Tag: Court

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

*MEMORY VERSE:*
My position is this: anyone found to be corrupt should be thoroughly punished, but strictly in accordance with due process of law. While corruption must be decisively confronted, it must never be fought outside the law. Any violation of the rule of law in the name of fighting corruption is itself a graver and more dangerous form of corruption.

1. *BACKGROUND:* On 24 December 2025, a national daily reported under the headline “Court grants Malami interim bail, cites ‘exceptional hardship’” that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, granted interim bail to the immediate past Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, on grounds of “exceptional hardship”, pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice. Shortly thereafter, a public statement attributed to the lead counsel of the EFCC (J.S. OKUTEPA SAN) was issued, denying service of any bail order and asserting, among other things, that:

*”it would be most bizarre, and too surprising for any judicial officer to grant bail Ex-parte to a criminal defendant without putting the detaining authority on notice.”*

That statement, and the reasoning behind it, provoked a robust public debate. My intervention is not to defend any individual, nor to prejudge any criminal allegation, but to interrogate a point of law embedded in that assertion, namely: that it is “bizarre” “for any judicial officer to grant bail Ex-parte”. This article explains why I think that assertion does not represent the true position of the law in Nigeria.

2. *THE NARROW LEGAL ISSUE:* To be clear, the issue here is not whether the EFCC has acted lawfully nor whether Malami is or isn’t corrupt, nor whether Malami should ultimately be granted bail. It is not whether a particular court order was properly served or subsisting. The sole legal issue is this:

*”Is it legally “bizarre” [as claimed by EFCC’s lead Counsel) for a court of law to make an order for bail ex parte?”*

My respectful answer is: No.

3. *ORDERS FOR BAIL ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE TO FORMAL BAIL APPLICATIONS:* With respect, the statement attributed to EFCC counsel does not represent the correct position of Nigerian law. An order for bail may be made by a court in several procedural contexts, including but not limited to: (a). Pursuant to a formal application for bail; (b). Pursuant to a Motion ex parte brought under Order IV Rules 3 and 4 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 (FREP Rules);(c). Pursuant to an application for habeas corpus, where the court deems it just to do so. Bail is a substantive relief, but the procedure through which it may be granted is context-dependent, not monolithic.

4. *THE FREP RULES AND EX PARTE BAIL:* The FREP Rules are explicit. Order IV Rule 3 provides that where the court is satisfied that exceptional hardship may be caused to an applicant before service (especially where life or liberty is involved), the court may hear the application ex parte and grant interim reliefs as justice demands. Order IV Rule 4(a) requires that the supporting affidavit demonstrate that delay would cause exceptional hardship. Most decisively, Order IV Rule 4(c)(i) empowers the court, in an ex parte application, to: “Grant bail or order the release of the Applicant forthwith from detention pending the determination of the application.” This provision is neither obscure nor controversial. It is settled law. Accordingly, the suggestion that it is “bizarre” for a court to grant bail ex parte is legally inaccurate.

5. *REMEDY FOR AN EX PARTE ORDER: COURT, NOT PRESS:* Where a party is dissatisfied with an ex parte order, the proper remedy is well known: Apply to the same court to discharge, vary, or set it aside. It is not to question (via press statements) the competence or authority of the court to have made such an order in the first place. That distinction is critical to the integrity of judicial process.

6. *THE “CRIMINAL DEFENDANT” ASSERTION: A MISCHARACTERISATION* If the term “bizarre” applies anywhere in this controversy, it more properly applies to the characterisation of Abubakar Malami as a “criminal defendant.” Under Nigerian law, a person becomes a “defendant” only upon arraignment. Before arraignment, such a person is, at best, a suspect. Besides, at the material time, Malami had not been arraigned before any court. Even assuming (purely for argument) that he had been arraigned (which he had not), Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, guarantees the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved by a competent court. To label an unarraigned person a criminal defendant is therefore premature, inaccurate, and constitutionally problematic. Nigerian criminal procedure consistently distinguishes between: (a). Suspect (pre-arraignment), and (b). Accused/Defendant (post-arraignment). This distinction is neither semantic nor academic; it has real legal consequences.

