Flowerbud News

Category: Judiciary

  • X-raying Tinubu’s judicial sector reform after 1 year in office

    X-raying Tinubu’s judicial sector reform after 1 year in office

     

    By Taiye Agbaje, News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)

    On May 29 when his administration was inaugurated, president Bola Tinubu promised that his administration would carry out reforms that will have far-reaching implications for Nigerians.

    Reforms in the economy sector such as fuel subsidy removal, the floating of naira and harmonisation of exchange rate have dominated the headlines.

    However, Tinubu has, within this past one year, taken actions that have largely gone unnoticed but which experts say hold the prospect of repositioning the judiciary to meet the yearnings of Nigerians.

    The reason for this is not unconnected to the saying that the judiciary is the bedrock of democracy and last hope of the common man.

    For instance in December Tinubu recommended 11 Justices for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court.

    Following their confirmation by the National Assembly, Tinubu administration made history by becoming the first to ensure that the apex court has full complements of 21 Justices as required by law.

    Section 230 (2) (b) of the 1999 constitution (As amended) provides that, “The Supreme Court of Nigeria shall consist of such number of Justices not exceeding 21 as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.”

    There is no doubt that this will speed up the process of dispensing justice in a court where some cases could last for years.

    It would also ensure that all parts of the country are fairly represented at the zenith of the nation’s litigation hierarchy.

    Another major step taken by the Tinubu administration is the move to improve the welfare of judicial officers. It is fact that in some cases there is coloration between poverty.

    This becomes more challenging when one occupies an office when officers are tempted with financial inducement daily.

    Perhaps it was against this background that on March 19Tinubu has sent a bill to the National Assembly proposing a new structure of salaries and allowances for judicial officers.

    In the letter communicating the bill to the lawmakers, the president said the bill seeks to end the “prolonged stagnation” of the remuneration of judicial officers, adding that it will improve their welfare.

    The letter was entitled “Transmission of judicial office holders’ salaries and allowances bill, 2024.

    The transmission was in accordance with the provisions of section 58, sub-section two of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended,”

    “I forward herein, the judicial office holders, salaries and allowances bill, 2024, for the kind consideration of the senate.

    “The judicial office holders salaries and allowances bill seeks to prescribe salaries and allowances and fringe benefits for judicial officials to end the prolonged stagnation in their remuneration and to reflect contemporary socio-economic realities.

    “While I hope that the judicial office holders salaries and allowances bill 2024 will be carefully, yet expeditiously considered and passed by the senate”, Tinubu said in the letter read by Godswil Akpabio, the Senate President.

    Bill which has been passed by the House of Representatives, seeks to 300 per cent increase in the salaries and allowances of judicial office holders.

    Similarly, in June 2023, Tinubu signed another Constitution alteration bill which provides a unified retirement age for all judicial officers of superior courts of record.

    The alteration provides that all pensions, allowances and other retirement benefits of judicial officers shall be charged to the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Federation and paid directly by the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    Judicial experts say this will address a situation where payment of retirement benefits of state judges is left to the state governments to handle, and in many cases, these benefits are owed or delayed.

    Tinubu’s actions have attracted applause from lawyers and other stakeholders in judiciary.

    A Lagos-based lawyer, Josephine Ijekhuemen, described the appointment of the 11 justices as “a positive development for easy and quicker dispensation of justice.”

    She said before now, the apex court was left with 10 justices after the death of Justice Centus Nweze, and the retirements of Justices Amina Augie and Dattijo Muhammad.

    “I welcome the president’s decision to Increase the number of justices of the Supreme Court as required by law,” Ijekhuemen said.

    On the proposed increase salaries and emoluments for judges, the human rights lawyer said the judiciary, being the third arm of government, also deserves to be well remunerated for services rendered.

    “The approval for an increase in the allowance and remuneration of judges is equally a welcome development,” she added.

    Another lawyer, Mr George Itodo, he said Tinubu, so far, had done tremendously well by increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 21.

    He said “the appointment will ensure quick dispensation of cases as there will be more panels to hear cases.

