Tag: Court

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, dismissed a no-case submission application filed by suspended DCP Abba Kyari and his two brothers in a charge filed against them by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA).

Justice James Omotosho, in a ruling, held that a prima facie case had been made out against the defendants by the NDLEA to warrant them to enter their defence.

Justice Omotosho held that the evidence of the prosecution had founded sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.

The judge said that “in view of all the exhibits and the evidence of the prosecution, the defendants need to give some explanations in these regards”

According to the judge, this is not to say that the defendants are guilty as charged but simply that they be afforded their right to fair hearing and put in their defence before this court.

“The evidence of the prosecution has founded sufficient ground for proceeding with this trial.

“A connection of the defendants with the offences, no matter how slight, constitutes prima facie evidence and as such, the defendants would be required to enter their defence to the charge or offer a rebuttal of some sort.

“I must say here that holding that a prima facie case has been established does not necessarily imply that the court finds the defendants guilty of the charge.

“It is simply to allow the defendants exhaust their options for their defence and to clear every unresolved issue which may weigh on the mind of the court in reaching a final decision.

“The defendants are still presumed innocent until proven guilty and the prosecution still has the duty to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt,” the judge said, citing Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.

The NDLEA, in the 23-count charge, alleged that Abba Kyari, Mohammed Kyari and Ali Kyari failed to make full disclosure of their assets.

The anti-narcotics 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.

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.

Delivering the ruling, Justice Omotosho said that the court would refrain from evaluating the evidence but would limit itself to stating that on the whole, a prima facie case had been made out against the defendants.

“I have carefully gone through the evidence presented to the court by the prosecution with respect to this charge.

“The evidence all point to the establishment of a prima facie case against the defendants.

“The evidence is such that the defendants must proffer some explanation or defence to the allegation made against them, especially considering the seriousness of the offences as their liberty is at stake.

“The right of a defendant to defend himself/herself is a fundamental right provided under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

“Such right cannot be taken from a defendant except where a defendant expressly or by conduct waives same.

“These defendants, having not waived their right to defend themselves either expressly or by conduct they are hereby called upon to put in their defence to the charge against them.

“In final analysis, the no-case submissions filed by the defendants cannot be upheld in the face of the evidence led by the prosecution.

“Consequently, the no-case submissions are hereby overruled.

“Accordingly, the defendants are hereby ordered to put in their defence,” the judge ruled.

Justice Omotosho, who gave Kyari and his brothers three days to put in their defence, adjourned the matter until Nov. 4, Nov. 5 and Nov. 6 for defence.

 

 

An Abuja High Court has adjourned the hearing of a motion seeking punitive sanction against parties who allegedly violated a subsisting court order in the Abuja market dispute suit until Nov. 13.

The court fixed the date following the inability of the presiding judge, Justice Yusuf Halilu, to hear the matter.

The motion bordered on the ongoing dispute over the Apo Resettlement Market Scheme.

The claimants; the AMAC Investment Development Company and two others had dragged Dr Shuaibu Omeiza Musari and Techs and Concrete Nigeria limited to court as respondents.

At the centre of the dispute is Plot 1729, Cadastral Zone E27, Apo District, Abuja, where a multi-billion naira market project is being developed.

Justice Halilu, had in a ruling delivered on April 15, granted an interlocutory injunction, restraining all parties, particularly the claimants, from continuing any form of construction work on the site, pending the determination of the substantive suit, marked: CV/467/2024.

The order followed the application filed by Techs and Concretes Nigeria Ltd to preserve the status quo.

The respondents’ lawyer, Realwan Okpanachi, had alleged that the claimants in the suit went ahead with the market project in contravention of the order of the court made in April 15.

In the motion, the respondents is, therefore, seeking an order of the court mandating the claimants to pay N850 million as punitive/exemplary costs for allegedly ignoring the court’s injunction.

An order for the demolition of any structure already built on the disputed land in fragrant violation of the court injunction.

