Tag: Court

Flowerbudnews

The Initiative Against Human Rights Abuse and Torture (INAHURAT) on Friday, called on the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police to order an investigation into allegations of unlawful arrest and detention of a foreigner, Mr Benjamin Rulisa.

The Director, Legal Affairs of INAHURAT, Mr Maxwell Opara, made the call in a statement he signed and made available to newsmen in Abuja.

Opara urged the I-G to immediately identify, investigate, and discipline all the officers involved in the act.

“In light of the undeniable facts, the illegal actions of these officers, and the blatant disregard for human rights, we are calling on the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to order a comprehensive and independent investigation into this case, ensuring justice is served.

“The Nigerian judiciary to ensure a fair and just trial, free from manipulation by the officers responsible for this violation.

“The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and international human rights bodies to take appropriate action to hold the perpetrators accountable and prevent future occurrences,” he said.

The lawyer alleged that Rulisa, a Rwandan businessman, was allegedly detained and torture by officers of the Nigerian Police Force IGP Monitoring Unit and Intelligence Response Team (IRT).

He alleged that his client, who deals in honey, was invited to Nigeria following a business acquaintance in March 2023 in Nairobi, Kanya.

He said after he arrived in Nigeria, and while in his hotel room, he was allegedly arrested and taken away.

He alleged that Rulisa was detained for about six months and subjected to inhuman treatment.

He said though he was accused of defrauding someone, no formal complaint, evidence or proof was presented against him.

“A Nigerian detainee, after hearing Mr Benjamin’s ordeal, took it upon himself to inform the authorities.

“Upon his release, he wrote a petition to the I-G, exposing the illegal activities of the officers.

“The IGP, upon being notified, ordered the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) to retrieve the case file and commence an independent investigation,” he said.

The lawyer alleged that the SIU’s findings confirmed that Rulisa had been subjected to unlawful detention.

“Realising that their misconduct had been uncovered, the said officers of IGP Monitoring Unit hastily filed baseless criminal charges against Mr Benjamin, containing no proof of evidence except statements from the same officers who tortured him.

“This last-minute attempt to legitimise their abuse of power was simply a move to distract from their illegal activities and avoid consequences,” Opara said.

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, convicted and sentenced a woman, Benedicta Usen, also known as Mrs Carol Omomoh, to a five-year imprisonment without option of fine for trafficking a lady for prostitution.

Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a judgment, said he found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of each and every allegation in the eight-count charge.

Justice Ekwo consequently sentenced Omomoh to two years and six months imprisonment each in counts one, three, five and seven without an option of fine.
The judge also sentenced her in counts two, four, six and eight to five years imprisonment each without an option of fine.

He ordered that all the jail terms must run concurrently with effect from Feb 3.
Justice Ekwo observed that Omomoh’s denials in the face of her evidence-in-chief as 1st defence witness (DW1) only exposed her “as a barefaced liar, a crooked and dishonest human being.”

According to the judge, to even have the audacity to stand in court and deny the statement she made voluntarily to the police shows how depraved she is.
“The evidence also exposes her as being in the business of procuring young vulnerable women like Miss Cynthia Omoieke for prostitution abroad.
“People like the defendant must be taken out of the society for good.
“I therefore make an order convicting the defendant of the charge In counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 as charged.
“This is the order of this court,” the judge ruled.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/121/2019, named Omomoh as sole defendant.
In the eight-count amended charge dated Oct 24, 2022, the I-G alleged that the defendant Omomoh and Mrs Oyomiya Lamidi ‘f’ (now at large), sometime in year 2011 in Lagos, conspired between themselves to commit the offence by recruiting and transporting Miss Cynthia Loveth Ese Omoieke to Italy through the United Kingdom (UK) by means of deception and abuse of position of vulnerability.