    “There will be early hearing and determination of cases. A situation where you have a matter at the Supreme Court and it will be going for 10 years will be a thing of the past.

    “Because there will be more panels now, it makes things easier. Cases will be quick dispensed with thereby promoting the course of justice.”

    A legal expert, Mr Suleiman Lawal, urged judges to reciprocate the adjustment in their salaries and allowances through impartial and quick dispensation of justice.

    However, some stakeholders say more still needs to be done to make the judiciary perform optimally.

    Mr Paul Daudu, the Chairman of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Bwari Branch in Abuja, listed the challenges to include prolonged pre-trial detention, delayed trials, lack of access to legal representation and poor case management.

    He said the problem also include conflicting and perverse judgments for superior courts of record, unethical practices by some legal practitioners and law enforcement agents, amongst others.

    According to him, there is indeed the perception by ordinary citizens that what presently operates in Nigeria is the ‘administration of law’ and not ‘’administration of justice.’

    “The former being a system riddled by hybrid technicalities, legal jargon, cumbersome adjudicatory procedure and rhetoric,” he said.

    He called on the legal practitioners, as guardians of the law, to reaffirm their commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring access to justice for all.

    Other stakeholders say no reform in the judicial sector is complete without guaranteeing true independence of this third arm of government.

    “The preservation of and non-interference with, the independence of the judiciary and the jurisdiction of the court are so important, if not indispensable’’, argues legal luminary, Afe Babalola, in a piece entitled role of a strong and independent judiciary in a nation. (NANFeatures)(www.nannews.ng)

  • Lagos sets judicial benchmark for other regions – CJN……..Robust justice system promotes economic growth -Sanwo-Olu

    Lagos sets judicial benchmark for other regions – CJN……..Robust justice system promotes economic growth -Sanwo-Olu

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria, CNN, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, on Monday praised the Lagos State justice system for its progressive nature, particularly in the swift and effective dispensation of court cases, setting a benchmark for other regions to follow. (more…)

  • Kogi: Tribunal dismisses SDP, PRP, AA’s petitions, affirms Ododo as duly elected governor

    Kogi: Tribunal dismisses SDP, PRP, AA’s petitions, affirms Ododo as duly elected governor

     

    Flowerbudnews y

    The Kogi Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja on Monday dismissed three separate petitions filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) and Action Alliance (AA) against Gov. Usman Ododo’s election victory.

    The three-member panel of justices, headed by Justice Ado Birnin-Kudu, in separate judgments, affirmed Gov. Ododo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the valid winner of the Nov. 11, 2023 Kogi governorship election.

    The panel, in a unanimous decision, held that the poll was conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

    The News Agency Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the SDP and its governorship candidate, Murtala Ajaka; the PRP and its candidate, Abdullahi Bayawo, and their counterpart in AA, Olayinka Braimoh, had filed the petitions to challenge the Election victory of APC and Ododo.

    Some of the allegations against INEC’s declaration of Ododo as winter of the November election were non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022; irregularities, certificate forgery, among others.

    Delivering judgment in SDP and Ajaka”s petition, the tribunal held that the petitioners failed to prove the allegations of over-voting and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022 in the petition.

    It held that all the witness evidence filed before it were incompetent and full of inconsistencies.

    It also agreed with the submissions of the respondents that the allegations of forgery raised in the petition were pre-election matter, which ought to have been raised 14 days after the documents were submitted to INEC.

    Birnin-Kudu said : “I agree with the respondents that most of the exhibits tendered from the Bar without the makers constitute documentary hearsay.

    “This is because any witness, who must testify before the tribunal must have his witness statement on oath, and be allowed to bring and demonstrate evidence to be made per incuriam,” he said.

    The tribunal held that the first prosecution witness (PW1), who was an INEC Staff, was not the maker of the documents tendered, hence, the document were inadmissible.

    “Unfortunately, PW1 is not a competent witness. All documents tendered through him are hereby expunged.

    “PW4, and PW24 did not demonstrate the documents tendered. They could even not, if they wanted to, because they were not the makers of the documents

    “Again, considering the evidence of the expert witness (PW25), exhibits 1 to 55 and (a lot more) are hereby rejected and expunged from the record.