Alternatively, they sought an order directing the Inspector-General of Police, FCT Commissioner of Police, and the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) to seal the property to preserve the subject matter and ensure compliance with the court order.

In the supporting affidavit, Techs and Concretes alleged that despite having served and pasted the April 15 order at the site, the claimants removed the posted order, erased related inscriptions and resumed construction in disregard of the injunction.

They argued that unless the court imposes sanctions, its orders risk being treated with contempt, and its authority undermined.

Techs and Concretes had earlier told the court that a joint venture agreement was signed between it and Manillah Integrated Partners Ltd, with Techs and Concretes acting as financier, co-developer, and sole marketer, while Manillah served as developer.

The company, however, accused Manillah and its allies of breaching this agreement by unilaterally continuing the market development and later initiating a suit to avoid accountability.

The judge had, on April 15, held that the interlocutory injunction was granted in the interest of justice and fair play.

 

 

Malabu Oil & Gas Limited has sought the leave of the Supreme Court to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, delivered in favour of Nigerian Agip Exploration Ltd.

The company, in a motion on notice marked:: SC/ML/356/2025 and filed by its lawyer, Reuben Ataba, SAN, sought an order for an enlargement of time within which it may seek leave to appeal against the judgment delivered on May 23 by the appellate court.

It also sought an order granting extension of time to the applicant (company) within which to file the notice and grounds of appeal against the judgment in appeal number: CA/ABJ/CV/53/2021 between Nigerian Agip Ltd Vs. Malabu and five others, among other four prayers.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Malabu, in the motion on notice, sued Nigerian Agip Exploration Ltd, the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Minister of Petroleum Resources as 1st to 3rd respondents.

The company also named Shell Nigeria Ultra-Deep Limited, Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd and Chief Dan Etete respectively as 4th to 6th respondents in the motion.

Giving seven grounds why the application should be granted, the senior lawyer said that the 1st respondent (Agip) filed an appeal number: CA/ABJ/CV/53/2021 against the interlocutory decision/ruling of the Federal High Court (FHC) of Nigeria sitting in Abuja, delivered on Dec. 22, 2020.

Atabo said the FHC suit was marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/201/2012 between Malabu Oil and Gas Lid Vs. Federal Government of Nigeria and 6 others.

He said the Appeal Court judgment was delivered on May 23, wherein the Malabu’s preliminary objection was dismissed and Agip’s appeal upheld.

He said the appellate court then proceeded to overturn the ruling of the trial court (FHC), dismissed the preliminary objection of Malabu and further dismissed the main suit of the company before the trial court, after holding that the mode of commencement of the same was wrong.

Atabo said Malabu filed an application on June 4 at the Court of Appeal to appeal the decision on the grounds of mixed law and facts as well as to raise fresh issues on appeal.

The lawyer, however, said that before the application could be heard, the time provided by the rules within which to seek leave to appeal had elapsed.

In the affidavit attached to the motion which was deposed to by Alhaji Mohammed Sani Abacha, a director in Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd, he averred that the certified true copy of the judgment was not given to them until June 4.

“That judicial staff of the court below embarked on a strike action on Monday, the 2nd day of June, 2025, which extended to the 3rd day of June, 2025 before same was called off.

“That the applicant (Malabu) had fourteen days (14) within which to seek and
obtain leave of the court below before filing a competent notice of appeal.

“That before the court below fixed a date for the hearing of the applicant’s application, the time allowed by the rules of the court below for the application for leave to be heard and determined had elapsed.

“That after the expiration of the time allowed by the rules of court to seek and obtain leave had expired, the lower court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s application,” he said.

Mohammed said it was not deliberate that the application before the Appeal Court could not be moved.

According to him, the applicant is aggrieved by the judgment of the court below delivered on the 23rd day of May, 2025, and it is therefore desirous of appealing against the same to this honourable court.

