Tag: Court

 

Mr Jake Epelle, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of The Albino Foundation (TAF) Africa on Thursday, testified in his N150 million suit filed against Emirates Airline.

Epelle gave his evidence as sole witness before Justice Musa Liman of a Federal High Court in Abuja over allegations bordering on the breach of his fundamental human rights by the airline.

Led in evidence by his lawyer, Regina Okotie-Eboh, Epelle identified his witness statement on oath dated March 18, 2024, and adopted it as his evidence-in-chief.
Okotie-Eboh also tendered Epelle’s international passport, the boarding pass, the flight ticket, the letters from Stanford Medicine, also known as Stanford Healthcare; the email message and the ticket purchases from Emirates Airline as evidence in the case.

The lawyer equally tendered the flight ticket from Delta Airline, another letter from Stanford University School of Medicine, a letter from the plaintiff’s counsel demanding N150 million damages from Emirates Airline, and another letter from plaintiff’s counsel to Epelle in respect of fees for filing the suit, among others, as evidence.

The lawyer to the Emirates Airline, Michael Dedon, did not object to tendering all the documents and Justice Liman admitted them in evidence and marked them as exhibits in the suit.

When Okotie-Eboh asked Epelle what he wanted from the court, the TAF CEO said: “I want this honourable court to grant my reliefs.”

Dedon, while cross examining the witness, said Epelle should know as a regular traveller that holding a visa of a country, does not guarantee anyone an entry into the destination country.
Responding, Epelle, though admitted Dedon’s statement, he however clarified that the process of stopping an individual from entering a country should be the responsibility of the embassy staff and not the airline.
“It is the embassy staff that will come there and cancel my visa and tell me not to go. But this did not happend,” he said.
The witness said the Emirate Airline did not show him any tangible evidence why he was denied access into the U.S.
According to him, it was just a mere information.
When the lawyer told him if he agreed with him that admission into a foreign country is at the discretion of immigration officers attending to the immigrant, Epelle insisted that it was not the US immigration officers that denied him access into the country.
“Just from your words, it is the immigration officers, by themselves at the point of entry that will turn you back. But this was not the case.”
He said it was the Emirates airline that stopped him from proceeding on his journey.
He said even when he came back to the US Embassy in Nigeria for clarification, the officer who attended to him confirmed that his name was not on the restriction list.
“I turned down the US green card because of the people I represent in the country.
“I hold a UN status; I am the UN Ambassador for Albinism. I am a human rights defender and I won the Franco-German Prize for Human Rights and the Rule of Law,” he said.
Epelle, who broke down in tears in the witness box, said there was no reason the US would have denied him access into the country.
“My lord, it is so traumatic because any time this case comes up, it takes my memory back to what Emirates Airline did to me,” he said.
When Dedon asked Epelle if he was given any document from the US Embassy to show to the court that his name was not on the restriction list, he said diplomatically, the embassy would not have given him any documents.
He, however, said that the embassy worker showed him from their system to confirm that there was no email from the US Immigration and Border Control stopping him from entering the country.
He said it was the embassy worker who advised him to board Delta Airline back to the US.
“Look, I am a skin cancer patient. Emirates Airline would have just killed me for nothing,” he said, weeping.
Justuce Liman adjourned the matter until March 27 for defence to open their case.
Earlier before the case proceed, Okotie-Eboh informed the court that Epelle was indisposed.
The lawyer, who said Epelle came from the hospital bed to give evidence, prayed the court to allow the hearing proceed because the matter had been dragging since 2021 when it was filed.
“The matter was adjourned for hearing and our sole witness is around. He has been on admission but he is ready to give evidence,” she had said.
The judge, however, asked Epelle if the matter could be adjourned to allow him attend to his health but he agreed to go on with the matter.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Epelle, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1285/2021, sued Emirates Airline as the sole defendant.
In his statement of claim, the TAF Africa CEO alleged that on Dec. 20, 2020, he was billed to travel on a medical trip to San Francisco, U.S.
He averred that upon being issued with the boarding passes to San Francisco. he alongside his colleague, Mrs Green Mary Ibitoru, boarded flight No EK 785 from the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport Abuja to Dubai, United Arab Emirates (U.A.E).
He alleged that upon arrival at the Dubai International Airport, on Dec. 20, 2020, he sought to board the next flight to Boston as already scheduled but was denied access to board the Emirate Airline.
Ekpelle said he was informed by the airline staff at their connecting desk in Dubai International Airport, Dubai that the United States of America (USA) Border Control sent a mail to them via electronic mail (email) requesting that he should be denied access to board their flight to Boston.
He said he kept demanding for the reason for being denied access to board the flight to Boston but was not given any except the one reason which was that the U.S. Border Control sent a mail to the defendant stating that the plaintiff be denied access to board the defendant’s flight to Boston.
He, however, said that he was never shown any mail from the US Boarder Control denying him access to board the defendant’s flight to Boston.
He said regardless of his insistence of not having any travel restriction, no criminal records and not been politically exposed, Emirate Airline did nothing to confirm his position.
He said some friends and persons who recognised him at the Dubai International Airport were embarrassed and thought he had been denied boarding for something related to crime, while others joined in confronting and pleading with the defendant to allow him board the flight to Boston but all to no avail.
Ekpelle said the airline’s refusal to allow him to board the flight to Boston caused him to miss the appointment with the dermatologists for his surgery.
The plaintiff averred that due to the missed surgery, he suffered untold hardships and pain that would not have been if the trip had not been aborted and the surgery had been carried out as initially scheduled.
According to him, the defendant’s act of refusing me access to board, caused me added inconvenience as I returned to Nigeria without my luggage as the luggage had been tagged with the luggage of the said colleague.
He said his ticket to Boston and San-Francisco was seized and one of the tickets was used to escort him on board Emirates Airline which brought him back to Abuja on December 20, 2020.
Ekpelle said he paid N886,751.00 to the airline as the air fare for a return trip from Abuja, Nigeria to San-Francisco en-route Dubai and Boston and from San Francisco (USA) to Abuja, Nigeria en-route New York and Dubai after which he was issued a flight ticket.
He said on his return to Abuja, he immediately visited the American Embassy where he met the Head of Mission and informed her about his ordeal at the hands of the defendant’s airlines in Dubai.
He said he was told that no restriction was placed on him as at Dec. 20, 2020 and that no instruction was given by the USA Boarder Control or any of the USA Consulate preventing him from entering USA.
He averred that after he was graciously booked for another surgical appointment by his dermatologist, he travelled back to Stanford Health Care in San Francisco through Delta Airline for the medical treatment.
He, therefore, sought a declaration that the failure of the Emirate Airline to allow him board the flight to Boston from Dubai was a breach of the contract of carriage between the duo.
He sought a declaration that in all circumstances of the case, the acts of the defendant in refusing the plaintiff access to board the defendant’s flight to Boston from Dubai is unjust and an infringement of the plaintiff’s right.
Ekpelle, therefore, sought an order, directing the airline to pay N150 million as general damages for the hardship, suffering, trauma, humiliation and embarrassment he suffered.