    “I agree with respondents that exhibits 1 -207 are inadmissible hearsay as they were tendered from the Bar without linking them with the case or calling the makers, so they attract no probative value.”

    The tribunal held that the witnesses were petitioners’ witnesses and not the tribunal’s witnesses.

    On whether the petition was filed out of time (statute barred), the tribunal chairman held that “it was validly presented and filed within time.”

    On the Ododo’s qualification to contest the election, he rejected the qualification documents of the expert witness on the ground that they were not pleaded.

    It said that the petitioners failed to prove allegation of forgery as they failed to show that Ododo submitted the documents to INEC.

    The panel equally restated that the allegation of forgery against Ododo was a preelection matter.

    “Once the petitioners tie their allegation of forgery to the content or documents attached to INEC Form EC9 submitted to INEC, the matter is clearly a pre-election one which the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain.

    “Tribunal agrees that the alleged falsified document was not a certificate as an affidavit of loss is not a document capable of disqualifying the 2nd respondent (Ododo).

    “Also the evidence to establish non-compliance must be of those who witnessed the election or those who made the documents,’ it said.

    The tribunal held that out of the scores of witnesses listed in their petition, the petitioners only called 25 witnesses, describing it as insufficient to establish their case against the respondents.

    It said in the instant case, the petitioners only called 3.4 per cent of their witnesses.

    It said the petitioners abandoned 96.6 per cent of the witnesses they set out to called at the tribunal and the depositions of the witnesses adopted were full of inconsistencies and contradictions.

    Besides, the panel held that out of the 25 witnesses called, none of them was either a polling agent or presiding officer who could have been regarded as makers of the documentary evidence tendered.

    “The entire expert evidence/report of the PW25 is documentary hearsay.

    “No probative value will be placed on same. Section 137 of the Electoral Act is not a magic wand; the petitioners are to demonstrate their documents and tie them to their case

    “Again, the witness who demonstrated the BVAS stated that he could not tell if those machines were the ones deployed in Kogi simply because the witness was not in Kogi on the day of the election but was in Imo.

    “My conclusions is that the petitioners have failed to establish the ground of non-compliance with Electoral Act, 2022.

    “Consequently, this petition has failed in its entirety, ” the tribunal declared.

    The panel, therefore, held that the petition was bereft of substance and was accordingly dismissed.

    Delivering judgment in PRP and its governorship candidate’s petition, the tribunal dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove the allegations of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 during the poll.

    The tribunal, in a unanimous judgment, held that the petitioners’ evidence that Forms EC8B and EC8D (the ward result sheets and the state result sheets) tendered were not prepared for the Nov. 11, 2023 poll, were bereft of substance.

    The panel said that the testimonies of the petitioners’ witnesses were hearsay and that failure to call polling agents from the alleged affected polling units to give their evidence was fatal to the case of the petitioners.

    Besides, it held that some of the evidence of the witnesses had no probative value.

    “The petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed,” Justice Birnin–Kudu-led tribunal declared.

    Equally, the tribunal dismissed the petition filed by AA and its candidate.

    The panel held that the oetitioners could not adduce any evidence to establish the allegations of non-compliance with the law.

    NAN reports that the tribunal had, on Feb. 20, struck out the petition filed by the Action Peoples Party (APP) against the election victory of Ododo in the Nov. 11 governorship poll in the state.

    The panel struck out the petition following its withdrawal by counsel for APP, Daniel Edeachi.

    The application, seeking the withdrawal of the petition was not opposed by lawyer to Gov. Ododo, Ibrahim Muhammed, SAN; counsel to APC, DC Denwigwe, SAN, and that of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Kanu Agabi, SAN.

    The APP had, in the petition number: EPR/KG/GOV/02/2023 filed on Dec. 1, 2023, before the tribunal, challenged the declaration of Ododo as the validly elected governor of Kogi in the Nov. 11, 2023 governorship poll conducted by INEC.

    The party had sued Ododo, APC and INEC as 1st to 3rd respondents respectively.