 

By

Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed Dec. I for hearing in a suit seeking to stop the Federal Government from implementing the proposed expatriates’ taxation regime.

The case, which was earlier scheduled for hearing by the new judge, could not proceed due to the ongoing judges’ conference.

Although Paul Atayi, lawyer to the plaintiff and the defence counsel were in court, Justice Umar, who was recently reassigned to take over the matter, was absent.

The case which was formerly before Justice Inyang Ekwo, is to start denovo (afresh) before Justice Umar.

The plaintiff, Incorporated Trustees of New Kosol Welfare Initiative, had, in the motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CD/1780/2024, sued the Interior Minister, Mr Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, as 1st and 2nd defendants.

The plaintiff filed the application through a team of lawyers led by Atayi.

The group sought an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from commencing the implementation of the new Expatriates’ Taxation Regime known as the ‘Expatriate Employment Levy (EEL)’ in Nigeria, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

A Programme Implementation Coordinator of the group, Raphael Ezeh, in the affidavit he deposed to, averred that on Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2024, the Federal Government of Nigeria unveiled a set of proposed new taxation policy called the Expatriate Employment Levy (EEL).

“According to KPMG and other online information analysts and dissemination agencies, the Federal Government intends to compel all companies and organisations who engage the services of foreign expatriates to pay tax E.E.L. as follows:

“For every expatriate on the level of a director — Fifteen Thousand United States Dollars ($15,000.00) equivalent to Twenty-Three Million Naira, by the current exchange rates (NW23,000,000.00) per annum.

“For every expatriate on a non-director level – Ten Thousand United States Dollars ($10,000.00) equivalent to Sixteen Million Naira, by the current exchange rates (N16,000,000.00) per annum,” he said.

Ezeh averred that the Federal Government also planned additional regulations consisting of penalties and sanctions for non-compliance with the proposed taxation regime.

According to him, inaccurate or incomplete reporting will attract five years’ imprisonment and/or N1 million fine.

He said failure of a corporate entity to file EEL within 30 day is to attract a penalty of N3 million, failure to register an employee within 30 days will also attract N3 million, while submission of false information will attract N3 million.

The coordinator said failure to renew EEL before its expiry date by an organisation is to attract a sanction of N3 million.

Ezeh said “the proposed taxation regime is totally an anti-people policy because of its radical effect on different aspects of the Nigerian economy and it works like a choke-hold against the economic growth of the nation.”

He said taxation is a sensitive matter which, under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), calls for the collaboration of the executive and legislative arms of government.

He said under Section 59 of the constitution, the executive arm of government alone does not have the powers to impose tax on corporate bodies and other citizens of the nation.

He said the current prevailing tax regime is far more friendly towards expatriates than the proposed one.

Ezeh alleged that the minister is about to commence full implementation of the EEL.

But the minister and the AGF, in their respective preliminary objections filed before the former judge, urged the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.

Tunji-Ojo, in his preliminary objection filed on March 14 by Mrs Eva Omotese, Director, Legal Services, also urged the court to strike out his name from the suit.

Giving five-ground of argument, the minister submitted that the group did not disclose its locus standi to initiate and maintain the suit as constituted.

He said the failure of the plaintiff to disclose its locus standi robbed the court the jurisdiction to entertain the sult.

Fagbemi, in his preliminary objection, equally argued that the group lacked the locus standi to file the suit.

The AGF argued that there was no cause of action disclosed in the plaintiff’s suit.

Fagbemi, in the application filed by Maimuna Shiru, Director, Civil Litigation and Public Law, therefore, sought an order dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction.

But in the plaintiff’s reply on points of law to the AGF’s objection filed by Atayi, the lawyer cited reasons a court of law is vested with jurisdiction to hear a matter.

The lawyer argued that a court would assume jurisdiction when it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and that no member is disqualified for one reason or another.

He also argued that the court would be vested with jurisdiction when the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction.

