Tag: Court

A lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, on Friday, retracted the alleged defamatory statements made against Umar Damagun, acting National Chairman of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and Sen. Samuel Anyanwu, the acting National Secretary.

Adeyanju, in a letter dated Dec. 6 written from his law firm, Deji Adeyanju & Partners, and signed by Zainab Otega, a lawyer, tendered an apology for the perceived defamation.

Otega, in the letter addressed to Johnson Usman, SAN, counsel to Damagun and Anyanwu, said the “statements were not intended to defame your clients.”
She further said that “any perception of defamation in the said statements is regretted and withdrawn with apologies.”

The letter reads: “We are solicitors to Deji Adeyanju, Esq (hereinafter referred to as our client), on whose instruction we act.

“Our client is in receipt of two letters from the law firm of the revered Senior Advocate of Nigeria, J. J. Usman, alleging that some statements he made on a podcast a few weeks ago were deemed defamatory of Damagun and Anyanwu, the National Chairman and Secretary of the PDP respectively.

“Our client’s statements on the podcast were taken out of the bigger context of the conversation which is the need for the leadership of the People’s Democratic Party to provide a virile opposition to the ruling party.

“These statements were not intended to defame your clients, and any perception of defamation in the said statements is regretted and withdrawn with apologies.

“As a human rights activist, our client remains committed to the betterment of Nigeria and will continue to urge those in leadership to prioritise the interest of Nigerians over and above personal interest.”

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) had, on Wednesday, reported that Damagun and Anyanwu, through their lawyer, had threatened to sue Adeyanju over allegations bordering on defamation if he failed to apologise.

Damagun and Anyanwu had, in two separate letters, accused Adeyanju of describing them as “tea man” and “Kilishi man” respectively on a podcast interview.

The activist was said to have described Damagun as “a Tea man who goes to serve tea in Femi Gbajabiamila’s House.”

He was also said to have described Anyanwu as “a Kilishi Man who goes to serve ‘Kilishi’ at the residence of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila,” in the interview.
Adeyanju was also accused of alleging that Damagun and Anyanwu had failed to lead PDP as credible opposition party in the country.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Friday, set aside the order of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), suspending Mr Muhuyi Magaji, the Chairman, Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission (PCACC).

A three-member panel of justices, in the lead judgment read by Justice Umaru Fadawu, also ordered that the matter be re-assigned to another panel of the CCT.

Justice Fadawu, in the verdict, agreed with the arguments of Magaji’s counsel, Mr Adeola Adedipe, SAN, that the tribunal’s order was prejudicial and amounted to his client’s denial of fair hearing.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the CCT had, on April 4 in Abuja, ordered the suspension of Magaji from office.

The three-member tribunal, headed by the embattled Justice Danladi Umar, gave the order following allegations of misconduct preferred against Magaji by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

In his ruling, Justice Umar, who dismissed Magaji’s motion, held that the tribunal had the competence and jurisdiction to hear the case.
He further directed Gov. Abba Yusuf of Kano State and the Secretary to the State Government (SSG) to appoint the most appropriate officer to take over as acting chairman of the commission, pending the hearing and determination of the case.
He further held that Magaji cannot continue to discharge the duties and responsibilities of his office while facing trial, to avoid any interference with the case.
But dissatisfied with the ruling, Magaji, through his counsel, Mr Adedipe, approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja.
In the notice of appeal dated and filed April 5 by Adedipe, the senior lawyer gave five grounds why the appeal should be allowed and the CCT’s ruling be set aside by the appellate court.
He argued that the CCT erred in law, when it denied his client a right to fair trial, fair hearing and right to be presumed innocent, by making an order directing him to step aside as the chairman of PCACC, thereby determining his guilt, at an interlocutory stage.
He described the ruling as “a miscarriage of justice.”
He also argued that the tribunal erred in law, when without the requisite jurisdiction, it granted the reliefs sought by CCB, giving specific orders to Gov. Yusuf and SSG, “knowing full well that they are not parties to the present charge as constituted; it thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”
He further said that the tribunal erred in law when it adjudged Magaji as capable of interfering with CCB’s witnesses in PCACC, even though no material evidence was put forward to support such a speculative claim.
The lawyer argued that the tribunal erred in law when it acted without jurisdiction and denied the embattled PCACC boss of a right to fair trial by making far-reaching findings which were speculative and prejudicial in nature.
Moreover, Adedipe submitted that the CCT erred in law, acted without jurisdiction and denied Magaji a right to fair hearing, when suo motu, it raised and determined issues of purported contradictions his counter affidavit, and further insisted he conceded to the speculative facts in CCB’s further and better affidavit.
Adedipe, in a motion on notice with charge number: CCT/KN/01/2023 dated and filed on April 5 before the tribunal, also sought an order for stay of execution of the order delivered on April 4 pending the determination of the appeal lodged at the Appeal Court.
Besides, he also sought an order of injunction restraining the CCB from executing, implementing the orders and decisions made by the tribunal, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

The CCB had, on Nov. 16, 2023, arraigned Magaji before the CCT on a 10-count charge bordering on alleged conflict of interest, false declaration of assets, among others.