    However, in its motion on notice dated and filed on Feb. 15, the party sought two orders, including an order granting leave to the petitioner/applicant to withdraw the Petition No: EPT/KG/GOV/01/2023 and an order striking out or dismissing the petition, having been withdrawn by the petitioner.

    Giving eight-ground of argument, APP said though it filed the petition to challenge Ododo’s victory, the party said upon the re-evaluation of the grounds and facts of the petition, it “is not reasonably convinced about the sustainability of the grounds of the petition as presently constituted before this honourable tribunal.

    According to the party, the withdrawal of the petition is based on the perceived unsustainability of the grounds of the petition and to avoid overburdening this honourable tribunal with numerous petitions.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

  • Property dispute: Firm files stay of execution against Appeal Court judgment

    Property dispute: Firm files stay of execution against Appeal Court judgment

     

    Flowerbudnews

    A property firm, Abeh Signature Limited has filed a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal’s judgment pending an appeal to the Supreme Court over a property dispute.

    The property company and Ms Asabe Waziri had locked horns in a legal battle over two bedroom units of flat 3B and 3C at Abeh Signature Apartments located at 1, Mekong Close, Maitama in Abuja.

    Two flats in the property of 15 flats had been in dispute between Abeh Signatures Limited and Waziri.for over two years.

    Justice Musa had, on Feb. 17, 2022, ordered Abeh Signature Ltd to refund N150 million to Ms Waziri, being the amount paid for the two bedroom units of flat.

    The judge equally ordered Waziri to vacate the apartments she purchased from the Chief Executive Officer of the firm, Cecil Osakwe.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment, Waziri, represented by her lawyer, Henry Eni-Otu, appealed the decision.

    In the appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/246/2022, the appellant, Waziri, sued Abeh Signature Limited as sole respondent.

    The Appeal Court in Abuja , in a unanimously judgment on May 21, overturned the decision of the lower court.

    The three-member justices, led by Justice Hamma Akawu Barka, vacated the lower court order on the grounds that the judgment was devoid of credible evidence and constituted a miscarriage of justice.

    The appellate court also awarded a N500, 000 cost in favour of Waziri.

    But in a swift reaction, the respondent, through his lawyer, Victor Giwa, in an application dated May 22, prayed the court to stay the execution of the judgement pending an appeal to the apex court.

    Waziri, in the motion, prayed the court for the following order: “An order for stay of the execution of the judgment delivered by this honourable court on the 21st day of May, 2024 in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/246:2022 between Asabe Waziri v. Abeh Signature Limited, pending the final determination of the substantive Appeal.

    “An order of injunction restraining the appellant/respondent whether by herself or her privies, assigns, agents, personal representatives, successors-in-title from acting in any manner to give effect to the judgment of this court delivered on the 21″ day of May, 2024 pending the determination of the appeal.”

    Some of the grounds of the application include: “The appeal in this case has been entered with the records of appeal already copied and transmitted to the registry of this honourable court

    “The respondent/applicant is highly desirous of prosecuting this appeal ard unless this application is granted, the respondent will give effect to the judgment of the lower court.

    “The respondent/applicant has good and substantial grounds of appeal as well as triable issues, with a reasonable chance of success upon being heard and determined on its merit.

    “It is in the interest of justice to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive appeal.”(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

  • Property dispute: Developer, Cecil Osakwe, loses as Appeal Court nullifies FCT High Court decision

    Property dispute: Developer, Cecil Osakwe, loses as Appeal Court nullifies FCT High Court decision

     

    Flowerbudnews
    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has unanimously upturned a judgment of Justice Othman Musa of an FCT High Court, directing a property developer, Cecil Osakwe, the CEO of Abeh Signature Ltd, to refund N150 million to Ms. Asabe Waziri.

    The three-member justices, led by Justice Hamma Akawu Barka, vacated the lower court order on the grounds that the judgment was devoid of credible evidence and constituted a miscarriage of justice.

    The appellate court also awarded a N500, 000 cost in favour of Waziri.