7. *WAS THE EX PARTE ORDER FOR BAIL MADE IN A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING?* Some have asked whether the application before the court was indeed brought under the FREP Rules. That is a fair question,and the right question. Engaging the merits is not derailment; it is legal discourse. Please, note that I advance no personal cause here, and I defend no individual. I assert only that law must be stated accurately, even in moments of public controversy.

8. *CONCLUSION* An order for bail may lawfully be made ex parte in appropriate circumstances. The FREP Rules expressly empower courts to do so where liberty is threatened. An unarraigned person is not a criminal defendant The proper response to an ex parte order is a judicial challenge, not media denunciation. If any position is “bizarre,” it is the assertion that courts lack authority to grant bail ex parte, and the mischaracterisation of a suspect as a criminal defendant.

9. *NOTE:* I remain open, always to being corrected by reasoned submissions grounded in law. The term “reasoned submissions” is used to describe arguments or presentations that are logically structured, supported by facts, law, and clear reasoning, rather than assertions, emotions, or personal attacks. That is how we all stay on track.

 

(Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
08021365545. udems@therealityministry.ngo, udemsbackup@gmail.com.
(26 December 2025))

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted an application filed by the Federal Government to reopen a terrorism charge filed against five suspects linked to the notorious terrorist kingpin, Bello Turji.

Justice Emeka Nwite granted the application in a ruling on the motion on notice filed by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) seeking an order re-listing the charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/633/2024, in the cause list of the court.

Justice Nwite held that the motion, moved by the AGF’s lawyer, David Kaswe, was meritorious and accordingly granted.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the charge was struck out on July 8 by the judge after the defence counsel moved an oral application to the effect for lack of diligent prosecution.

The Federal Government, through the AGF, had preferred an 11-count terrorism charge against eight defendants, including Bello Turji, who is still at large.

In the charge filed on Dec. 16, 2024 by M.B. Abubakar, the Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Musa Muhammed Kamarawa, Abubakar Hashimu, a.k.a. Doctor; Bashir Abdullahi; Samuel Chinedu and Lucky Chukwuma were sued as 1st to 5th defendants.

While Bello Turji, Aminu Muhammad and Sani Lawal, who are all at large, are sued as 6th to 8th defendants respectively.

The suspects were alleged to have provided material services to terrorists groups led by Turji, Kachalla Halilu, Danbokolo, Lawali, Atarwatse, Buderi and others.

They were accused of procuring and supplying illicit drugs, including penta injections and cannabis plants (aka indian hemp); food items; military and police uniforms, camouflage, boots, caps and building materials for the terror groups.

They were also accused of providing bags of cement, cover zinc, bags of nails, M.M. iron rods, etc., to terrorist camps in the forests located in Zamfara, Sokoto and Kaduna States.

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 17 of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 and punishable under the same section of the Act.

In count four, Kamarawa, Muhammad (at large) and Lawal (at large), sometime in 2021 in Sokoto State, allegedly aided and abetted the commission of acts of terrorism by acquiring a military gun truck from Libya and supplying same to a terrorist, Kachalla Halilu, at a cost of approximately N28.5 million (28,500,000).

They were alleged to have paid for the gun truck partly in cash and partly via electronic transfer.

“And which you knew or had reason to believe that this vehicle would be used by Kachalla Halilu, a known terrorist, to commit acts of terrorism.

“You thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18 (a) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 and punishable under the same section of the Act,” the count read in part.

In count five, Kamarawa, Hashimu a.k.a Doctor, and Abdullahi, sometime in 2018 in Sokoto State, were alleged to have aided and abetted the commission of acts of terrorism by providing material services, including wound care, medication, and shelter, to treat gunshot injuries sustained by Bello Turji after he led his terrorist group to attack Tungar Kolo Village in Zurmi L.G.A. of Zamfara.

The offence is contrary to Section 8 (1) (b) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 and punishable under the same section of the Act.

Four of the suspects; Musa Kamarawa, Abubakar Hashimu, a.k.a. Doctor; Samuel Chinedu and Lucky Chukwuma, who were arraigned on Dec. 23, 2024 before Justice Nwite, denied their involvement in the act.