 

The Supreme Court has affirmed the provision of Section 84 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act (S&CPA) requiring prior consent of the Attorney General before the initiation of garnishee proceedings to enforce monetary judgment against government or its agencies.

The apex court’s five-member panel, in a split decision of four-to-one, declined to examine the constitutionality or otherwise of the provision even though the dissenting decision declared Section 84 of the S&CPA unconstitutional.

The judgement was on an appeal marked: SC/CV/268/2021 filed by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) against the December 4, 2020 judgment by the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

The Court of Appeal had by its judgment, affirmed the October 10, 2018 of the Federal High Court in Abuja upholding the garnishee order absolute issued against the CBN in settlement of a N50 million judgment debt.

In the lead majority judgment at the Supreme Court, Justice Habeeb Abiru held that it was wrong for the CBN to have raised, for the first time at the Court of Appeal, the issue of whether or not it was mandatory to first obtain the consent of the AGF before initiating garnishee proceedings.

Justice Abiru held: “In the present case, the appellant (CBN) did not raise that issue of the failure of the first respondent (Inalegwu Ochife) to obtain the fiat and/or consent of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) before commencing the garnishee proceedings either in its affidavit to show cause or in any other process in the trial court.

“The appellant’s affidavit to show cause met the case of the first respondent on the garnishee proceedings on the merits.

The appellant had no right to raise the issue on appeal before the lower court for the first time.

“The lower court thus, possessed no jurisdiction to entertain the issue of the failure of the first respondent to obtain the fiat and/or consent of the Attorney General of the Federation before commencing the garnishee proceedings, raised before it (the Appeal Court) by the appellant for the first time and its decision in respect thereof is therefore a nullity,” he said.