    It would be recalled that the FCT HIGH Court had, on February 17, 2022, delivered the judgment in which it ordered Ms. Waziri to vacate the 2-bedroom property she purchased from Osakwe.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment, Ms. Waziri, represented by her lawyer, Henry Eni-Otu, Esq., appealed the decision.

    In the appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/246/2022, the appellant, Waziri, sued Abeh Signature Limited as sole respondent.

    She argued that the lower court relied only on written statements (affidavits) without considering oral or documentary evidence to support the developer’s claim of money laundering against her

    Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the trial judge could decide the case through originating summons given the conflicting information in the affidavits by the parties and the clear documentary evidence presented by the appellant.

    In a unanimous verdict, the three-member panel led by Justice Akawu Barka, set aside the judgment of the lower court in its entirety and awarded cost of N500,000.00 in favour of the appellant, Ms. Asabe Waziri.

    The certified true copy of the judgment, which was delivered on Tuesday, May 21, 2024, was made available to newsmen on Sunday in Abuja.

    The Court of Appeal declared that the judgment of the trial court was not supported by credible evidence and constituted a miscarriage of justice.

    Justice Barka, in his judgment, stated: “It is clear that the respondent, having benefitted more from the transaction, seeks to vitiate the contract possibly to further benefit from it.

    “I agree with the appellant’s counsel that the appeal is destined for success and should be allowed.

    “Hence, having resolved all issues in favor of the appellant, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.

    “The judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in suit No: CV/2435/2021, delivered on February 17, 2022, is hereby set aside, and all actions taken consequent to the said judgment also stand vacated.

    “The appellant is entitled to costs assessed at N500,000 (five hundred thousand Naira only). Appeal allowed.”

    Other members of the appeal panel include Justices Abba Bello Mohammed and Okon Efreti Abang.

  • Federal High Court denies entering contract agreement with Agric Ministry, others

    Federal High Court denies entering contract agreement with Agric Ministry, others

     

    Flowerbudnews

    The Federal High Court (FHC) has denied entering into a contract agreement between the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security Nigeria and the Discovery Group Latam DAS.

    The FHC made this known on Sunday in a press release by its Assistant Director of Information, Dr Catherine Oby-Christopher, in Abuja titled: “DISCLAIMER: Federal High Court disowns fraudulent contract agreement.”

    “The attention of the Federal High Court of Nigeria management has been drawn to purported contract agreement between the ‘Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security Nigeria and the Discovery Group Latam DAS,’ in which an electronic mail was generated from the court’s official email address to some foreign nationals.

    “In the said email, the sender masqueraded as the Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Sulaiman Amida Hassan Esq, asking the prospective contract, Diego Fraga of Discovery Group Latam SAS to either come to Nigeria or have their legal representative sign a contract attestation at the Federal High Court in Nigeria.

    “The Federal High Court of Nigeria wishes to inform the general public both at home and in diaspora to disregard the unfounded contract between ‘Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security Nigeria and the Discovery Group Latam SAS.’

    “The court did not issue any mail requesting the presence or legal representation of anyone or corporate entity.

    Should you encounter any suspicious activity or receive questionable communication purportedly from the Court, we strongly advise you to immediately report such correspondence to the relevant authorities, including law enforcement agencies or our official contact channels.

    EMAIL: info@fhc.gov.ng
    : fhc.informationdepartment@gmail.com

    TELEPHONE : +234 8033883107
    : +234 8066267618

    “Furthermore, be warned that should you choose to proceed with any interaction or transaction despite being alerted to potential risks, you do so entirely at your own discretion and liability.

    “The Federal High Court of Nigeria bears no responsibility for any consequences resulting from such voluntary actions.”

  • Court declines MultiChoice’s plea to stop NBC from auditing company’s account

    Court declines MultiChoice’s plea to stop NBC from auditing company’s account

     

     

    Flowerbudnews

    A Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, refused to grant an application filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd, seeking an interim order restraining the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) from requesting any financial, accounting, or tax documents from them.

    Justice James Omotosho, in a ruling on the ex-parte motion moved by the apllicants’ counsel, Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, rather directed all parties, in the interest of justice, not to take any step that could make the outcome of the suit nugatory.

