because they would be able to recover monetary judgments in Nigeria.

    “This will improve international trade and foreign investments. This will also boost the Nigerian economy and the right to livelihood of the plaintiff and Nigerians,” he said.

    Justice Chikere though held that the plaintiff had locus standi to institute the suit contrary to the defendant’s submission, she agreed with the defence arguments on the discretionary power of AGF to promulgate the order only if he was satisfied that there were countries with reciprocal treatment of judgments with Nigeria based on Section 3(1) of the Act.

    She consequently dismissed Ekpenyong’s suit.

    Upon his two grounds of the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court, Ekpenyong said he is desirous of appealing against the concurrent findings in the judgment of both the trial court and Court of Appeal on questions of mixed law and facts.

    According to him, the AGF’s discretion under Section 3 (1) of the 1990 Act is not absolute but subject to judicial review of the courts under Section 6 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) in order to prevent an abuse of the discretion under the Act.

    He further stated that the courts ought to give a purposive interpretation of Section 3 (1) of the Act and not a literal interpretation which, he argued, has led to absurdity.

    He contends that he has shown that his proposed appeal is an exceptional circumstance and urged the apex court to grant him leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of both the trial court and Court of Appeal on the issue.

    “The grounds of appeal in the proposed notice of appeal contain cogent, recondite, substantial points of law.

    “The applicant has an arguable appeal and the appeal is a public interest litigation which will greatly improve Nigeria’s economy and jurisprudence on the subject matter,” he said.

    Ekpenyong said he filed an application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment on July 29, 2022 within the statutory three months’ period but the Appeal Court did not hear or grant the application within the stipulated period.

    He said: “The applicant did not file an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal at the registry of the Supreme Court soon after the expiration of the statutory three months’ period because he genuinely believed that the Court of Appeal must first hear the application for leave and reject the same before a fresh application can be filed before the Supreme Court.

    No date has been given yet for hearing of Ekpenyong’s application at the Supreme Court. (Flowerbudnews)

  • Alleged Defamation: High Court acquits journalists, chides police, magistrate over shoddy trial

    Alleged Defamation: High Court acquits journalists, chides police, magistrate over shoddy trial

    By News Desk

    The Kwara State High Court, sitting as an appellate court in Ilorin, has discharged and acquitted two journalists convicted of publishing a defamatory article against a rice factory, faulting the police and trial magistrate’s ruling.

    In February 2023, a magistrate’s court convicted Alfred Olufemi, an investigative reporter, and Gidado Shuaib, editor of Abuja-based News Digest, over a report against Hillcrest Agro-Allied Industries Limited.

    The report published in News Digest in 2018 detailed how the company’s staff members smoked Indian hemp freely within its premises, violating relevant laws and health regulations.

    But the journalists immediately appealed the judgement at the state High Court, where a three-man panel reviewed the trial court’s judgement.

    The journalists’ lawyer, Yunus AbdulSalam, urged the appellate court to quash the lower court’s conviction. The Abuja-based lawyer argued that the respondent, the prosecution at the lower court, did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the report of the police investigation it relied on was already issued before the appellants were invited for questioning.

    He also argued that the trial magistrate did not regard the testimony of the journalists’ key witness and their defence, among other issues raised during the trial.

    Delivering its judgement on 14 February, a three-man panel comprising Justice M.O Adegbite, Justice S.B Olanipekun and Justice S.M Akanbi, ruled that they had no difficulty in resolving the issue in favour of the appellants.

    “We find merit in the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence. We allow the appeal and enter a verdict of discharge and acquittal for the appellants,” said the presiding judge, Justice Akanbi.

    Reacting to the outcome of the appeal, the journalists’ lawyer, Mr. AbdulSalam described the decision of the court as a victory for his clients and press freedom in Nigeria.

    “For nearly six years, these young journalists fought to reclaim their innocence and I’m happy that the appeal court delivered justice. This is a win for truth, press freedom and rule of law,” he said.

    Meanwhile, in the 25-page judgement obtained by PRNigeria, the presiding judge took a swipe at the police and the trial magistrate over their roles in the conviction of the journalists.

    “I think with all due respect to the learned magistrate, he came to the conclusion after taking into consideration the prosecution’s investigation report which came out before the arrest and invitation of the Appellant.”

    The judges stated that besides the fact that the evidence of the prosecution witness sharply contradicted the evidence tendered by the witness, the report coming out before investigation leaves much to be desired.

    They maintained that despite the contradiction in evidence presented by the prosecution, the trial court took the narration of the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) hook line and sinker.

    “The shoddy and shady investigation embarked upon by the police must have misled the trial magistrate court to its finding without regard to the evidence of the Appellants,” the judgement read.

    “Investigation report came before an invitation of the Appellants to exhibit P6 and the defence of the DW1 were jettisoned for the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Every doubt ought to have been resolved in favour of the defence in criminal cases

    They maintained that despite the contradiction in evidence presented by the prosecution, the trial court took the narration of the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) hook line and sinker.

    “The shoddy and shady investigation embarked upon by the police must have misled the trial magistrate court to its finding without regard to the evidence of the Appellants,” the judgement read.

    “Investigation report came before an invitation of the Appellants to exhibit P6 and the defence of the DW1 were jettisoned for the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Every doubt ought to have been resolved in favour of the defence in criminal cases.