The offence is punishable under Section 27 of the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration (TPPEA) Act, 2015.
In count five, she and Mrs Oyomiya Mama Lamidi ‘f’ (now at large), sometime in 2011 in Lagos, did conspired to commit an offence by organising and facilitating the foreign travel of Omoieke to Italy through the UK which travel promoted prostitution and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 27 of the TPPEA Act, 2015.
Omomoh, however, pleaded not guilty to all the counts and the prosecution called two witnesses to establish its case against her.

 

President Bola Tinubu on Monday, prayed a Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit seeking his removal for being incompetent.

President Tinubu and Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), in a joint preliminary objection, also argued that the plaintiff, Olukoya Ogungbeje, had failed to disclose any cause of action against them.

They told the court to alternatively strike out the suit as Ogungbeje, a legal practitioner, lacked the locus standi (legal right)!to institute the suit.

The president and the AGF, in the application field by Sanusi Musa, SAN, also prayed the court for “an order striking out this suit in limine on the ground that this honourable court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same,

“An order striking out this suit for being incompetent as this suit is not initiated by due process of law having been initiated under a wrong procedure.”

Giving 18-ground of arguments, the duo submitted that the plaintiff’s question one for determination is in respect of alleged breach of fundamental right of non-disclosed Nigerians.

They said that by the provision of Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), only the person whose right is breached has the locus to file an action before the court for redress.

“Pursuant to the provision of Section 46 (3), the Chief Justice of Nigeria has {brought into being the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 which makes ample provision of the procedure to follow in filing an action with respect to breach of the Fundamental Rights of any Nigerian.”

They said the plaintiff’s question two and three for determination are in respect of the alleged breach of the 1999 Constitution by the 1st defendant (president) vis-a-vis Section 143 of the said constitution.

According to them, in the instant case, the plaintiff has not disclosed any breach of his fundamental right by the defendants, among other arguments.

They, therefore, urged the court to discountenance the suit.

Also in a counter affidavit deposed to by Gbenga Oladimeji, a Principal State Counsel, Federal Ministry of Justice, he averred that contrary to Ogungbeje’s depositions, the present government under President Tinubu had been a promoter of democratic tenets.

Besides, he said the president had been allowing people to air their grievances and conduct peaceful protest.

“I know as a fact that the protest conducted between 1st August, 2024 and 10th August, 2024 was peaceful, as there was a Court Order limiting the protesters to demonstrate within a confined location,” he said.

Oladimeji said during the period of the protest, the security agents under the control of the president were present to protect the protesters from any acts of hijack by hoodlums and to achieve a peaceful protest.

“I know as a fact that the 1st defendant (the president) has always ensured that law and order are adhered to strictly by the security agencies and institutions of the arm of government,” he said

“Contrary to the deposition in paragraph 26 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, I know as a fact that the 1st defendant has not violated any provision of his oath of office and allegiance.

“There has been no breach on his part that would warrant his impeachment from office as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” he said.

Ogungbeje had, in the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1334/2024, sued the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria and AGF as 1st and 2nd defendants.

In the suit dated Aug. 28, 2024 and filed on Sept. 4, 2024, the lawyer sought six reliefs.

The plaintiff prayed the court for an order compelling the National Assembly to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bola over alleged fundamental rights violation.

He said the NASS is guaranteed by Section 143 of the Constitution to immediately initiate and set machinery in motion for impeachment proceedings.

He sought a declaration that the alleged persistent’s suppression of peaceful protests organised by Nigerian citizens from the 1st of August, 2024 to the 10th of August, 2024 constituted a gross misconduct to ground impeachment proceedings against the 1st defendant.

When the matter was called on Monday, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Stanley Okonmah, said he was served with the defendants’ preliminary objection and a counter affidavit on Jan. 30.

Okonmah, therefore, sought an adjournment to enable him respond to the applications appropriately.

Musa, who represented the defendants, did not object and Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter until March 4 for hearing.