    Although the ruling was delivered on Wednesday, its certified true copy was sighted on Friday.

    “The ex-parte order for Interim Injunction dated 8’th day of May, 2024 and filed 16th day of May, 2024 is hereby refused,” he declared.

    Justice Omotosho then adjourned the matter until May 30 for hearing of the motion on notice.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and Details Nigeria Limited, a provider of the subscription based digital terrestrial television service, known as GOtv, are 1st and 2nd applicants.

    In the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/652/2024 dated May 8 and filed May 16 by their lawyer, they sued NBC as sole respondent.

    The applicants sought three reliefs, including an order of interim injunction, restraining NBC from carrying out any investigations of the companies for the purposes of determining their annual income or NBC levy for the years between 2014 and 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

    They sought an order of interim injunction restraining the NBC from requesting, demanding and or receiving any financial, accounting or tax documents from the companies other than the annual audited accounts of the companies already submitted to the commission.

    They said this was in pursuant to Section 2 (10) (b) of the NBC Code 6th Edition for the purposes of determining her remittance of NBC levy for the 2014 to 2024 years of account pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

    They equally prayed an order of interim injunction restraining the commission from sanctioning, fining or suspending the companies’ license pursuant to the threats contained in its letter dated April 29 to them, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

    In the affidavit deposed to by the companies’ Head of Compliance, Gozie Onumonu, he averred that the firms were mandated under the various NBC Codes to pay a certain percentage of their income as annual NBC levy to the respondent.

    He said that the current code; NBC Code 6th Edition, provides for 2.5% of the income of a broadcaster to be paid to the respondent yearly as annual NBC levy while the erstwhile code which was amended in 2019 provides for 1.5% of the income of a broadcaster to be paid to the defendant yearly as annual levy.

    He claimed that the companies had never defaulted in paying their annual levy to the commission.

    “Income as provided by the NBC Code 6th Edition is not defined neither is it defined in any other previous editions nor in the NBC Act 2004.

    “As a result of the lack of definition of what an income is, there was a dispute between the applicants and the respondent in the year 2014 whether income should be turnover or revenue minus cost of production.

    “After due negotiations, meetings, etc., between the applicants and the respondent, it was agreed by the applicants and respondent that income should be revenue minus cost of production.

    “In the year 2014, when the applicants subtracted the cost of production from their revenue in order to arrive at the then 1.5 per cent required of the applicants under the NBC Code 5th Edition, what was left for the applicants to pay to the defendant in compliance with the 1.5% requirement of the NBC Code 5th Edition was negligible.

    “The amount the respondent would have been entitled to, from the applicants as annual NBC levy between 2014 to 2019 if the applicants were to strictly pay the 1.5% annual NBC levy provided by the 5th Edition of the Code was small and the respondent might not be able to carry out its administrative functions in view of its financial needs.

    “Specifically, in the year 2014 and 2015, the amount that would have been due to the defendant as 1.5% of the annual income of the 1st applicant was N2.1 million (N2,167,254)

    “As a result, the respondent beseeched the applicants to consent to the payment of a fixed sum of N500 million (N500,000,000) as annual levy for the applicants’ licence period of 2014 to 2019 the sum of which was far more than what the plaintiffs were supposed to be paying to the respondent if the applicants were to pay only the 1.5 per cent of their annual income as provided by the NBC Code.

    “For the years 2014 to 2019 that the respondent wants to carry out the investigation to verify whether the applicants paid up to 2.5% of their annual incomes as annual NBC levy, the operational NBC Code then was the NBC Code, 5th Edition and it requires broadcaster to pay 1.5% of their annual incomes as annual levy,” he said.

    Onumonu, who said the companies had already submitted a certified true copy of their audited account for the previous year(s) to NBC, said the commission was paid over N12 billion (N12, 490, 000, 0000) as annual levy from 2014 to date.