The judge, thereafter, ordered their remand in Kuje Correctional Centre and adjourned the matter until Feb. 10 for hearing of pending applications, including motions for the defendants’ bail.

On March 14, the court rejected the defendants’ bail request, granted an order for witness protection and the prosecution opened it case by calling its 1st prosecution witness (PW-1), simply identified as “ABC” for security reason.

The PW-1, while giving his testimony in Hausa Language, referred to Musa Kamarawa as his childhood friend.

The witness told the court how another notorious bandit leader, Kachalla Halilu, purchased a gun truck from Niger Republic, with the assistance of Kamarawa, to perpetrate terrorist acts in Nigeria.

After the PW-1 gave his evidence, Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until May 23 and May 26 for cross examination and continuation of trial.

However, on May 23 and May 26, the case could not go on due to the absence of the lead prosecuting counsel, Kaswe, in court.

The lawyer, in a letter of adjournment, was said to have travelled outside the country for an official engagement and Justice Nwite fixed July 8 for continuation of trial.

But on July 8, Kaswe was not in court and the defence counsel made an oral application, praying the court to strike out the case for want of diligent prosecution and the judge granted the application.

Meanwhile, when the matter was called, only Kaswe and A.M. Lukman, who appeared for 1st and 2nd defendants (Kamarawa and Hashimu), were in court.

Kaswe then told the court that the motion on notice sought an order re-listing the charge in the cause list.

The judge asked if all the lawyers to the defendants were duly served and Kaswe responded in affirmative.

He argued that in line with a provision of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, he was entitled to a five adjournment before the matter could be struck out.

“And going by the record of this court, the prosecution has not exhausted the time,” he said.

The judge then directed the registrar to find out from the court file if all the defendants were duly served.

It was however discovered that two of the defendants’ lawyers had deposed to an affidavit that they were no longer representing them.

Responding, Kaswe submitted that since the lawyers were the last counsel representing the accused and they were served with the motion since Nov. 28, they ought to have appeared in court.

According to him, they cannot through the bailiff of the court tell the court that they are no more representing the defendants.

Kaswe described the lawyers’ action as “unethical,” saying it was against the rules of practice.

Justice Nwite, who agreed with Kaswe’s argument, ordered him to move the motion.

Moving the motion on notice, Kaswe said the application, dated Nov. 27, was filed on Nov. 28.

He said the motion was brought pursuant to Section 6(6) and 36 of the 1999 Constitution and under the inherent power of the court.

He said the crux of the application for re-listing of the case was to give the prosecution the opportunity to have the criminal charge determined on its merits.

The lawyer said the prosecution already had all its witnesses and exhibits to prosecute the case.

He cited previous cases, including the Supreme Court’s decision, to back his argument.

“We have presented cogent reasons to have this matter re-listsed in the interest of justice, public safety and national security.

“This is a case of terrorism that has international dimension,” Kaswe said.

He said his absence in court on July 8 was not deliberate.

According to him, the prosecution is diligent and willing to prosecute the case if the charge is re-listed.

He said the court had the power to re-list and restore the charge and order for continuation of hearing.

Kaswe said the defendants would not be prejudiced by the grant of the application.

Lukman, who appeared for the 1st and 2nd defendants, did not opposed Kaswe’s application.

The lawyer, who expressed concern that the defendants were kept in detention for nine months while the trial lasted, reminded that the case was struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.

Hence, Lukman asked for a cost of N10 million against the prosecution.

Delivering the ruling, Justice Nwite held that the Federal Government’s application was meritorious.

“I have listened to the submission of the counsel for the applicant and gone through the affidavit evidence and exhibits, including the written address.

“I am aware that the defendant is not objecting to this application.

“Therefore, I am of the view and I so hold that this application is meritorious and accordingly granted.

“There is no order as to cost,” the judge ruled.

The case was consequently adjourned until Jan. 21, 2026 for hearing.

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, refused to grant an application seeking to stop African Democratic Congress (ADC), led by Sen. David Mark, from holding congress.

Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling on the motion ex-parte filed by Nafiu-Bala Gombe, a former Deputy National Chairman of ADC, and moved by his lawyer, Michael Agber, held that the respondents should be put on notice in the interest of justice.

“I have listened to the submission of the learner counsel for the applicant and have also gone through the affidavit evidence with exhibits thereto along with the written address.

“It is not in dispute that this honourable court made an order for the defendbats/respondents in this suit to show cause why the interim order restraining them in acting as leaders of the 1st defendant (ADC) should not be made on 4th September, 2025.

“It is not in dispute that the parties have exchanged processes in the said order waiting for hearing of the said application.

“It is also not in dispute that the present application is an off-shoot of the substantive matter of the said application.

“It is not in dispute that all the parties are already before this court.

“Hence, any ex-parte application without a notice to the other parties will be overreaching.

“Hence, the interest of justice will be met by putting the other parties on notice.

“Consequently, the application is refused,” Justice Nwite ruled.

The judge then adjourned the matter until Feb. 3, 2026 for the respondents to show cause.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mr Gombe, in the latest motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, named ADC, Sen. Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as 1st to 3rd defendants/respondents.

The applicant, dated and filed on Dec. 15, also listed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Chief Ralph Nwosu as 4th and 5th defendants/respondents respectively.

Gombe, in the application filed by Agber, sought three reliefs.

These include “an order of interim injunction restraining the ADC from holding, convoking or summoning any convention, congresses, conferences or meetings for the purposes of electing, approving of or rectifying any person(s) or members whomsoever as members of its executive committees or other governing bodies and political elective positions pending the determination of the motion on notice already filed in this suit.

“An order restraining INEC from attending, monitoring, observing and or recognising any person purported to have been elected, pending the determination of the motion on notice.

“An order of court directing the maintenance of status quo and suspending any of or all actions or processes relating to the management and organisations of the 1st defendant pending the determination of the motion on notice.”

Earlier when the case was called, Agber informed the court that he had a motion ex-parte.

The judge then responded that he recalled that the lawyer moved a similar application sometimes ago which he refused to grant but ordered that the respondents be put on notice.

“Now, is there any difference from this application?” Justice Nwite asked.

Agber said the instant motion ex-parte had different prayers.

He said it was basically to restrain ADC and INEC from taking certain steps which might affect the suit already before the court.

“Now, the case is already before me and if any person does something untoward, such action will be null and void.

“This application ought not to come by way of ex-parte because already, the parties are already before the court.

“So I am just telling you my mind,” the judge said.

According to the judge, I cannot make an order in the absence of the party as justice is tripartite.

“You can not shave somebody’s head in his absence,” Justice Nwite said, but the lawyer prayed the court to allow the motion to be moved.

Moving the motion, Agber said the motion was brought pursuant to Order 26, Rule 6 of the FHC (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, Sections 82 and 83 of the Electoral Act, 2022 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

According to him, the motion ex-parte is supported by affidavit of urgency of 26 paragraphs deposed to by the applicant himself with four exhibits.

The lawyer said they had also applied to the chief judge for the matter to be heard during vacation.

He urged the court to grant their prayers.

In the affidavit of urgency attached to the motion, Gombe averred that despite the pendency of the substantive suit, ADC with the full acquiescence of INEC had been holding series of meetings and serious consultations across the country for the purposes of holding conferences, congresses, meetings and conventions.

He said they had been “stepping up illegal activities towards the elections of 2027 and other political activities under the illegal leadership of Senator David Mark and others.”

Gombe alleged that in Nov. 17, Nsowu, with his associates and the coalition’s members, unveiled an alleged new national headquarters of ADC to create confusion among the ranks and files of the party.

He said o Nov. 19 at a widely publicised function, covered by the media, Aregbesola just joined the party and received his membership card from the purported leaders of ADC whose leadership is being challenged and questioned before this honourable court.

He said on Nov. 24, the former Vice President of Nigeria, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar was also issued a membership card from the illegal leadership of ADC led by Sen. Mark and his associates.