He further argued that the court can assume jurisdiction when the case before the court is initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.

Atayi cited previous cases to back his argument including the Saraki Vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria’s case, 2016.

The lawyer also argued that the case, being a public interest litigation, the plaintiff had the locus standi (legal right) to file the suit.

He urged the court to dismiss the objections.

The Federal Ministry of Interior had, earlier in 2024, suspended the implementation of the EEL which was launched on Feb. 27, 2024.

This, it said is to allow for further consultations with Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines, and Agriculture (NACCIMA) and other vital stakeholders.

 

A lawyer, Chuckwuma-Machukwu Ume, SAN, has prayed the Central Bank of Nigeria to sanction Polaris Bank for allegedly withholding a loan facility of N868 million belonging to a customer, Kenchez Nigeria Limited.

Ume, a former Attorney-General of Imo, made the application in a petition written to the CBN governor and copied to its two directors in Consumer Protection Department and Banking Supervision Department, on the company’s behalf.

The petition, dated Oct. 2, was received by the apex bank same date and a certified true copy made available to newsmen on Thursday in Abuja.

Ume accused the commercial bank of deliberately withholding the company’s money in clear breach of guarantee terms.

The lawyer chronicled the alleged numerous unethical conducts of Polaris Bank, which he said amounted to violations of banking laws and regulatory safeguards put in place for the stability of the banking sector.

He alleged that the withholding of N868m by the bank, which was duly disbursed into its custody by Lecon Finance Company Limited on the strength of Polaris’ own guarantee, transcended mere breach of contracts, but amounted to an attempted economic murder and financial strangulation of Kenchez Nigeria Limited, that has maintained 22 years of an unbroken banking loyalty with the bank.

Ume explained that his client, Kenchez Nigeria Limited, had applied and obtained the loan from Lecon Finance Company Limited to acquire a 160-ton Terex Demag AC160-2 Crane for its operational activities.

“On March 6, 2025, Kenchez Nigeria Limited applied to Lecon Finance Company Limited for a direct finance lease facility of N902, 720, 000.00 to acquire a 160-ton Terez Demag AC160-2 Crane for its operational activities.

“By a Revised Indicative Offer dated May 19, 2025 and subsequent letter of offer dated June 30, 2025, Lecon Finance approved the facility subject to some conditions including the provision of a bank guarantee from a commercial bank acceptable to Lecon Finance, to secure the principal, accruing interest, and end-of-lease payments.

“In addition, on July 8, 2025, Polaris Bank limited issued an offer letter approving a bank guarantee facility in the sum of N902, 720, 000.00 to Kenchez Nigeria Limited.

“However, long after the loan facility of N868 million was paid to Polaris Bank, which acted as the guarantee bank for the loan, it has refused to release same to its owner, Kenchez Nigeria Limited, even after satisfying all the preconditions put in place by the bank, including perfecting a legal mortgage over its property in Port Harcourt.”

According to him, it is important to state that our client dully complied with all preconditions, including execution of a third-party legal mortgage, thereby placing valuable landed property in Rivers State at the bank’s disposal.

Ume said despite this, the bank refused to release the funds.

“We therefore bring to your good office that Polaris Bank’s actions amount to grave violations of both statutory and judicial recognised obligations.

“By unlawfully withholding N868m dully credited into our client’s account while permitting interest of N16.2 million to accrue monthly, Polaris Bank is in breach of its core duty of trust and sound practice under Section 13 of BOFIA.

“We wish to bring to your attention that our office formally wrote to Polaris Bank on September 15, 2025 seeking urgent resolution of this matter.

“The bank scheduled a meeting in response but subsequently cancelled it on no fewer that five occasions, demonstrating a clear and deliberate refusal to engage in good faith, despite being in possession of the funds owed,” he said.

The senior lawyer said this inaction by the bank had forced his client to continue paying substantial interest on idle capital, causing severe disruption of its operational activities and economic growth.