In the judgment delivered on January 24, a certified true copy (CTC) of which was seen on Sunday, Justice Abiru proceeded to strike out the three issues on that subject, formulated by the CBN for the court’s determination.

Justice Abiru however set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it wrongly categorised the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and some others police personnel (listed as judgment debtors) as government agencies whose funds are in the Treasury Single Account (TSA) domiciled in the CBN.

Justices John Okoro, Adamu Jauro and Moore Adumein agreed with Justice Abiru’s position.

In her dissenting judgment, Justice Helen Ogunwumiju held that the CBN appropriately raised the issue of jurisdiction in relation to the failure of the first respondent to obtain the fiat/ consent of the AGF before commencing the garnishee proceedings.

Justice Ogunwumiju proceeded to declare the provision of Section 84 of the S&CPA null and void on the grounds that it seeks to subject the decision of the court to the review and discretion of the executive arm of government, represented by the AGF.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Nigeria Agip Oil Company Ltd vs. Nkweke and another (2016) LPELR-26060 (SC), Justice Ogunwumiju held that where the exercise of power by a person or authority is alleged to have been done outside the provisions of the constitution or that such exercise is in direct conflict with the spirit of the constitution, then that exercise of power is said to be unconstitutional.

She added: “There is no doubt that Section 84 of the S&CPA seeks to limit the exercise of the execution of a valid court judgment. In that case, such an inferior legislation, outside the constitution is null and void to the extent of its obvious inconsistency with Section 287 of the Constitution.

“It is both incongruous and ludicrous that the monetary judgments of the courts, where it involves government, must be subject to the AG or AGF as the case may be, who by the wordings of Section 84 of S&CPA, seems at liberty to withhold or grant consent according to his whims and caprice thus, subjecting the judgment of the courts to the supervisory authority of the AGF,” Justice Ogunwumiju said.

She proceeded to partially allow the appeal while agreeing with the majority decision that the garnishee order absolute was wrongly made against the CBN by both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Following a case filed by Ochife, a Federal High Court in Abuja on October 10, 2018 gave its judgment awarding to Ochife N50 million in damages against the Inspector General of Police (IGP) , the Commissioner of Police (FCT), and the Officer in Charge of the Intelligence Response Team, Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS).

In a bid to enforce the judgment, Ochife initiated a garnishee proceeding to attach funds from the judgment debtors’ accounts under the Treasury Single Account (TSA) held in the CBN.

On December 10, 2018, the Federal High Court issued a garnishee order nisi directing the CBN to deduct N50 million from the alleged accounts of the judgment debtors.

The CBN, however, filed an affidavit to show cause, asserting that it did not hold any accounts in the names of the judgment debtors and was therefore unable to comply with the order.

Despite the CBN’s claim, the Federal High Court proceeded to make the garnishee order absolute on January 21, 2019, prompting the CBN to appeal the decision.

The Court of Appeal, in its decision on December 4, 2020, dismissed the CBN’s appeal and held that since the judgment debtors were government agencies, their funds must be held under the TSA policy.

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday, declined the application filed by Mr Kabiru Turaki, former Special Duties and Inter-Governmental Affairs Minister, seeking to stop the police from presenting the DNA test result in the paternity dispute with a lady, Hadiza Baffa.

Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling on an ex-parte motion, moved by Turaki’s lawyer, Abdulaziz Ibrahim, SAN, held that he could not grant the relief sought by the former minister without hearing from the respondents.

“Upon studying the motion ex-parte and the averments in the affidavit in support, including the affidavit of urgency, I am of the opinion that the prayers cannot be granted without hearing from the respondents,” Justice Ekwo said.