 

An erstwhile supporter of Asue Ighodalo for Governor, Mr. John Mayaki, has accused the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) of stage-managing the video recording of the allegations that its witnesses at the Edo State Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja were threatened by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) members

Mayaki, who was reacting to a video being circulated by supporters of Ighodalo on the alleged threats to their witnesses in a statement on Sunday, said the allegations were untrue.

“It is glaring that the video was concocted among themselves to fake a threat to their witnesses. If they can do this, there’s nothing stopping them from faking INEC documents in the ongoing election petition tribunal,” he alleged.

He condemned the supporters of the PDP candidate for recording themselves and faking threats against their witnesses to blame the APC.

His words: “This antic is well known already. If they can fake threats, what else are they not capable of faking? You can now see that their election claims and the credibility of their witnesses are all fake.

“When you listen to the video, someone was heard saying, ‘Cut the video, let us record another one.’ What do you call that? Is that not a stage-managed recording of the same people threatening themselves in the guise of the ruling party?

“And just imagine the timing. Just as their counsel told the court about threats to their witnesses, they have taken a step further to cook up a video. Of course, the counsel of the APC told him what to do if, in reality, any threat exists.

“I challenge the PDP to produce the phone number of the person who called to threaten them and also approach the security agencies for a full investigation rather than seeking public sympathy with a self-made video to discredit the ruling party. What the PDP has done defies logic and common sense.

“I have listened to the video, and I can say that the call was not natural, as there were noticeable dialogues and suspicious cuts. It should be ignored as the sheer amateurish desperation of the PDP, their candidate, and their supporters.”

 

Sen. Adams Oshiomhole, on Friday, refrained from making comments on the ongoing hearing of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s petition at the Edo Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja.

Oshiomhole, who represents the Edo North Senatorial District, refused to comment on his observation of the proceedings while fielding questions from newsmen.

“You know you don’t comment on matters in court. I came to watch, to observe the proceedings and I am satisfied that the proceedings are going well.

“It is not for me to do any evaluation that is the prerogative and absolute responsibility of the tribuna.

“Well, I cannot comment on it,” he simply responded.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the hearing of the petition filed by the PDP and its governorship candidate, Asue Ighodalo, continued with the presentation of their 16th witness.

The witness, Haruna Ibrahim, told Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member panel that he served as a polling unit agent during the Sept. 21, 2024 election that was held in the state.
He told the tribunal that though the election was properly conducted, he observed some irregularities in the form of over-voting and immediately complained to officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at the polling unit.
Ibrahim mounted the box shortly after Oshiomhole, who is also a former governor of Edo, arrived at the venue of the tribunal to show solidarity with Gov. Monday Okpebholo.
Okpebholo is the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) who was declared the winner of the governorship contest by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The immediate-past Deputy Governor of Edo, Philip Shaibu, who had since defected from the PDP to the APC, was also at the tribunal to observe proceedings.
NAN reports that the tribunal had, on Thursday, admitted in evidence, 148 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System Machines (BVAS) that were used during the conduct of the disputed governorship poll.
The electronic devices were tendered by a Senior Technical Officer in the ICT Department of INEC, Anthony Itodo, and admitted in evidence by the panel.
The petitioners had subpoenaed INEC to produce the BVAS machines that were used in 133 polling units where election results are being disputed.
INEC had declared that Okpebholo of the APC secured a total of 291, 667 votes to defeat his closest rival, Ighodalo of the PDP, who got a total of 247, 655 votes.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the poll, the PDP and its candidate approached the tribunal, praying it to nullify INEC’s declaration of the APC and Okpebholo as winners of the contest.
The petitioners, among other things, contended that the governorship election was invalid because of alleged non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