    The officer described NBC’s action as an abuse of power, urging the court to grant their plea in the interest of justice.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

  • EFCC Arraigns Hadi Sirika,  Brother,  Firms  for N5.8billion Fraud

    EFCC Arraigns Hadi Sirika,  Brother,  Firms  for N5.8billion Fraud

    By Biola Lawal

    Abuja (Flowerbudnews): Former Minister of Aviation,  Mr. Hadi Abubakar Sirika,  his brother Ahmad Abubakar Sirika and two companies Enginos Nigeria Limited and Samahah Integrated Investment Limited have been arraigned by the EFCC for contract fraud.

    They were arraigned on Thursday,  before Justice S.B. Belgore of the Federal Capital Territory,  FCT,  High Court Garki , EFCC Spokesman, Dele Oyewale disclosed in a statement.

    Oyewale stated:

    They were arraigned on an amended 10-count charge bordering on contract fraud to the tune of N5,802,254,573.55( Five Billion Eight Hundred and Two Million,  Two Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Three Naira,  Fifty Five Kobo).

     

    Count one reads :‘that you Hadi Abubakar Sirika, while being the Minister of Aviation, on or about 18th August 2022, in Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did use your position to confer unfair advantage upon Enginos Nigeria Limited whose alter ego, Ahmad Abubakar Sirika is your biological brother by using your position to influence the award to them, the contract for the construction of a Terminal Building at Katsina Airport for the sum of N1,345,586,500.00 (One Billion, Three Hundred and Forty Five Million, Five Hundred and Eighty Six Thousand Five Hundred Naira Only) and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 and punishable under the same Section”.

    Count two reads ‘that you Hadi Abubakar Sirika, while being the Minister of Aviation, on or about 3rd November 2022, in Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did use your position to confer unfair advantage upon Enginos Nigeria Limited whose alter ego, Ahmad Abubakar Sirika is your blood brother by using your position to influence the award to them, the contract for the establishment of Fire Truck Maintenance and Refurbishment Centre at Katsina Airport for the sum of N3,811,497,685.00 (Three Billion, Eight Hundred and Eleven Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Seven Thousand, Six Hundred and Eight Five Naira Only) and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 and punishable under the same Section.’

    Count eight reads: “that you Hadi Abubakar Sirika, while being the Minister of Aviation and Ahmad Abubakar Sirika while being a public servant and an employee of Federal Ministry of Water Resources Aug 2022 and May 2023 in Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did knowingly hold indirectly private interests in three aviation contracts in the aggregate sum of N5,772,279,460.00 (Five Billion Seven Hundred and Seventy Two Million, Two Hundred and Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Naira Only)awarded to Enginos Nigeria Limited whose alter ego is Ahmad Abubakar Sirika, your biological brother which contract was awarded on account of public service and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 12 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 and punishable under the same Section”.

    Count nine reads: ‘that you Ahmad Abubakar Sirika and Samahah Intergrated Investment Limited between June 2022 and October 2023 in Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, had an aggregate sum of N29,975,113.55 (Twenty Nine Million, Nine Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand, One Hundred and Thirteen Naira, Fifty-five Kobo) which sum you received from Tianaero Nigeria Limited and you knew indirectly represented the proceeds of criminal conducts of Hadi Abubakar Sirika, your biological brother who was Minister of Aviation (to wit: use of office or position for gratification in respect of said amount) and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 17(b) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004 and punishable under same section.

    All the defendants pleaded not guilty to all ten charges when they were read to them.

    Following their pleas,  counsel to the 1st defendant,  M.J. Numa SAN prayed the court to grant his client bail in the same conditions as had been earlier granted in Justice S.C. Oriji’s court when the defendant was arraigned before him on May 9, 2024.

    He also submitted that the defendant was “not a flight risk, a man of high esteem in the society and has an aged 90year-old mother and family to cater for”.

    Counsel to 2nd defendant,  M.A. Magaji SAN also pleaded with the court to grant bail in the same conditions as Justice Oriji,  also claiming that the 2nd defendant had a family to look after.

    Prosecution counsel,  Oluwaleke Atolagbe did not object to both applications while also informing the court that the defendants were already on administrative bail granted by the EFCC.