“Crucially, withholding N868m funds expressly disbursed for the procurement of a critical crane has paralysed Kenchez Nigeria Limited, a Nigerian enterprise that has contributed significantly to local employment, commerce and industrial activity, thereby indeed effectively strangling the lifeblood of this legitimate Nigerian business.”

Ume, therefore, urged the CBN to direct Polaris Bank “to immediately release or refund the N868m, wrongly withheld together with all interest already accrued and wasted since August 4, 2025.

“To mandate Polaris Bank to assume liability for all subsequent monthly interest of N26, 206.860.66 until the facility is released or refunded, in line with clause 12 of the guarantee and its banker-customer duty.

“That the CBN should exercise its supervisory and disciplinary powers against Polaris Bank to safeguard the stability of the banking sector, uphold depositor confidence and prevent a precedent that could emboldened similar acts across the industry.”

 

A lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi, on Monday, prayed the Federal High Court in Abuja to bar ex-President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting 2027 presidential election.

Citing constitutional grounds, Jideobi urged the court to issue an order of perpetual injunction, restraining Jonathan from presenting himself to any political party in the country for the purpose of contesting in the poll.

He also urged the court to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from accepting from any political party, Jonathan’s name or publishing same as a duly nominated candidate for the election.

Th News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Jideobi had, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025, sued the former president as 1st defendant.

In the suit dated and filed on Oct. 6, the lawyer joined INEC and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively.

He sought one question for determination, which is:

“Whether in view of the combined provisions of the entirety Sections 1(1), (2) & (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and their conflated interpretation, the 1st defendant is eligible, under any circumstances [whatsoever] to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria?”

Citing Sections 1(1), (2) & (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended , he argued that INEC lacks the constitutional power to receive from any political party the name of the Jonathan for election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria holding in 2027 and other years to come.

”As well as, “an order of this Honourable Court directing the 3rd defendant (AGF) to ensure compliance with the decisions and orders of this court.”

In an affidavit of facts that was deposed in support of the suit by one Emmanuel Agida, the plaintiff told the court that he is an advocate of constitutionalism and the rule of law.

He told the court that the 1st defendant was first sworn in as President on May 6, 2010, following the death of then President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua on the May 5, 2010, having previously been the Vice-President.

He said he recently saw on various national dailies and television stations, reports on Jonathan’s intention to contest for presidency in 2027.

“That the plaintiff believes that the 1st defendant, having completed the unexpired term of late President Yar’Adua and subsequently served a full term after the 2011 election, has exhausted the constitutional limit of two tenures as President.

“That if the court does not intervene timeously, a political party may present the 1st defendant as its presidential candidate in the 2027 general election, thereby breaching the constitution.”

On his locus standi (legal right) to institute the action, the plaintiff maintained that part of his duties, as a lawyer, is to forestall a violation of the constitution and to uphold the rule of law.

“There are chances that one of the political parties in Nigeria may favour the 1st defendant to stand as its presidential candidate in the forthcoming 2027 general elections to be conducted and overseen by the 2nd defendant.

” If unchallenged, the 1st defendant may enter the 2027 presidential race on the platform of one of the political parties in Nigeria and may possibly emerge the winner of the said election.

“In the event the 1st defendant is returned as elected and sworn as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria come in 2027, it will mark the 3rd time the 1st defendant will be taking oath of office as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“In the event the 1st defendant is returned as elected and sworn as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria come in 2027, the plaintiff as a Nigerian citizen, would become one of the those under the governance control of the 1st defendant [who by virtue of his office would be saddled with the responsibility of executing the laws of the country].

“As a Nigerian lawyer trained in Nigerian constitutional law, the plaintiff has come across a provision in the Nigerian constitution stating that a person who was sworn-in as President to complete the term for which another person was elected as President shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.