Flowerbudnews

A Zenith Bank Plc staff, Eucharia Ezeodi, and a director with the federal civil service, Felix Nweke, on Friday, testified against Anamekwe Nnabuoku, former acting Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF), in the alleged N1.96 billion fraud.
They gave their testimonies before Justice James Omotosho of a Federal High Court in Abuja, while being led in evidence by counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ekele Iheanacho, SAN.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Nnabuoku was admitted to a N500 million bail with two sureties in the like sum after he was arraigned on Jan. 15 on a nine-count amended charge.
The EFCC had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/240/2024, listed Nnabuoku as sole defendant.
In count one of the charge filed on Nov. 27, 2024, the EFCC alleged that Nnabuoku, alongside Temeeo Synergy Concept Limited (at large), Turge Global Investment Limited (at large), Laptev Bridge Limited, Arafura Transnational Afro Limited (at large) and other persons (all at large) conspired to convert funds.
The funds were said to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
The anti-graft agency said the offence was contrary to Section 18 of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, 2011 as (amended by Act No. 1 of 2012) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
Giving her evidence, Ezeodi, the 1st prosecution witness (PW-1), admitted knowing the latter while he was a director in the Federal Ministry of Defence.
“I am a banker with Zenith Bank. My office is at Ralph Shodeinde Street, Central Business District in Abuja.
“I have worked for 15 years. I am a marketer in the bank. My duty is to generate business, bring new customers to the bank, etc,” she said.
The witness said sometimes in 2019, she met Nnabuoku at Federal Ministry of Defence as a Director of Finance and Account.
“I know him through Mr Felix Nweke,” she said.
She said sometimes in 2022, she was invited by the EFCC in respect of the corporate accounts opened for the four companies allegedly used by Nnabuoku to move money out of the ministry’s coffers.
She said the companies include Temeeo Synergy Concept Limited, Turge Global Investment Limited, Laptev Bridge Limited and Arafura Transnational Afro Limited.
The PW-1 said she was questioned about what she knew about the accounts and those behind the opening.
She said the accounts, which were opened in 2019, had Mr Gideon Joseph as signatory.
“In 2019, I met them with Mr Nweke, I open the corporate account for them for Arafura Ltd, Theo Synergy Ltd,
She said in the course of her interaction with Mr Nweke, she also met Nnabuoku.
The witness identified the bank documents, including the statements of account for the four companies, account opening packages, the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC)’s documents, her signature on the documents, etc.
Iheanacho tendered all the documents and after it was not opposed by the defendant’s lawyer, Isidore Udenko, the judge admitted them in evidence.
During cross examination by Udenko, the banker said she had no personal relationship with Nnabuoku except on bank transactions.
When she was asked if Nnabuoku’s name reflected in any of the transactions, the witness said a director must not necessarily be a signatory to a company’s account.
She, however, said that a signatory to an account must bring his Identity Card, a Bank Verification Number (BVN), passport photograph, among others, which she said Joseph did.
Ezeodi said the nature of transactions in the account statements was simply deposit and withdrawal and that Mr Gideon Joseph did all the withdrawals, although Nnabuoku allegedly benefitted.
Also giving his evidence, Mr Felix Nweke said he worked under Nnabuoku when he was in Defence Ministry as deputy director.
“I am a civil servant and presently a director with federal civil service. I am in the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation awaiting posting,” he said.
Nweke said between 2018 and 2020, he was a deputy director in charge of expenditure at the Defence Ministry.
He said part of his function was to prepare schedule of inflows and outflows that were due to the services (i.e the Army, Navy and the Air Force).
He said when he resumed in the ministry in 2018, Nnabuoku told him that there was the need to make funds available to facilitate the stakeholders, the National Assembly and the Federal Ministry of Finance.
The witness said the defendant told him that they needed to be creative with regards to generating funds to facilitate the activities of the ministry.
He said the defendant told him that they needed to get companies through which funds could be pulled out and to be able to raise money and service the stakeholders in the ministry.
Nweke, who is the 2nd prosecution witness (PW-2), said he then contacted Gideon Joseph who comes to the ministry with his brother at the time to make supply.
He said though Joseph wanted him to assist in giving him contracts, Nweke said he told him that issues of contract were not within his purview.
He said he told Nnabuoku about Joseph and he advised that they should help him (Joseph).
“I took Gideon to Eucharia who has been coming to the ministry for business. I assisted him to open account with Zenith Bank,” he said.
The PW-2 said the banker assisted in opening the four accounts with Joseph’s name as signatory.
“When we go to public hearing and the National Assembly, after the hearing, we would have a private sitting where we discussed the need to raise the money for the ministry,” he said.
He said they would raise money either in naira or foreign currencies
He alleged that the money was then given to Nnabuoku either directly or by proxy.
“Sometimes, the director will ask me to do some transfers to private persons,” he said.
Nweke said the generated funds were often used for welfare packages for the military because there was no such provision.
When the EFCC’s lawyer asked him how the funds were paid into these accounts, Nweke said the money “is from the internal security operations account of the military.”
When asked who paid the money into the internal security operations account, the witness said “it is from the ministry’s account that payments were made.”
The witness mentioned about five names from the bank documents who were workers in the Ministry of Defence.
He alleged that funds were also transferred into the bank accounts of these staff members and withdrawals were made and the money paid back into the four companies’ accounts where Nnabuoku was allegedly the beneficiary.
After a cross examination by Nnabuoku’s lawyer, Udenko, Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter until Feb 26 and March 5 for continuation of trial.