The judge therefore ordered Turaki to put all the respondents in the application on notice within two days of the order.
Justice Ekwo directed the respondents to show cause in the next adjourned date why the prayers sought by the former minister should not be granted.
The judge, who ordered Turaki to serve the respondents with all the processes filed in the suit within two days of the order, adjourned the matter until Feb. 24 for the respondents to show cause.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Turaki, in the motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/244/2025, had sued the Nigeria Police Force (NPF); Inspector-General (I-G) of Police; DCP Rita Oki Oyintare, who is Deputy Commissioner of Police for Gender and Hadiza Musa Baffa as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.
In the motion dated Feb. 11 but filed Feb. 13 by Ibrahim, the ex-minister sought one relief.
He sought an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from presenting, using, or relying on the purported DNA paternity test result procured from the DNA Labs Limited or any other DNA laboratory on Nov. 5, 2024, or any other date thereafter.
Giving a 13-ground argument why his application should be granted, Turaki said he instituted an action against Hadiza (4th respondent) vide suit No CV/35/2024 on June 24, 2024.
He said in the suit, he sought declaratory reliefs, including but not limited to a perpetual injunction restraining her from parading that the she was married to him and that her child is from him.
He said that Hadiza caused several petitions to be written to the office of the 1st to 3rd respondents in connection with the subject matter in suit no CV/35/2024 and the petitions were consolidated upon application for consolidation by him vide the letter dated Sept.19, 2024.
He said the case was then assigned to the office of Deputy Inspector-General (DIG) of Police on Intelligence for proper and unbiased investigation.
He said that inspite of the consolidation of the petitions and assignment of the investigation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Intelligence, the 3 respondent (DCP Oyintare) continued to harass, intimidate and send invitations to the applicant (ex-minister).
“Traumatised with the continuous harassment by the 3rd respondent, the applicant vide a letter dated 1st November, 2024 further complained to the 2nd respondent (I-G) against abuse of power and harassment by the 3rd respondent,” he said.
Turaki alleged that the act continued despite I-G’s earlier directive transferring the investigation to the DIG on Intelligence and against the court order in suit number: CV/35/2024, restraining the respondents from interfering with the subject matter of the said suit or carrying out any investigation relating to same pending the determination of the suit.
“That the 3rd respondent who had shown too much inclination to meddle in the investigation against the applicant invited the applicant on the 5th November, 2024.
“Upon honouring the 3rd respondent’s invitation on the 5th November, 2024, the 3rd respondent insisted that she must take a swab from the applicant and conduct a DNA.
“The applicant protested that he was not going to submit any of his swab sample for DNA by force.
“Thereupon, the 3rd respondent said he was under arrest and can therefore not leave their premises.
“Consequently, the applicant was detained in the respondent’s cell at the Force Criminal Investigation Department Area 10, Garki, Abuja for about 6 hours from 12 noon till 6pm.
“At about 9pm, the applicant’s swab sample was collected by a purported scientist at the behest of the 3rd respondent, after which only, he was allowed go home at about 10pm on Nov. 5, 2024.
“A criminal charge has been filed against him before the Federal Capital Territory, Magistrate Court, Abuja.
“The respondents intend to rely on the purported DNA test paternity result procured in violation of his fundamental human rights in the said criminal charge.
“Unless this honourable court promptly intervenes, the respondents will rely on the said purported DNA test paternity result, the validity or otherwise being the subject matter of the instant suit.
“Unless the application ex-parte is heard expeditiously, the DNA test paternity result procured by the respondents would be relied upon and used against the applicant who will suffer irreversible injury even if the instant suit is determined in his favour,” Turaki said.
When the matter was earlier called on Tuesday, brahim, who appeared for Turaki, informed the court that the motion ex-parte sought an interim injunction against the respondents from presenting the DNA test result before an FCT High court.
“What you are asking me to do is to stop them from making use of the result against the applicant?
“Can I stop anybody from going to court? Or can I stop them from tendering it in court? Justice Ekwo asked Ibrahim.
The senior lawyer responded that the judge could make the order “because of the way and manner the test was obtained in violation of the applicant’s fundamental right.”
After Ibrahim moved the motion, the judge, who refused the application, held that it would be appropriate to hear from the other parties

 

The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) on Monday, arraigned Adam Yusuf, a Deputy Commandant of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), over alleged N1.1 billion money laundering offences.

Yusuf was arraigned alongside a company, Ummays Hummayd Energy Ltd, allegedly operated by him, before Justice Inyang Ekwo of a Federal High Court in Abuja on three-count amended charge.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that while Yusuf is the 1st defendant in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/158/2023, the company is the 2nd defendant.

