Tag: Court

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, adjourned the trial of a lawyer, Chinedu Evaristus, and three others in the alleged N58M million fraud case until Jan. 15, 2025.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the case after F.N. Umoh, a lawyer from the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), informed the court of the decision of her office to take over the matter from the police.

The Inspector-General (I-G) of Police had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/489/2024, sued Evaristus, Olakunle Blessing Fayomi, Kingsley Awodi James and Tabitha Kwon as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.

In the charge dated Oct 9, 2023, and filed Oct. 16, 2023 by F.G. Gabriel in the Legal/Prosecution Section at the Nigeria Police Force Headquarters, the defendants were preferred with nine-count charge.
In one of the counts, Evaristus, Fayomi, James, Kwon and others now at large were alleged to have, between May and June 2017 in Abuja, defrauded Engr Ocheakiti Ojoje the sum of N58 million.
The money was alleged to have been paid into a Zenith Bank account number: 1012207337, “bearing the account name: Evaruth Solicitors belonging to Barr Chinedu Evaristus, on false pretext to convey and perfect the sale of a property represented as plots 9 & 10, 37 Road, Gwarinpa Estate Il.”
The property is said to belong to the Academic Staff of Universities Union (ASUU), a representation they knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1(1)(a) and punishable under Section 1(3) both of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act.
When the case was called for continuation of trial, Umoh announced her appearance as prosecution from the AGF, shortly after Gabriel had already announced his appearance as police prosecutor in the matter.
The police lawyer, while addressing the court, said though the matter was slated for hearing, he did not know the position of Umoh in the case.
“Because I am the substantive prosecution in this matter,” he added.
Responding, Umoh told the court that the AGF had indicated interest to take over the matter.
“We have written to the police. The office of the AGF had written to the police for a case file for further review.
“And I have been directed by my superior to take over the prosecution of this matter.
“Our application is predicated on Section 174(b) of the1999 Constitution.
“We have already communicated this to the police,”:she said.
Besides, Umoh said the AGF was reviewing the case with a view to amend the charge.

Justice Abdulmalik, therefore, adjourned the matter until Jan. 15, 2025 to allow the police and the AGF’s counsel reach an agreement on the prosecution of the case.
It would be recalled that Mr Evaristus is also facing a similar criminal charge before Justice Obiora Egwuatu of a sister court.
The I-G, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/121/2018, accused Evaristus and three others of defrauding a woman the sum of N29 million and forging documents to sell an Abuja house.

Courtesy: Channels

 

Although the accused persons were not in court, the judge ordered their immediate release from prison.

By Emmanuella Ekele

A Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out the suit against persons charged over the nationwide #EndBadGovernance protest.

The Trial Judge, Justice Obiora Egwuatu, on Tuesday, struck out the suit following an application by the counsel to the Attorney General of the Federation, M. D Abubakar, to take over and discontinue the suit.

The Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, who was represented by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF) Mohammed Abubakar had at the proceedings announced the exercise of his power of section 174 of the 1999 Constitution to take over the case from the Inspector General of Police.

After granting the request by Justice Egwuatu, the AGF proceeded to request the invocation of the same section of the Constitution to discontinue the trial of the 119 accused persons.

Following no objections to the request from various lawyers representing the accused persons, Justice Egwuatu granted the request and struck out the charges.

Although the accused persons were not in court, the judge ordered their immediate release from prison.

President Bola Tinubu had on Monday directed the AGF to terminate the charges against the accused persons, most of who are said to be minors and prohibited by law from facing such trial.

 

 

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has set aside its earlier order referring a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr Adeola Adedipe, to Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) for investigation and possible sanction.

Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling on Adedipe’s motion on notice on Wednesday, held that the application was meritorious and accordingly granted.

It will be recalled that Justice Nwite, in a money laundering charge filed against former Governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), had, on July 17, 2024, ordered that Adedipe, including Mr Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN, be referred to the LPDC for investigation and if found guilty be sanctioned over their conduct in the handling of the case.

However, Adedipe, in a motion on notice, prayed the court to set aside the order against him.

In the application, the senior counsel sought for two orders.

The lawyer sought an order granting him the leave to file and be heard and/or setting aside the decision of the court in the charge against the ex-governor which was delivered on July 17, 2024 which referred him to LPDC for investigation and sanction if found guilty in his discharge of his duty to the court.

He gave some grounds why the court should grant his prayers.

Delivering the ruling on Wednesday, Justice Nwite agreed with Adedipe that during the sitting on June 27, 2024 which preceded the order, the lawyer had applied to withdraw his appearance for the former governor.

The judge equally observed that in supporting Adedipe’s withdrawal, counsel to the EFCC, Mr Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, attested that he (Adedipe) had shown integrity, decency and conducted himself well by filing a notice of withdrawal and discharging himself from the action of the defendant on June 28, 2024.

Besides, Justice Nwite also observed that Pinheiro, who did not oppose Adedipe’s motion, equally filed an application for court to discharge the lawyer from the order.

“It is not in dispute that the applicant (Adedipe) had
on June 27, 2024 orally applied to withdrawal his appearance and formally applied on June 28, 2024.

“That it is not in dispute that the applicant was referred to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee for investigation and sanction if possible.