 

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Nyanya, on Tuesday cautioned Khalit Jatau, a lawyer to Mr Kabiru Turaki, former Special Duties and Inter-Governmental Affairs Minister, over frivolous adjournment in his paternity dispute suit.

Justice Aliyu Shafa ordered Jatau to put his house in order ahead of the next adjourned date.

The development occurred shortly after the matter was called
Jatau had told the court that he was informed by his principal that the matter had been transferred to Kwali High Court and the matter fixed for March 27.

“I had to come to the court (High Court Nyanya) yesterday to verify at the registry,, but I was told that the matter would be coming up today before Justice Shafa.
“Due to the misinformation, I am not adequately prepared for the matter,” he said.
Justice Shafa told Jatau that it was only the chief judge of the court that had the power to reassign a matter to another court.
The judge, therefore, ordered the counsel to go and put his house in order, confirm whether the case is actually in Kwali and report back to the court in the next adjourned date
The defendants’ lawyer, Sani Idriss, expressed surprise at the development.
Justice Shafa consequently adjourned the matter until March 18 for hearing.
Justice Shafa had, on Oct. 22, 2024, refused Turaki’s application seeking to stop a woman, Uwani Arabi and two others from further making any form of publications about a paternity dispute between them.
The judge, in a ruling, refused the motion on the ground that the ex-minister had sought similar prayer in the main suit.
Justice Shafa held among others that granting the prayer sought in the motion would amount to deciding the substantive case.
The judge, however, granted an order for accelerated hearing in the substantive suit and adjourned the matter for definite hearing.
Turaki, in the main suit marked: CV/189/2024, had accused Arabi, her ex-husband, Musa Baffa and her daughter, Hadiza, of defaming him.
The ex-minister alleged that the defendants raised allegations of sexual impropriety against him to the extent of claiming he fathered a child through Hadiza.
In a supporting affidavit, Turaki stated that the interim restraining order was necessary to stop the defendants from further spreading false information against him during the pendency of the substantive suit.
Turaki, who is claiming damages in several millions of naira against the defendants, said he was a benefactor to Arabi and Hadiza because he took responsibility of paying her fees while she schooled in Baze University, Abuja and assisted her mother too financially.
He denied allegations of sexual impropriety allegedly raised against him by the defendants, stating that he only fell out with the mother and daughter because he stopped Hadiza from further visiting him when her alleged criminal acts became unbearable for him.
In their joint statement of defence, the defendants denied defaming the ex-minister, insisting that he was the one who volunteered to sponsor Hadiza’s university education.
They also denied that Hadiza was involved in some criminal acts, alleging that the former minister took advantage of her by sleeping with her until she became pregnant.
The defendants stated that “none of them made slanderous allegation or defamed the character of the claimant but rather, it was the claimant that slandered and defamed the reputable name of their family by breaching the trust of their family.”
They claimed that the claimant “is frustrating investigation into the matter, more especially when it came to his knowledge that the only way to know the truth of the matter is by conducting DNA test.
“The defendants aver that the Investigation Police Officers are of the same opinion that since it is a matter that involves paternity of a baby girl, only DNA Test can resolve the issue between the claimant and the defendants.
“The defendants, at the trial of this suit, will rely on all the voice messages, conversation, WhatsApp chats, medical reports and any other documents closely or remotely related to this case,” they averred.