Besides, Gombe stated that on Nov. 27, the purportedly self-appointed and illegal National Working Committee (NWC) made several key positions among others.

He said the NWC approved transition guidelines aimed at altering the existing party’s structures.

The ex-national deputy chairman said the NWC also directed disputed state executives to conduct special congresses at various levels, wards, local governments and states.

He said on Nov. 28, the former Governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, received his party membership card from the disputed, challenged and illegal ADC’s purported party leaders.

He said on Dec. 3, Sen. Mark, who was not a registered member of ADC, but a coalition member and still a member of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), released the ADC’s time table and guidelines for the Osun Governorship Primary elections in contempt of the order made on Sept. 4 by the court.

Gombe, who undertook to pay damages in the event the injunction granted ought not to be made, said he deposed to the affidavit in good faith.

NAN earlier reported that Justice Nwite had, on Sept. 4, refused to grant the motion ex-parte filed by Gombe seeking an interim order stopping David Mark-led leadership of the ADC.

Rather, the judge directed Gombe to put all the defendants on notice to show cause why the motion should not be granted.

 

An Abuja High Court has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to accept all candidates of the Labour Party (LP) fielded for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) area council election scheduled to hold in February 2026.

Justice J. O. E. Adeyemi-Ajayi, in a ruling on the ex-parte motion for interim injunctions filed by the LP and moved by its lawyer, Christian Elom, ordered INEC to grant the LP access code to enable it upload the names and particulars of its nominated candidates for the poll.

Justice Adeyemi-Ajayi also ordered the commission to upload the names and particulars of the LP’s nominated candidates for the election and publish same at the respective six area councils for public scrutiny within 48 hours pending the hearing of an existing motion on notice filed by the party.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the certified true copy (CTC) of the enrolled order marked: M/16037/2025, made on Dec.16, was sighted on Thursday.

Elom, in the supporting affidavit, submitted that the party chose to approach the court after INEC allegedly failed to publish the names of its candidates for the February 2026 council election as required, despite being duly notified.

The judge, in the enrolled order, said: “An interim injunction is hereby granted, directing the defendant (INEC) to grant access code to the claimant/applicant (LP) to upload the names and particulars of its nominated candidates for the FCT area council election scheduled to hold in February, 2026 by the , defendant within 48 hours pending the hearing of the motion on notice.

“An interim injunction is hereby granted directing the defendant to upload the names and particulars of the claimant/applicant’s nominated candidates for the FCT area council election and publish same at the respective six area councils for public scrutiny within 48 hours pending the hearing of the motion on notice.

“This interim injunction is hereby made this day upon application ex-parte which shall abate seven days from today unless extended before the abatement of the order.”

Justice Adeyemi-Ajayi, thereafter, proceeded to grant accelerated hearing in the case and adjourned the matter until Jan. 27, 2026 for the hearing of the motion on notice.

The LP, in its affidavit, averred that it gave the notice of its primary elections to the defendant (INEC) within the time frame provided by the law

The party added that after its primary elections, and within the 180 days provided by the law, it submitted the list of the candidates who emerged from the primaries it conducted and whom it proposes to support at the election to INEC, in the prescribed forms,

The LP argued that INEC is duty bound to, within seven days of receipt of the particulars of the candidates, publish same in the constituency in which the candidates intend to contest election.

The party added that the law mandates the defendant (INEC) to, at least within 150 days before the day of the election, publish, by displaying at the relevant office or offices of the defendant, and on the defendant’s website, a statement of the full names and addresses of the candidates standing nominated by the claimant.

It accused INEC of allegedly failing to perform these statutory responsibilities.

 

The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), on Thursday, took over the prosecution of a lawyer, Ahmed Abdulrahman, and his co-defendants accused of cyberbullying a serving lawmaker, Sen. Umar Buba.

Counsel for the AGF, Nueebu Abueh, made this known upon resumed hearing in the matter before Justice Rita Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Abueh told Justice Ajumogobia that the AGF was taking over the case from the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police who filed the charge against the defendants.

The judge consequently adjourned the matter until Jan. 26, 2026 for continuation of trial.

The defendants were earlier admitted to a bail.