Magaji, who pleaded not guilty to all the counts was admitted to bail in the sum of N5 million with two sureties.
However, Magaji in a motion filed by Adedipe, challenged the competence of the CCB to prosecute him..

Dr Fabian Ihekweme, a former Commissioner for Foreign and International Affairs in Imo, has filed a N5 million suit against the Nigerian Police Force at the Federal High Court in Abuja over alleged unlawful arrest and detention.

Ihekweme, who was a commissioner in the first term of Gov. Hope Uzodinma, filed the suit marked: FHC/ABI/CS/1809/2024 through his lawyer, Kingdom Okere on Monday.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the fundamental rights enforcement suit, dated and filed on Dec. 2, listed the Nigerian Police Force and Commissioner of Police (CP), Imo State Command, as 1st and 2nd respondents.

The applicant seeks an order of perpetual injunction restraining the police from further arresting, threat of adoption, detention, intimidation, assault and harassing him over frivolous and unsubstantiated allegation concerning his fundamental rights to freedom of expression.
He also wants an order of the court compelling and directing the defendants to immediately release or grant him bail, pending investigation or charge him to court, as stipulated in Sections 35(4) and (5) and 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.
He seeks “a declaration that his arrest on November 28, 2024 in Abuja in most strange, intimidating, threatening, embarrassing, bizarre and gestapo manner by the Police in Imo State Command, who assaulted him, constitutes an infringement of his fundamental human rights and that, his continuous detention by the police amounts to the violation of his fundamental human rights.”
Ihekweme further urged the court to declare that, denying him access to his team of lawyers by the police since Nov. 28, when he was arrested in Abuja and taken to Owerri, violated his fundamental human rights.
He, therefore, sought an order awarding the sum of N5 million as damages against the CP for his alleged harassment, assault and illegal detention.
In an affidavit of urgency deposed to by the wife of the applicant, Mrs Excel Ihekweme, she said her husband is managing a severe health condition and his continuous detention without access to medicare would worsen his health condition and endanger his life.
She averred “that the applicant is now suffering double jeopardy of unlawful detention and imminent health risk that could endanger his life.”
She said that the constitution provides for rights to fair trial within a reasonable time.
Mrs Ihekweme said her husband ought to have been released on administrative bail or charged to court, at least two days after his arrest as provided by the constitution.
She said the conduct of the respondents was arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, harsh, oppressive and void.
The suit is yet to be assigned to a judge as at the time of the report.

Mr Jake Epelle, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of The Albino Foundation (TAF) Africa, has filed a N150 million suit against Emirates Airline over allegations bordering on the breach of his fundamental human rights.

Epelle, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1285/2021, filed before Justice Musa Liman of a Federal High Court in Abuja, sued the 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 his 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 pon 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 Stamford 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.

Flowerbudnews

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, ordered the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police, Mr Kayode Egbetokun, to produce two foreign nationals; Etienne Rocher and Pawan Kapur, alongside others, before it for arraignment.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik gave the order following the absence of the defendants in court to take their plea in the alleged N37.6 million fraud preferred against them by the police.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the I-G had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/504/2024, sued Tincan Island Container Terminal Ltd, Mr Rocher, Mr Kapur, and Maryam Olapade as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.

Also joined in the six-count charge are Mr Adigun Rasheed Akinkunmi and Mr Raphael Ugbe as 5th and 6th defendants.
NAN observes that while Mr Rocher, a France national, is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Tincan Island Container Terminal Ltd; Mr Kapur, an Indian, is the Manager.
In the charge filed Oct. 29, Tincan Island Container Terminal Ltd, Rocher, Kapur, Olopade, Akinkunmi and Ugbe were alleged to have between April 1, 2021 and Aug. 28, 2023, at the Nigerian Ports Authority, Tin-Can Island, Lagos State by false pretence defrauded Chief Ifeanyi Ezenwabachili of the sum of N37.6 million (N37,663,323.83).
The offence is contrary to Section 1(1)(b) and punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act, Cap A6, Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010.
In another count, they were alleged to have stolen over N37 million, property of Chief Ezenwabachili between April 1, 2021 and Aug. 28, 2023, at the Nigerian Ports Authority.
The offence is contrary to and punishable under Section 390(9) of the Criminal Code, Cap C23, Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010.
Besides, they are also being charged for money laundering offence punishable under Section 21 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2022, among others.
When the matter was called on Thursday, I-G’s lawyer, Joseph Udo, informed the court that the matter was slated for the arraignment of the defendants.
Udo said, though the 2nd to 6th defendants were admitted to administrative bail, he wondered why they were not in court, having been served with the charge.
.
“We filed this charge on 27th day of September, 2024. And as at the last date when this matter came up, on 19th day of November, 2024, we were yet to serve them.
“But on 21st November, we were able to serve them.
“My expectation is that, having been served on 21st November, the defendants will be in court,” he said.
But Dr Ifeanyi Nwosu, counsel for the nominal complainant, Ezenwabachili, was in the court to watch the brief.
Justice Abdulmalik, however, told Udo that since the police admitted the defendants to administrative bail, it was their duty to produce them in court.
She threatened that if police failed to do the needful, the charge would be struck out for want of diligent prosecution.
“I, hereby, order the prosecution to produce the defendants in the next date,” the judge ruled.
She subsequently adjourned the matter until Feb. 5, 2025 for arraignment.