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday, ordered Sen. Iyabo Obasanjo, the eldest daughter of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, to appear in court to show cause why she should not be stopped from trespassing into an Abuja landed property.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the property is located at Plot 4254, Cadastral Zone A04, measuring approximately 1.67Ha in Asokoro District, FCT, Abuja.

Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling on an ex-parte motion moved by counsel to the plaintiffs, Abniyilo Na’allah; also ordered the former Senator representing the FCT, Philip Aduda, and five other co-defendants to appear before the court in the next adjourned date.

Other defendants named in the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/67/202 include Ismail Iron, John Mbata, Jamaila Sani Alhassan, Altine Jibrin, and unknown persons as 3rd to 7th defendants respectfully.

“A motion ex-parte for an order for interim injunction dated 13th January, 2025 and field 17th January, 2925, is moved.

“Upon studying the prayers and averments in support of the motion ex-parte and the averments in the affidavit of urgency, I am of the opinion that the prayers are not such that can be granted without hearing from the defendants.
“I hereby make an order that the plaintiffs/applicants should put the defendants on notice within seven days of this order and the defendants to show cause why the prayers sought should not be grated,” Justice Ekwo ruled.

However, the judge granted the prayer in the second ex-parte motion equally moved by Na’allah seeking for an order of substituted service of all the originating processes and other court documents on the defendants through publication in two national dailies.
Earlier, the lawyer submitted that the defendants/respondents’ addresses and occupation were not known to them at the time of filing the substantive suit which is pending before thie court.
He alleged that the defendants/respondents are always seen on Plot 4254, Cadastral Zone A04 at Asokoro in Asokoro District of Abuja.
He said services of the originating processes and all other court processes on the defendants/respondents would become very difficult and impossible since there addresses were not known to them.
The lawyer said it would occasion unnecessary delay to effect service personally on the defendants/respondents, urging the court to grant their relief.
Justice Ekwo, who directed the plaintiffs to effect the service of the processes on the defendants within seven days of the order through publication, adjourned the matter until March 6 for defendants to show cause why the interim.order should not be granted.
NAN reports that the plaintiffs; ABB Electrical Systems Limited and Chief Amb. Yohana Y.D. Margif are 1st and 2nd plaintiffs or applicants in the motion dated Jan. 13 but filed Jan. 17 by Na’allah.
The applicants sought an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from entering, trespassing, altering or modifying the property known as Plot 4254, Cadastral Zone A04, measuring approximately 1.67Ha, Asokoro, Asokoro District FCT-Abuja belonging to the plaintiffs pending the hearing and determination of the suit
In their six-ground argument, the applicants said they were agitated with the fear of the defendants entering, trespassing, altering or modifying the property belonging to them given the alleged imminent threat made by the defendants on the land to forcefully take possession and ownership from them.
They said they are the rightful owners of the land by virtue of the statutory Right of Occupancy granted to them
“That the plaintiffs/applicants have been in quiet and peaceful possession of the land without any challenge from the defendants/respondents or anyone at all.
“It will occasion serious miscarriage of justice against the plaintiffs/applicants if the defendants/respondents are allowed to tamper with, enter, trespass, alter or modify the property belonging to the plaintiffs.
“Allowing the defendants/respondents to tamper with, enter, trespass, alter or modify the property belonging to the plaintiffs will destroy the res and render the judgment of this court nugatory,” they said.
The applicants said irreparable damage would be caused to them if the defendants were not restrained.
Chief Margif, in the affidavit he deposed to, said the company (1st plaintiff) was allocated the parcel of land by the Federal Capital Development Adminstration (FCDA) covered by a Statutory Right of Occupancy with new issued date of May 23, 2006.
He said the company intended to start developing the said land in compliance with terms contained on the statutory Right of Occupancy and other guiding rules and laws within the FCT.
He alleged that the recent activities of the defendants, including Sen. Obasanjo, who represented Ogun Central Senatorial District between 2007 and 2011, had become worrisome.
Margif prayed the court to grant their application in the interest of justice.