The duo pleaded not guilty to the counts when they were read to them.
In count one, Yusuf was alleged to have, sometime in January 2020 or thereabout in Abuja while being a staff of NSCDC, taken possession of the sum of N410 million deposited into his Zenith Bank account number: 2219799630 by Gate Coast Properties International Limited.
In count two, Yusuf was alleged to have, sometime in January 2020 or thereabout in Abuja, taken possession of the sum of N150 million deposited into his Zenith Bank account number 2219799630 by Lahab Integrated & Multi-Services Limited.
Count three accused Yusuf and Ummays Hummayd Energy Ltd of taken possession of N540 million deposited by Lahab Integrated & Multi Services into the Zenith Bank account number: 1016516200 of the company operated by him.
The funds were said to form part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity and the offences were contrary to Section 18(2)(d) and punishable under Section 18(3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
Earlier when the matter was called, ICPC’s lawyer, Osuobeni Akponimisingha, informed the court that they had a motion on notice dated Feb. 10 but filed Feb. 11, seeking to amend their charge.
Abdul Mohammed, SAN, who represented the defendants in court, did not oppose the application and the judge granted the leave to amend.
Akponimisingha therefore sought the leave of the court for the amended charge, dated Feb. 10 but filed Feb. 11, to be read to Yusuf and his company for them to take their plea.
After they pleaded not guilty to the charge, Mohammed drew the attention of the court to the bail application filed on Feb. 13.
The senior lawyer said the motion sought the discretionary power of the court to admit his client to bail.
Although Akponimisingha initially opposed the application citing alleged refusal of Yusuf to stand his trial, he however withdrew his objection later.
Ruling, Justice Ekwo who said he was minded to exercise the discretion in favour of Yusuf, admitted him to a N30 million bail.
The judge also ordered him to produce one surety who must be a responsible citizen and owner of a landed property within the jurisdiction of the court and not below the value of the bail sum.
The judge said the property should be verified by the registrar and the defendant should deposit his international passport and must not travel outside the jurisdiction without the permission of the court.
When Justice Ekwo asked the anti-graft agency’s lawyer how many witnesses they would be calling, Akponimisingha said seven witnesses.
He said all the witnesses were within the jurisdiction of the court.
The judge adjourned the matter until May 6, May 7 and May 8 for trial.
NAN reports that in the earlier charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/158/2023 filed by the ICPC and scheduled on Monday’s cause list, Vice Admiral Jibrin Usman Oyibe and five others were in the charge.
The five others include Adam Imam Yusuf, Brigadier-General Ishaya Gamgum Bauka, Lahab Integrated & Multi Service Ltd, Gate Coast Properties International Ltd and Ummays Hummayd Energy Ltd as 2nd to 6th defendants respectively.
The ICPC had, on Feb. 7, announced the arrest of Adam Yusuf in connection to an allegations bordering on N3 billion public fund diversion.
The commission revealed that its investigation showed that Jibrin Usman, a former Chief of Naval staff, orchestrated the theft through Yusuf and Ishaya Bauka Gangum, a retired Brigadier of the Nigerian Army.
It said its investigation further revealed that the three civil servants orchestrated the diversion by using 92 fictitious companies that were not registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).
The agency also said that Yusuf was at large before he was arrested in his residence in Abuja and then taken into custody.
It alleged that the three defendants acquired 18 properties, including filling stations, through these companies.
The ICPC stated that other suspects in the case were at large.

 