The former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, on Thursday, sought to amend her suit challenging the order obtained by the EFCC for final forfeiture of her seized assets.

Alison-Madueke, through her lawyer, Godwin Iyinbor, told Justice Inyang of a Federal High Court in Abuja upon resumed hearing in the suit.
When the matter was called, no counsel appeared for the EFCC.

Justice Ekwo then asked Iyinbor if he had received processes from the anti-graft agency and he responded in the affirmative.

“Yes, my lord. We received a counter affidavit to our originating process and we have filed a further affidavit in response,” Iyinbor responded.

The lawyer, however, informed the court that they had filed a motion to amend their processes and that the commission had been duly served.

The judge consequently adjourned the matter until Feb. 17, 2025, for hearing the motion to amend their originating process.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the ex-minister had, through his counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, sued the anti-graft agency as sole respondent.

Alison-Madueke, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023, sought an order extending the time to seek leave to apply to the court for an order to set aside the EFCC’s public notice issued to conduct a public sale on her property.
In the motion dated and filed on Jan. 6, 2023 by her lawyer, the former minister sought five orders from the court.
The former minister, who argued that the various orders were made without jurisdiction, said these “ought to be set aside ex debito justitiae.”
She said she was not given a fair hearing in all the proceedings leading to the orders.
“The various court orders issued in favour of the respondent and upon which the respondent issued the public notice were issued in breach of the applicant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, and other similar constitutional provisions,” she said.
She argued that she was neither served with the charge sheet and proof of evidence in any of the charges nor any other summons regarding the criminal charges pending against her before the court.
She further argued that the courts were misled into making several final forfeiture orders against her assets through suppression or non-disclosure of material facts.
“The several applications upon which the courts made the final order of forfeiture against the applicant were obtained upon gross misstatements, misrepresentations, non-disclosure, concealment and suppression of material facts.
”This honourable court has the power to set aside same ex debito justitiae, as a void order is as good as if it was never made at all.
“The orders were made without recourse to the constitutional right to fair hearing and right to property accorded the applicant by the constitution.
“The applicant was never served with the processes of court in all the proceedings that led to the order of final forfeiture,” she said, among other grounds given.
But the EFCC, in a counter-affidavit deposed to by Rufai Zaki, a detective with the commission, urged the court to dismiss her application.
Mr Zaki, a member of the team that investigated a case of criminal conspiracy, official corruption and money laundering against the ex-minister and some other persons involved in the case, said the investigation had clearly shown that she was involved in some acts of criminality.
He said Mr s Alison-Madueke was therefore charged before the court in charge no: FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018.
“We hereby rely on the charge FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018 dated 14 November 2018 filed before this honourable court and also attached as Exhibit C in the applicant’s affidavit,” he said.
The EFCC operative said most of the depositions in Mrs Alison-Madueke’s suit were untrue.
He said contrary to her deposition in the affidavit filed in support of the suit, most of the cases which led to the final forfeiture of the contested property “were action in rem, same was heard at various times and determined by this honourable court.”
He said the courts ordered the commission to do a newspaper publication inviting parties to show cause why the said property should not be forfeited to the federal government before final orders were made.
Mr Zaki argued that one Nnamdi Awa Kalu represented the ex-minister in reaction to one of the forfeiture applications.
“We humbly rely on the judgment of Hon. Justice I.LN. Oweibo dated 10th September, 2019 shown in Exhibit C of the applicant’s affidavit,” he said.
The officer said contrary to her, the final forfeiture of the assets, which were subject to the present application, was ordered by the court in 2017 and that this was not set aside or upturned on appeal.
According to him, the properties have been disposed of through due process of law.
The anti-corruption agency had planned to conduct a public sale of all the assets seized for being proceeds of crime as ordered by courts to be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
The auctioning exercise, conducted on the seized assets believed to include Alison-Madueke’s property, started on Jan. 9, 2023.