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed March 12 for judgment in suit seeking to stop Minister of FCT, Nyesom Wike, and the Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB) from arresting and prosecuting Commercial Sex Workers (CSWs) in Abuja.

Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after counsel for the plaintiffs and the defence presented their arguments for and against the case.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the plaintiff, under the auspices of the Incorporated Trustee of Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protecting the Rights of Children, Women and the Indigent, had instituted the suit.

The group sued the AEPB, FCT Minister, Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.
The originating summons was brought pursuant to Order 3, Rule 6 and 9 of the FHC (Civil Procedure Rules, 2019; Sections 6(6)(b), 41(1), and 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and under the inherent jurisdiction of tye court.
In the suit dated and filed on May 14, 2024, by a team of lawyers led by Rommy Mom, Bamidele Jacobs and Victor Eboh, the group sought two questions.
The lawyers want the court to determine whether the duties of the AEPB under Section 6 of the AEPB Act, 1997, extends to the harassment, arrest, detention and prosecution of women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
“Whether by the provision of Section 35 (1) (d) of the AEPB Act, 1997, women can be regarded as articles or their bodies regarded as goods for purchase.
The lawyers, therefore, sought a declaration that the charge made by the personnel of the AEPB before the FCT Mobile Court, which referred to arrested women suspected of engaging in sex work as ‘articles’ and considered their bodies as ‘goods for purchase,’ is discriminatory and violated the provisions of Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution.
They sought a declaration that the duties of the board does not extend to the harassment, arrest and raid of women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
They also sought a declaration that neither Section 6 of the AEPB Act, 1997, nor any extant laws of the country, authorise the board to arrest women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
They further sought a declaration that Section 35(1) (d) of the AEPB Act, 1997, does not refer to women as ‘articles’ or their bodies regarded as ‘goods for purchase.’
The lawyers, therefore, prayed the court for an order restraining the AEPB, its agents or privies, from harassing, arresting and raiding women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
They sought an order restraining the 1st respondent, her agents or privies from prosecuting women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja under Section 35(1) (d) of the AEPB Act, 1997.
They equally sought an order directing all the respondents to ensure proper application of the provisions of Abuja Environmental Protect Act, 1997, by the 1st respondent. .
A Project Assistant with R.A. Mom and Associates, Ayomide Joshua, in the affidavit she deposed to, said the applicant is a non-partisan and non-profit human rights organisation.
She said the organisation has as its objectives, among others, the provision of free legal services to vulnerable women in Nigeria.
She said the group had rendered assistance to over 200 women in Abuja on account of their being harassed, arrested and prosecuted before mobile courts by AEPB.
She said the group had provided pro bono legal assistance to vulnerable women who were raided, harassed, arrested and prosecuted by officers of the AEPB on suspicion of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja.
She averred that in 2019, the lawyers rendered free legal assistance to more than 30 women whose rights were allegedly violated by AEPB and the Nigeria Police Force.
“A copy of the judgement of one of the cases that the applicant filed on behalf of the victims of the 1st respondent is hereby attached and marked as Exhibit A,” she said.
The worker said that these women were suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja, leading to their harassment, arrest and prosecution by AEPB under Section 35 (1) (d) of the AEPB Act, 1997.
She said the above-mentioned cases are of both national and international concerns, involving international organisations such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, and the Open Society Fund, along with over 30 local organisations