“The plaintiff knows that the 1st defendant was indeed, on the 6th May, 2010, sworn in as President to complete the term for which (former) President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was elected as President as a consequence of the demise of the former President on the 5th day of May, 2010.

“The 1st defendant after being sworn in on 6th May, 2010 to complete the term of late Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, was subsequently elected into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and sworn in on the 27th May, 2011.

” I know that if the 1st defendant eventually wins the forthcoming 2027 general election as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (which is for a term of 4 years spanning 2027 to 2031), he will have exceeded 8 years being the cumulative maximum years a Nigerian President is to stay in office.

“”The plaintiff has instituted this suit in the public interest, in the defence of the rule of law and accentuation of the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the integrity of the Nigerian Constitutional order.

“It will be in the interest of justice for this Honourable Court to grant the prayers contained on the face of this Originating Summons,” the affidavit further read.

The suit is yet to be assigned to a judge as at the time of this report.

 

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, struck out the criminal case filed by Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) against the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Qatar Airways, Mr Temi Birdzell.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Birdzell is being charged alongside Stella Ihediwa, the Account Manager of the airline; Kennedy Chirchir, the Country Manager and Eva Ojeje,, who is the Sales Manager of the company.

Justice James Omotosho struck out the case to allow the FCCPC served all the defendants the processes in the matter.

Earlier, Daniel Amadi had told the court of their inability to serve all the defendants in the case.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Omotosho had, on June 24, fixed today for the defendants’ arraignment over allegations bordering on breach of FCCPC Act, 2018.

The commission, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/200/2025, dragged Qatar Airways, Birdzell, Ihediwa, Chirchir and Ojeje to court as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.

FCCPC, in the application dated May 26 but filed May 27, had preferred a two-count charge against the defendants.

The defendants were alleged to have failed to appear before FCCPC in compliance with a lawful summons of the commission dated Sept. 6, 2024, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 33 (3) of the FCCP Act, 2018.

They were also accused to have on Sept. 18, 2024, intentionally withheld the production of documents in compliance wth a lawful summons of the commission, thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 111 of FCCP Act, 2018.

In count three, they were alleged to have on Sept. 18, 2024, engaged in the contravention of the consumer rights, thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 124(1) and punishable under Section 155 of the same Act.

 

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, on Tuesday, called on the Chairman, Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Justice Mainasara Umar, not to compromise the office for selfish interest.

Justice Kekere-Ekun gave the charge on Tuesday in Abuja after she swore in the new tribunal chairman.

The CJN urged Umar to justify the confidence President Bola Tinubu reposed in him by providing principled and impartial leadership.

She urged him to be courageous in the discharge of his duties.

Kekere-Ekun said that the office Umar occupied “demands in its leadership a person of sound judgment, unshakable independence and the moral courage to do what is right, regardless of whose interests may be at stake.”

According to her, the path ahead will not always be easy.

“The cases that come before you may involve high stakes and sensitive issues touching upon the very soul of public trust.

“I urge you to approach every matter with fairness and firmness, guided solely by the dictates of the law and the constitution, “ she urged.

The CJN reminded the tribunal chairman that his ultimate loyalty is to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, to the constitution and the cause of justice and not to any individual, group or authority.

“The trust placed in you is a trust on behalf of the nation, and it must never be compromised or traded for personal or political reasons,” the CJN added.

She advised the CCT chairman not to allow external influence sway his judgment.

She said: “You must uphold the law without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

“Let your actions inspire confidence in the institution you now lead.”

The CJN further urged the CCT chairman to promote transparency and administrative excellence.

Responding, Umar expressed gratitude for the confidence reposed in him and pledged to administer justice with courage, fairness, and humility.

He reaffirmed his commitment to strengthening institutional integrity within the tribunal and to ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done in every case brought before it.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that with the swearing in of the chairman, the tribunal now has a full complement of three judges and can now begin to decide cases, all of which could not be taken in the absence of a chairman.

Other members of the court are Justice William A. Atedze and Justice Julie Anabor.