In three separate rulings on the bail applications, the judge admitted them to bail in the sum of N1 million each and one surety each in the like sum.

The surety must be a grade level 12 in the Federal Government’s employment.

In the alternative to government employees, the surety must be a person of standing repute and must have landed property at the Abuja Municipal Area Council AMAC of the Federal Capital Territory.

The property must have Certificate of Occupancy and the original must be deposited with the registrar of the court.

Besides, the surety must swear to affidavit of means and deposit two passport photographs each before they would be released on bail.

Justice Ajumogobia ordered that inability of the defendants to meet the bail conditions would automatically lead to revocation of the bail.

She then ordered that pending the perfection of the bail, the defendants should remain in the custody.

Although Abdulrahman, the 1st defendant, was earlier admitted to N5 million bail with two sureties, the bail was later varied by the court.

The charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/526/2025 was dated Oct. 3 and filed by Anthony Egwu on Oct. 6.

The defendants were, on Oct. 30, arraigned on 11-count charge which also bordered on offences such as cybercrime, defamation, advance fee fraud, among others.

They, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts.

 

The Federal High Court (FHC) will, on Dec. 15, begin its annual judges’ conference at the national headquarters in Abuja.

The conference, which marks the commencement of a new legal year of the court, will end on Dec. 18.

The Director of Information of the FHC, Dr Catherine Christopher, made this known on Wednesday in a statement in Abuja.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the statement is titled; “Notification of 2025/2026 Legal Year and Annual Conference.”

“The Federal High Court of Nigeria announces its 2025/2026 Legal Year and Annual Conference.

“In a circular signed by the Honourable Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Hon. Justice John T. Tsoho, KSS, OFR, FCIArb (UK), the New Legal Year and Annual Judges’ Conference will be held at the Court Headquarters in Abuja from Monday, the 15th of December to Thursday, the 18th of December, 2025.

“The annual conference serves as a pivotal forum for reflection, evaluation, and strategic planning towards improving the administration of justice and enhancing judicial efficiency.

“It also marks the ceremonial opening of the New Legal Year,” Christopher said.

According to her, a detailed notice regarding the vacation period will be issued in due course.

“The Honourable Chief Judge extends his warm regards to all judges and wishes them a successful conference and a productive new Legal Year ahead,” she concluded.

 

Suspended DCP Abba Kyari, on Wednesday, restated that he had declared his wife’s assets and his assets in line with the provisions of the law.

Kyari, who is standing trial on allegations bordering on non-disclosure of his assets, told Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

He reiterated his position during the continuation of his cross-examination by counsel to the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), Sunday Joseph.

“I put it to you that everything you said about the properties was a untrue,” the NDLEA lawyer said.

Responding, Kyari said: “I have declared all my assets, and I have declared the assets of my wife.

“They went and lie at the Federal High Court in Maiduguri that I declared the Polo Ground (in Borno) as my asset.

“Everything I and my wife have, I have declared them,” he said.

He told the court that he did not get any share from his father’s property that were sold and distributed to his siblings.

“I did not get anything from my father’s properties. I did not get, even ‘shishi’ from the properties,” he added.

After the cross examination, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, who appeared for Kyari, said their was no re-examination.

“That is the case for the 1st defendant and we are very grateful for my lord’s indulgence,” Ikpeazu said.

Also speaking, Monjok Agom, who represented the 2nd and 3rd defendants, said they would not be calling any witness.

According to the lawyer, we shall be resting our case on that of the prosecution’s case.

Justice Omotosho subsequently adjourned the matter until Dec. 12 for adoption of final written addresses of the parties.

NAN reports that the former head of Police Intelligence Response Team (IRT), had, on Nov. 4, denied ownership of some of the assets linked to him by the NDLEA.

Kyari, who opened his defence before Justice Omotosho after his no-case submission was dismissed, said some of the property listed by the prosecution belonged to his late father, who had about 30 children.

He had stated this while being led in evidence as 1st defence witness (DW-1) by his lawyer, Ikpeazu.

He also refuted the allegations that he owned the polo ground in Borno, saying he was surprised that the large expanse of the polo ground would be linked to him.