    In granting bail, Justice Belgore said he considered that the 1st defendant had never been convicted before.  He also said both defendants are not likely to jump bail, commit further offences or tamper with evidence relating to their trial.  He therefore, while also relying on Justice Oriji’s bail terms, granted them bail in the sum of N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) each with two sureties in like sum. One of the sureties must have a landed property in the Federal Capital Territory  and defendants are not to travel outside the country without the court’s  permission.

    The matter is adjourned till May 28 and 29 for commencement of trial. (Flowerbudnews)

     

  • Court orders NCoS management to take ailing Binance executive, Gambaryan to hospital

    Court orders NCoS management to take ailing Binance executive, Gambaryan to hospital

     

    Flowerbudnews
    A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, ordered the management of the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) management in Kuje, FCT, to take the ailing and detained Binance executive, Tigran Gambaryan, to a hospital for a medicare.

    Justice Emeka Nwite gave the order following an application by Gambaryan’s counsel, Mark Mordi, SAN, that his client was suffering from a deteriorating health condition which needed prompt medical attention.

    The News Agency ot Nigeria (NAN)!reports that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had sued Binance Holdings Limited and Gambaryan as 1st and 2nd defendants.

    In the five-count money laundering charge, Nadeem Anjarwalla, another agent of the company, was listed as being at large.

    They were accused to have allegedly conspired amongst themselves to conceal the origin of the financial proceeds of their alleged unlawful activities in Nigeria including 35,400, 000 dollars.

    They were alleged to have committed an offence contrary to Section 21 (a) and punishable under Section 18(3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, among others.

    However, Anjarwalla escaped from lawful custody on March 22 and fled Nigeria for Kenya.

    Mordi, while moving the motion, had sought an order of the court directing the correctional centre to allow Gambaryan to be treated in Nizayime Hospital, Abuja.

    The EFCC’s lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho, although did not oppose the application that the defendant be treated in a hospital, he however disagreed that Gambaryan be specifically treated in Nizayime Hospital suggested by Mordi.

    Responding, Mordi, who said they were interested in a medical facility where his client could be properly taken care of, said the company would be the cost.

    According to him, the 2nd defendant is worth more to them if he is alive.

    He said only a person who is living can stand trial.

    The senior lawyer equally applied for the medical report of a medical examination conducted on his client .by the prison authority.

    Iheanacho insisted that the court should be mindful of making a specific order directing the correctional centre to allow him to be treated in Nizayime Hospital.

    He argued that the centre should take him to any hospital that would attend to him adequately so long the authority could ensure his security.

    He also applied for the medical report to be issued and delivered to the anti-graft agency.

    Mordi then rephrased his request and urged the court to make an order allowing Gambaryan to be treated in Nizayime Hospital or any other hospital which the correctional centre deemed.

    Delivering the ruling, Justice Nwite granted the request.

    “An order of this honourable court is hereby made that the 2nd defendant be allowed to be treated in Nizayime Hospital or any other hospital within jurisdiction which the Correctional Service Centre deems fit provided the Correctional Service Authority shall provide adequate security for the 2nd defendant within the period the 2nd defendant stays in the hospital,” he said.

    The judge also ordered the correctional service authority to issue and deliver to both the prosecution and defendant’s counsel Gambaryan’s medical report based on the medical examination conducted on him fortnight ago.

    NAN earlier reported that a mild drama ensued in the court when Gambaryan slumped in the open court over alleged ill-health.

    The development occurred shortly after the matter was called for trial continuation.

    Mordi told the court that although the matter was slated for cross-examination of the 1st prosecution witness (PW1), he sought an adjournment, citing Gambaryan’s ill-health.

    He said they managed to bring the defendant to court for the court to know his true health condition.

    Counsel to Binance Holdings Limited, Fagbohunlu, informed the court that a subpoena had been issued to Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to release some documents to them in preparing for their defence.

    He prayed the court for an order directing the government agencies to release the documents to them before the next adjourned date.

    Iheanacho told the court that he was unaware of the application as he was yet to be served with the documents.

    In the ruling, the judge directed the EFCC to make sure that the subpoena served on CBN and SEC were complied with.

    Justice Nwite subsequently adjourned the matter until June 20 and June 21 for cross-examination of PW1