The suspended chairman of EFCC, Abdulrasheed Bawa, had revealed that $153 million and over 80 property had been recovered from the ex-minister.
She was alleged to have escaped to the United Kingdom and remained there after her exit from public office as the petroleum minister, an office she held between 2010 and 2015 under the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan.

The asset-related suit is different from the one she also filed to seek N100 billion as compensation for a series of EFCC’s alleged libellous publications against her.

The arraignment of109 foreigners charged over allegations bordering on cybercrime was, on Thursday, stalled at a Federal High Court in Abuja.
The matter, which was fixed for their arraignment before Justice Ekerete Akpan, could not go on due to the defendants’ inability to secure legal representation.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the foreigners, who are said to be citizens of China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Brazil, Malaysia and Myanmar, were recently arrested by the police.
They were apprehended in their residence at Plot 1906, Cadestral Zone 807, Katampe District of Abuja, where they were said to be engaging in cybercrime by allegedly promoting “a fraudulent and unregistered gaming platform.”
In a six-count charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/599/2024 filed in the name of the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police, the foreigners were charged with cybercrime, money laundering and unlawfully residing in Nigeria.
When the matter was called on Thursday, the I-G lawyer, A.A. Egwu, indicated his readiness for the arraignment of the defendants.
Justice Akpan, however, observed that the defendants were not represented by any lawyer.
Due to this development, judge adjourned the matter until Nov. 22 to enable the defendants secure the services of lawyers for their trial.
NAN reports that in one of the counts, they were alleged to have aided, abetted, conspired among themselves “to commit an offence, to wit; cybercrime.”
They were said to have commited the offence contrary to and punishable under Section 27 (1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act, 2015 (As Amended, 2024).
They were also alleged to have “knowingly access a computer and network and input, alter, delete of suppress data resulting in inauthentic data with the intention that such inauthentic data will be considered or acted upon as If they were authentic or genuine.”
The offence is said to be contrary to and punishable under Section 13 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act, 2015 (As Amended, 2024).”
Again, they were alleged to have removed “from Nigeria proceeds generated from operating a fraudulent and unregistered gambling platforms.
These platforms are 9f.com, c2.top, 8pg.top and you thereby commit money laundering, contrary to and punishable under Section 18 of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.”
The defendants were also accused of entering “the territory of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with a business permit of 30 days duration and failed, or neglected to leave the Nigerian territory at the expiration of the said permit and remained in Nigeria without a valid resident permit or appropriate valid visa.”
The offence is contrary to Section 4 (2) and punishable under Section 44 (1) (c) of the Immigration Act 2015.”

A logistics company, Martreach Logistics Limited, has urged the Court of Appeal to dismissed the appeal filled by Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Limited.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the appeal bordered on the alleged N64 billion breach of contract suit for the provision of stevedoring services at Bonga on/off shore terminal.

In the appeal marked: CA/A/621/2023, Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Limited is challenging the ruling of Justice Asmau Akanbi of an Abuja High Court that dismissed its preliminary objections against the suit for lacking in merit.

NAN recalls that Justice Akambi, in his ruling delivered on May 4, 2023, held that his court was clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the case.

He further ruled that contrary to the position of the applicant, the claimant’s suit had disclosed cause of action and was competently instituted at the court.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court, the appellant, through its counsel, Abiodun Layonu, SAN, approached the Court of Appeal, seeking an order setting aside the interlocutory ruling.

But responding to the appeal, MartReach Logistics Limited, through its counsel, Onyenka Osigwe, urged the appellate court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the ruling of the trial court.

Meanwhile, at the last adjourned date, the appellate court ordered that hearing notices be served on the 2nd and 3rd respondents; the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) who were not in court.

The three-member panel of the Court of Appeal led by Justice D. Kalo, adjourned the appeal to November 13, 2024 for hearing.
In the suit marked FCT/CV/408/2019, the claimant, MartReach Logistics Limited, had sought an order compelling the SPDC Limited and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Limited to grant it access to carry out the contract awarded to it by the Minister of Transport vide a letter number:T.1700/S.4/11/324.
The minister, through the letter dated Nov. 27, 2012, awarded the contract to the.form as a dock labour employer for the provision of stevedoring services at Bonga on/off shore terminal operated by Shell Production Development Company Limited.
Other defendants listed in the suit are the NPA.and the AGF.
The claimant also prayed for an order of specific performance compelling SPDC Limited and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Limited to execute a tripartite agreement with the claimant as directed in the 2nd defendant letter with reference no: HQ/ED/M&O/OP/390 dated Aug. 16, 2013, among others.