The NDLEA, in the 23-count charge, named Abba Kyari, Mohammed Kyari and Ali Kyari as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.

The anti-narcotics agency alleged that Abba and his two younger brothers; Mohammed and Ali, failed to make full disclosure of their assets.

The agency, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/408/2022, also accused them of “disguising of ownership of properties and conversion of monies.”

The NDLEA said the offences are punishable under Section 35 (3) (a) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, and Section 15 (3) (a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011.

The trio, however, pleaded not guilty to all the counts.

And after the defendants were arraigned, the NDLEA called 10 witnesses to prove their case and tendered at least 20 exhibits.

The defendants then elected to make a no-case submission after the prosecution closed its case.

Kyari, in his written address by his lawyer, Dr Obinna Onyia, argued that the NDLEA had failed to provide evidence showing indeed that he was the owner of the said property.

Citing Section 128 of the Evidence Act, Kyari submitted that “transactions over state lands can only be proven by production of certified true copies of the title documents and no other form of evidence in admissible,” among other arguments.

However, the no-case submission was dismissed by the judge on the ground that the prosecution had been able to establish a prima facie case against the defendants, hence, the need to open their defence to clarify some of the issues.

 

By

A legal practitioner, Mr Bala Dakum, has written a letter to the Plateau State Governor, Mr Caleb Mutfwang, seeking an investigation into the seal-off of his client’s hospitality and tourism company, Delavender Apartments and Suites.

The lawyer, in a letter dated November 11 and acknowledged by the governor’s office on November 12, alleged that the action was the long persecution of his client, Mr Solomon Obodeh, for about two years by the Chairman, Plateau State Internal Revenue Service (PSIRS), Mr Jim Pam Wayas.

The certified true copy of the letter was made available to newsmen on Friday in Abuja.

Dakum expressed surprise that despite the submission of all required documents and payment of all corresponding processing fees to Jos Metropolitan Development Board (JMDB) by Delavender Apartments to regularise the building documentation in line with the executive order issued by the governor, the property was sealed off.

It reads: “We continue to act as solicitors to Mr. Solomon Obodeh and on whose behalf and instructions we petition you.

“Our client briefed us thus;

“That he is one of the owners of the property known as Delavender Apartments and Suites situated at No. 42, Shinco Road, Jos.

“That the said property situates at 42, Shinco Road, Jos was purchased by our client in 2019 and construction completed in 2024.

“That while the land belongs to our client, Delavender Apartments is a successful business partnership with relatives living in the diaspora.

“That at a time when government aligns globally to woo investors, the reverse seems to be the case as the sealing of Delavender Apartments was premeditated for the following reasons;

“That the long persecution of our client for about two years by the Chairman, PSIRS birthed this unfortunate scenario.

“That every business interest of our client on the Plateau has been targeted by the Chairman, PSIRS.

“That our client wrote JMDB on 6th November, 2025 appealing that the premises be unsealed.

“However, our client was informally informed that the order was from Your Excellency.

“That our client finds the claim of the G.M (General Manager), JMDB off record that the order to seal the apartment was given by His Excellency as spurious as HIS Excellency is too refined. learned and sophisticated to stoop so low in such a petty manner.”

Dakum said a petition had, earlier, been written to the governor on November 7 through the law firm of Mr Festus Keyamo, SAN, articulating the alleged anomalies against Mr Wayas but there had been no response.

The lawyer queried why Wayas has been frustrating efforts by the police to carry out a comprehensive investigation into the alleged illegal activities of the Joint Tax Board (JTB) levelled against the board by Obodeh.

“Why did Jim Pam Wayas use the powers of his office as Chairman, PSIRS to scuttle investigations at the Force Criminal Investigations Department, Abuja and the IGP Monitoring Unit prompting the office of the Inspector General of police to initiate investigation into the deals of the officers in question upon the request of our client?

“The said officers have been indicted for professional misconduct,” he said.

He also queried why the sealing of the apartments happened on the same day when the DG of Plateau Environmental Protection and Sanitation Agency (PEPSA), Samuel Dapia, was being interrogated by the IGP Special Investigation Unit (SIU) in Abuja in relation to allegation of obstructing a lawful arrest of one of the suspects in connection with activities of JTB.