Flowerbudnews

The Federal Government, on Monday, prayed a Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a bail application filed by four suspects linked to notorious bandit kingpin, Bello Turji.
Mr David Kaswe, lawyer who appeared for the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), told Justice Emeka Nwite not to grant the bail request.
Kaswe argued that the defendants were standing trial for terrorism offences.
“We refer this honourable court to Page 9, particularly Paragraph 3.2 of the written address in support of the counter affidavit,” he said.
The lawyer urged the court to take judicial notice that some other members of the group listed as defendants were still at large.
He said, “chief among them is the 6th defendant, Bello Turji, who continues to cause mayhem and havoc to innocent Nigerians and has become a threat to national security.”
While opposing the bail application filed by the 1st defendant (Musa Muhammad Kamarawa), Kaswe said: “in swift opposition, we filed a counter affudavit of five paragraphs deposed to by Michael Akawo. Also we have three exhibits marked as Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C. “
“We humbly urge the court to refuse the bail application of the 1st defendant and order accelerated hearing of the case.”
The lawyer equally urged the court to dismiss the bail applications by the 2nd defendant (Abubakar Hashimu, a.k.a. Doctor), the 4th defendant (Samuel Chinedu) and the 5th defendant (Lucky Chukwuma) respectively.
Earlier, A.M. Lukman, who appeared for the first and second defendants; P.I. Ezeme, who represented the fourth defendant and Abdulaziz Ibrahim, SAN, who appeared for the 5th defendant, while moving the bail applications, prayed the court to admit their clients to bail pending the hearing and determination of the charge against them.
Justice Nwite after listening to the parties adjourned the matter until March 14 for ruling on the bail request and for commencement of trial.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Nwite had, on Dec 23, 2024, ordered the remand of the four suspected terrorists in Kuje Correctional Centre.
The judge made the order after the defendants pleaded not guilty to the 11-count charge bordering on terrorism following their arraignment.
Justice Nwite consequently adjourned the matter until Feb. 10 for trial.
NAN reports that the four suspects; Musa Kamarawa; Abubakar Hashimu, a.k.a. Doctor; Samuel Chinedu and Lucky Chukwuma, denied their involvement in the offences with which they were charged when the 11 counts were read to them.
NAN reports that though eight defendants were listed on the face of the charge, three of them, including Bello Turji, were at large.
However, shortly after the court registrar called the case, only four defendants were in court.
Justice Nwite then asked about the whereabouts of Bashir Abdullahi, who is the third defendant.
Kaswe then told the court that Abdullahi was also at large.
The lawyer, therefore, sought the leave of the court to enter “at large” for Abdullahi and the judge granted the oral application after it was not opposed by the defence lawyers.
NAN reports that the FG, through the office of the AGF, had filed the 11-count charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/633/2024 against the eight defendants, four of who are at large.
In the charge filed on Dec. 16 by M.B. Abubakar, Director, Department of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Musa Muhammad Kamarawa; Abubakar Hashimu, a.k.a. Doctor; Samuel Chinedu and Lucky Chukwuma were sued as 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants.
While Bashir Abdullahi, Bello Turji, Aminu Muhammad and Sani Lawal, who are all at large, are sued as third, sixth, seventh and eighth defendants respectively.
In count one, Musa Kamarawa; Abubakar Hashimu, aka Doctor; Bashir Abdullahi; Samuel Chinedu; Lucky Chukwuma; Bello Turji (at large); Aminu Muhammad (at large) and Sani Lawal (at large), sometime between 2018 and 2022 in Sokoto State, were alleged to have conspired among themselves to commit the terror act.
They were alleged to have provided material services to terrorists groups led by Turji, Kachalla Halilu, Danbokolo, Lawali, Atarwatse, Buderi and others, by procuring and supplying illicit drugs, including penta injections and cannabis plants (aka indian hemp); food items; military and police uniforms, camouflage.
They were also alleged to have supplied , boots, caps and building materials, including bags of cement, cover zinc, bags of nails, M.M. iron rod, 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.
The offence, the federal government said, is
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.
The offence, the prosecution also said is contrary to Section 8 (1) (b) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 and punishable under the same section of the Act.

 

The Federal High Court (FHC) will, on April 16, commence its Easter vacation.

The Chief Judge of FHC, Justice John Tsoho, made this known on Monday in a statement signed by the Director of Information, Dr Catherine Christopher, in Abuja.

“The Federal High Court announces its 2025 Easter Vacation and Roster for Vacation Judges.

“The court shall proceed on its Easter Vacation from Wednesday the 16th day of April, 2025 to Monday the 28th day of April, 2025.

“This is pursuant to the provisions of Order 46, Rule 4 (C) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 (as amended).

“The Court resumes sitting on Tuesday, 29th April, 2025 in all Judicial Divisions,” he said.

Tsoho said during the vacation period, the Abuja, Lagos and Port-Harcourt Judicial Divisions would remain open to the public only for cases of extreme urgency.

“It is important to note that during the vacation, only matters relating to enforcement of fundamental rights; arrest or release of vessels and matters that concerns dire national interest are to be entertained by vacation judges,” he said.

The CJ said Justices Emeka Nwite and Musa Liman will be vacation judges at the Abuja Division, Justices Akintayo Aluko and Isaac Dipeolu will be for Lagos Division and Justices Phoebe Ayua and Adamu Mohammed will be presiding at Port-Harcourt Division.

“The vacation judges and heads of divisions are as usual advised to promptly refer to the Hon. Chief Judge all matters which they believe may require His Lordship’s urgent attention and directives.

“The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Honorable Justice John T. Tsoho, wishes his fellow lordships a wonderful Easter Celebration in advance,” the statement concluded.