She said though the women were prosecuted relying on Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, she said the section states that “any person who sells, displays, offers, or carries for sale any goods or articles of trade at a road junction or any other unauthorised place is guilty of an offence.”
She alleged that AEPB had normalised the use of the police and other security agencies to arrest, harass and prosecute several women suspected to be engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja under the section.
She said that the women who are arrested often do not have any goods for sale or wares on them.
She said AEPB, at the time of prosecuting these women, frequently accuses them of prostitution and selling their bodies.
She said AEPB had maintained that it only arrests sex workers who are found standing on the streets of Abuja, waiting for their male clients.
“These women are often arrested alone, while the male counterparts are pardoned, despite being found in the same place at the same time,” she said.
According to her, the women are usually arrested with the assistance of the police and are not permitted to contact any relatives.
She said the determination of the case in favour of the applicant would put an end to the continuous harassment, intimidation and arrest of vulnerable women in Abuja by the board.
She said the rights of these women are being violated by the board.
“I know as a fact this violation stems from the 1st respondent’s demeaning comparison of these women bodies to articles or goods displaced for sale.”
She said before instituting the matter, a pre-action notice dated Feb. 16, 2021, was served on AEPB
She said it would be in the interest of justice to grant their reliefs.
But in a counter affidavit jointly filed by the minister, AEPB and FCTA by their lawyer, Betty Umegbulem, the respondents denied all the averments in the applicant’s affidavit
Ahmed Gidado, a Legal Assistant, who deposed to the counter affidavit, said the applicant did not file any case against the 1st to 3rd respondents in 2019.
Gidado argued that the exhibit attached therein was for a case filed by one Ms Mirabel Ojimba and not the applicant.
He said the copy of the judgment attached was not complete as the last pages were missing.
According to him, this honourable court cannot rely on a judgment which is not signed by the presiding judge and duly certified.
He said the applicant did not present any evidence to prove that any woman was harassed or arrested by the AEPB.
He said contrary to the applicant’s argument, the police officers are authorised, by law, to arrest any person they suspect to have committed an offence for the purpose of bringing him or her before a court of law for prosecution.
He said such suspect too has the right to defend himself or raise any objection for his or her arrest at trial before a court.
Gidado said all the information contained therein was hypothetical and speculative since applicant was not the person arrested and the source of the information was not disclosed by the deponent.
He argued that the applicant did not state how its fundamental human rights were violated and which of the rights was violated by the 1st to 3rd respondents to warrant filing of the action.
The officer averred that the applicant was not the person whose fundamental human rights were allegedly violated by the 1st to 3rd respondents.
“The person (s) alleged to have been harassed, arrested or raided by the 1st to 3rd respondents are not before the court to narrate their side of the story,” he added.
He said the applicant did not present any facts to support the assertion that the 1st to 3rd respondents have always harassed and prosecuted women in Abuja.
Gidado said the applicant did not specifically mention the rights (as outlined in Chapter IV of the Constitution) violated by the 1st to 3rd respondents to enable the respondents to reply to the issues appropriately.
Gidado, who argued that the applicant’s prayers were not in line with the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, said fundamental human right cannot be enforced by another person who is not the victim of violation.
Also, the AGF, in his counter affidavit deposed to by Barnabas Onoja, a Litigation Officer, argued that all the facts, as presented by the applicant, were untrue and misleading.
Onoja said contrary to the applicant’s submission, the AGF never received any pre-action notice from the applicant and that his office was only aware of the present suit upon the receipt of the processes.
He said the AGF does not act as a supervisory officer over the activities of every security or federal government agency.