The lawyer, therefore, said if nothing is done to their complaints, a petition would be written to the office of the National Security Adviser for comprehensive investigation of the phone call exchanges between the PSIRS chairman, PEPSA DG and JMDB GM and a harmonisation of the case files with the police, ICPC and DSS.

“Your Excellency, a golden opportunity once again presents itself to silence critics and restore public confidence in the administration,” Dakum concluded.

It would be recalled that Obodeh, through his company, Paben MBC Ltd, in 2024, petitioned the IGP and ICPC chairman over allegations of harassment, extortions and unlawful impoundment of vehicles under the guise of implementation of the Single Inter-State Road Tax Stickers (SIRTS) and Single Haulage Fee (SHF) by JTB.

The petition had led to investigations by the police with the invitation of some persons, including Wayas.

Responding in a telephone interview, Mr Samuel Dapia, Director General of Plateau State Environmental Protection and Sanitation Agency (PEPSA), said his official duty had nothing to do with property development, hence, he was unaware of the sealing of the apartments.

When the Chief Press Secretary to the governor, Mr Gyang Bere, was contacted, he said he was yet to see the two petitions written by the Keyamo and Dakum ‘s law firms.

He, therefore, asked that copies of the petitions be forwarded to his phone WhatsApp.

Bere, then, directed the reporter to Mr Hart Bankat, General Manager (GM), Jos Metropolitan Development Board (JMDB), for clarification.

Bankat, in a phone chat, denied the allegations that the sealing of the apartments was as a result of Solomon Obodeh’s persecution.

The GM of JMDB alleged that Obodeh built Delavender Apartments and Suites without necessary approval.

He said the management of the apartments was served with a prior notice in 2024 before the property was sealed off on Nov. 3.

According to him, if there is any thing I don’t tolerate is misinformation.

“When he (Obodeh) came for the presentation, did he show you the documents he has? ” he asked.

Bankat said there is a procedure for building and that development control is the same everywhere.

“So there is nothing like putting sentiment into the whole thing.

“He built without approval, and he was given prior notices last year, and he is claiming that he is in the process of validating his papers.

“How did he open and start operating the building? Where does this happen?

“And then when government tells you that you cannot operate the building, come and regularise, then the first thing you do is you run to media and say you have been persecuted?

“Did he do the right thing? Did he show you the documents of the land he has? Did he show you the approval he was giving to build that building?

“So, when he shows you all those things and can be able to justify it, then he can say it’s a persecution.

“As far as I can tell you, it’s an illegal building,” he said.

He said from their records, the building did not have approval.

“So we don’t care what he is doing with who or what story he has with who; that’s his business.

“If he has approval, he should show us. It’s as simple as that,” the GM said.

On the allegation that the property was sealed off at the instruction of Mr Jim Wayas, Chairman, Plateau State Internal Revenue Service (PSIRS), Bankat described the allegation as laughable.

“How can the chairman of PSIRS, a fellow appointee and colleague of mine, give directives?

“They are two different institutions; Internal Revenue is different from Development Control and Urban Development.

“They are different institutions. He is doing his own with revenue, I am doing my own with what I can do.There’s no crossing of lines with that one.

“So, there’s difference between Revenue Collection and Urban Development,” he clarified.

On what step Obodeh should take for the property to be unsealed, the GM said he should come to JMDB’s office with his documents.

“He should go and do the right thing.

“Since the place was sealed, did he come to the office?

“He can’t come to the office because he knows he’s lying.

“If he has the facts, he should come to the office now and say, he has this documents, he was given approval to do this, he was given approval to do that, but his property was sealed wrongly.

“Why is he running to the media? Why is he looking for media hype?

“He should come to the office and present his documents.

“Your property was closed since 3rd of November and you have not been to the office since then but you could run to a lawyer’s office in Abuja to write a petition.

“So if he’s honest, he should come to the office now. It’s a public office, nobody is going to harass him.

“Let him come and do the needful,” Bankat said.