 

 

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

In 1954 Sir John Verity lost his job because he won an argument. It was in his ninth year in office as Chief Justice of colonial Nigeria. Sir John arrived in Nigeria in October 1945 from British Guyana, where he had served in a similar position since 1941. At the time, Nigeria was still a unitary system under colonial rule.

Two years before Sir John’s arrival, the Native Courts (Colony) Ordinance of 1943 had created a “Supreme Court of Justice” for the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. Taslim Elias, the distinguished academic destined to play a significant role in the administration of law and courts in post-colonial Africa, described the structure of the colonial court system that Sir John met in Nigeria as comprising “a Supreme Court, which is the highest court for the territory. It consists of two parts, a Divisional Court and a Full Court (as in the West African colonies), or a High Court and a Court of Appeal (as in several other colonies such as Jamaica, Singapore and Kenya), or simply a High Court (as in Uganda and Northern Rhodesia).”

That system had existed with modest adaptation since the Amalgamation in 1914. In his Amalgamation Report in 1919, Frederick Lugard, Nigeria’s founding Governor-General, pointed out that the court system was made up of a Chief Justice and Puisne Judges who “sat at certain places and visited on Assize the ‘District Courts.’”

In 1951, six years into Sir John’s tenure as Chief Justice, the colonial government turned the country into a federation. Two years later, one of the issues to engage the constitutional conference that began in London was the implication of this new structure for judicial administration. As the conference began, the delegates – mostly politicians who preferred in the language of the day to be called “nationalists” – advocated the decentralisation of the judiciary. Sir John opposed the proposal, venturing with what proved to be accurate foresight, that such a step “might lead to judges and magistrates becoming tools in the hands of politicians” and “might eventually lead to the control of the judiciary by the Executive.”

The conference relocated to Lagos in 1954 where the politicians overwhelmingly approved the proposal to regionalise the judiciary. Having lost the fight over the future of the judiciary that he led, Sir John took an early retirement from the office of Chief Justice and became the penultimate English man in the role.

In the reorganisation of the court system that followed upon the conclusion of the constitutional conference, a Federal Supreme Court (FSC) was created in 1954. The regions had high courts from which appeals could go to the FSC. The highest court for the country remained the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.

By 1963, the nationalists fighting for independence one decade earlier had metamorphosed into political incumbents seeking control of the courts (like their colonial predecessors). The Privy Council had effectively ruled in favour of the opposition Action Group (AG) on the question of whether the regional governor could remove a renegade premier, Ladoke Akintola, without a formal vote in the regional parliament.

Confronted with the loss of a prized ally helpfully decimating the ranks of a loathed political foe (like a certain minister is doing today for the ruling party), the then-ruling federal coalition led by the Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC), legislated the Privy Council out of existence, abolished the Judicial Service Commission, and made the Supreme Court Nigeria’s apex court. Sir John’s prophecy had become reality.

Although the 1963 Constitution enabled the court to sit “in such other places in Nigeria as the Chief Justice of Nigeria may appoint”, the Supreme Court has functioned from its seat, first in Lagos when it was the capital city for the first three decades after independence and, thereafter, from Abuja, the current federal capital. The fortunes of the court have waxed and waned in symmetry with the political economy of Nigeria.

Unlike other courts in the country, there are no divisions of the Supreme Court and for much of its life, the Supreme Court was an all-comers affair for appeals “on questions of law.”

As the claims on the court’s judicial bandwidth rose and the political economy of the country grew more complex, it was predictable that its docket would increase. The sensible thing to do was to reform the law governing access to the Supreme Court – as well as its doctrine – to keep pace with the increasing demand for the rarefied attention of the court and preserve its authority. This was not done.

Instead, since the onset of the current elective dispensation in 1999, the Supreme Court has become preoccupied with electoral and political disputes. Among the many consequences of this, two are notable. First, the preoccupation of the court (and of the judiciary below it) with political and electoral disputes increasingly, tasks its credibility.

Second, the resulting prioritisation accorded by the court to political cases has created an intolerable backlog to which there is no sensible solution under the current system of judicial administration. The result is that appeals not involving senior politicians or election results vegetate interminably in the bowels of the Supreme Court with no reasonable chance of getting heard.

It is right that this situation should engage the attention of senior lawyers and senior politicians. Manu Soro, the member of the House of Representatives representing Darazo/Ganjuwa Federal Constituency of Bauchi State, has decided to bell the proverbial cat. On World Anti-Corruption Day, 9 December 2024, his bill for Supreme Court reform was gazetted.

The bill proposes – among other things – to authorise the establishment of five regional divisions of the Supreme Court, with the one in Abuja serving as the headquarters. The bill comes complete with a political geography of the proposed divisions: Umuahia (Abia State) to serve the south-east; Bauchi (Bauchi State) for the north-east; Uyo (Akwa Ibom) for the south-south; Lagos (Lagos State) for the south-west; and Kano (Kano State) for the north-west. The declared objective of the bill is “to enhance access to the highest(level of) justice, to minimise the logistical cost of accessing justice and to ensure timely dispensation of matters brought before the apex court.”

Commendable as it is for an initiative, this bill is plainly misguided for many reasons. First, it misconceives and mischaracterises the mission of the Supreme Court. Second, it has no diagnosis for the problems that ail the Supreme Court and, to the extent that it evinces any, offers no reasonable solution to them. Third, the bill offers a misplaced geographical and genealogical solution for a crisis of jurisdictional sclerosis and unimaginative judicial administration that it could not see.

The most charitable anyone can be about this bill is that it is hare-brained. The solution that it offers is guaranteed to make the situation worse, not better. It will also disestablish the court because a “Supreme Court,” that sits in judicial divisions will be neither apex nor supreme.

The crisis of appellate throughput and its consequences, which presently afflicts Nigeria’s Supreme Court is too serious to be banished to post-codes defined by geographies of genealogy. To address the problem, the supply of appeals to the court will need to be constrained significantly. The court’s administration should be overhauled and professionalised, and case management, too needs attention. The one thing the court cannot afford is precisely what this bill advocates – to cannibalise it into a collection of judicial Bantustans.

*A lawyer & a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu*

 

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), on Thursday, failed to call witness in support of its case in the petition by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the Sept. 21, 2024 governorship election in Edo, Asue Ighodalo.

INEC’s lawyer and former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Kanu Agabi, SAN, told the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja that his client did not intend to call witness.

The PDP and Ighodalo are challenging the outcome of the governorship poll in which INEC declared the All Progressives Congress (APC)’s candidate, Monday Okpebholo, as winner of the election.

INEC had, on Wednesday, pledged to commence calling witnesses from Thursday after tendering documents, including results of the election, a certified true copy (CTC) of the declaration of the results as well as a copy of INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of elections.

INEC’s lawyer, who appeared on Wednesday, Abdullahi Aliyu, SAN, had told the tribunal that his client planned to call five scheduled witnesses within five days as against the 10 days earlier allocated to it.

Aliyu said most of the witnesses would be coming from Benin in Edo to testify before the tribunal.

However, at the resumed sitting on Thursday, Agabi said the commission would not be calling witness.

“My lords, after we left you yesterday (Wednesday), we gave more thought to the matter and came to the conclusion that the sensible thing to do is to close the case of the first respondent, which we hereby do.”

Lawyer to the PDP and Ighodalo, Adetunji Oyeyipo, SAN, said he was not surprised about INEC’s decision not to call witnesses.

Oyeyipo said: “Frankly speaking, we are not surprised and it is well within the right of the first respondent to show such a good discretion. We are not objecting.”

Lawyers to Gov. Okpebholo and APC, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, and Donald Dewigwe, SAN, said they were not oppose to INEC’s decision.

Ikpeazu subsequently requested the court to allow his client open his case on Monday, a request the tribunal acceded to and adjourned till Monday.

Assessing Thursday’s proceedings, a PDP chieftain and former ex-Commissioner for Digital Economy, Science and Technology in Edo State, Ogbeide Ifaluyi-Isibor, said INEC not calling witnesses means they could not defend the victory of Okpebholo.

Ifaluyi-Isibor argued that INEC could not afford to call any witness because they knew they cannot fine anybody to defend what is not true.

He added: “The PDP won the election with lawful majority votes, as we have consistently maintained.”

Meanwhile, APC chieftain and former Deputy Governor of Edo State, Phillip Shuaibu argued that there was nothing unusual in INEC’s decision not to call any witness.

Shuaibu said from his experience in election litigation, a party chooses his strategy and since INEC felt it was of no use calling any witness, that should not be construed to imply that it has no defence.

“INEC has done what I expected it to do. It declared results and tendered the results yesterday. And that is all,” he said.