“That prior to the ruling, the apllicant had filed the notice of withdrawal on June 28 and it was not opposed by prosecution counsel

“That the prosecution team led by learned silk, Kemi Pinherio, said Adedipe has shown integrity, decency and conducted himself well by filing a withdrawal from the case,” the judge said.

He said the court has a discretionary power to grant the prayers “more so since the applicant has shown good conduct with Exhibit A.”

According to the judge, I am of the view that these are material and exceptional reasons.

Justice Nwite consequently made an order varying the 17 July order which referred Adedipe to LPDC for investigation and possible sanctions by excluding his name.

 

Flowerbudnews

A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, adjourned hearing in the money laundering case preferred against the immediate-past Governor of Kogi, Yahaya Bello, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) until Jan. 21, 2025.

Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter after EFCC’s counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, and the ex-governor’s lawyer, Michael Adoyi, made their submissions in favour and against an application by the anti-graft agency.

At the resumed hearing, Pinheiro told Justuce Emeka Nwite that he had two witnesses already in court.

He, however, told the court that he had two applications to make since the defendant was not in court.

He said his first application was to formally apply that the court should enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the former governor, even in his absence.
“My first application is to formally enter a plea of not guilty to the defendant, even in his absence.

“The second point is, not withstanding his physical absence, this will be in full compliance with Section 276 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

“Flowing from that entry my lord, it is a humble request that we call the first witness,” he stated.

The senior lawyer, in defending his application to enter a plea of not guilty for the defendant, said “the right to plead guilty or not guilty is a right that can be waved by the defendant.”

He, therefore, urged the court to hold that Bello had waved that right.

“What prejudice will the defendant suffer if my lord enters a plea of guilty or not guilty in his absence?

“Even if he was in court and pleaded not guilty, the situation will still be the same.
“The entry of plea of not guilty by your lordship is an invitation to the prosecution to come and prove the veracity of the allegations,” he said.

But Michael Adoyi, who appeared for the defendant, disagreed with Pinheiro’s submission.

Adoyi argued that the prosecution’s application was made contrary to a subsisting order of the judge.

“Our first point of response to the application made by the learned senior counsel to the complainant is that the application is made contrary to the subsisting order of this honourable court, even made this morning – that no application can be entertained by this court in the absence of the arraignment of the defendant.

“The prosecution has stated severally that the court cannot demonstrate helplessness.
“A court cannot demonstrate any helplessness in any proceeding and if at all helplessness exists in this proceeding, that helplessness is demonstrated by the prosecution,” he said.
Adoyi argued further that the court, in a criminal trial, is immune and distinct from the prosecution.
He cited previous Supreme Court decisions to back his argument.
According to him, the application made by learned senior counsel for the complainant this morning is a dangerous invitation to this honourable court to aide the prosecution in the performance of its duty of presenting the defendant before the court for arraignment and subsequent trial.
He argued that civil proceeding is different from criminal proceeding contrary to the argument of the EFCC’s lawyer.
He said that the prosecution’s application could not be anchored on any of the provisions of the ACJA, 2015 that he had cited, as “those provisions do not excuse the need for physical presence of the defendant.”
Adoyi then prayed the court to refused the oral application of Pinheiro.
The prosecution counsel, however, told the court to dismiss Adoyi’s arguments and go ahead with his ruling on entering a plea of not guilty for the defendant.
Speaking, Justice Nwite pointed out that the ruling might not be ready this year, considering the fact that he was just coming as a vacation judge.
“So what are we agreeing on now learner silk?” he asked.
Pinheiro said the matter would be adjourned for ruling and/or arraignment of the defendant.
The judge thereafter adjourned the matter until Jan. 21, 2025 for ruling on the application by the EFCC and/or arraignment.
It will be recalled that at the last hearing on Sept. 25, Adoyi had told the court that the issue of arraignment of the defendant was the subject matter of an appeal entered by the defendant at the Supreme Court with the Appeal Number: “SC/CR/847/2024 and SC/CR/848/2024”.
He said the most appropriate thing to do was to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid appeal before taking any step for arraignment so as not to pull the rug off the feet of the apex court.

 

By Qaasim Odedeji

On 24th day of October, 2024, Nigerians woke up to a sensational report that the House of Representatives rejected a Bill seeking to Islamize Nigeria.

The sponsor of the Bill, Hon. Aliyu Missau had introduced the Bill to the House of Representatives seeking to make Shari’a law not just a personal matter in the Constitution by removing the word ‘personal’ from Islamic Personal Law and leaving it with Islamic law. He cited the emergence of Islamic financial institutions such as Jaiz and Taj Bank as part of the reasons justifying the expansion of the operation of the Shari’a in the Constitution beyond personal law such as marriage, custody of children and inheritance.

Bamidele Salam, a Christian lawmaker representing Ede Federal Constituency of Osun State argued in opposition to the Bill claiming it has potential to derail the freedom enjoyed by all religions in Nigeria. The Bill was subsequently killed.

Ironically, Hon. Bamidele Salam, a Christian convert, is representing Ede Federal Constituency comprising Ede North, Ede South, Egbedore and Ejigbo local government Areas of Osun State which is a Muslim-dominated federal constituency.

Not only that, Ede Town, which is the headquarters of the federal constituency is one of the places in Yorubaland where Shari’a law had been fully practiced. Oba Habeeb Lagunju who ruled as Timi of Ede during his reign practised Shari’a and established a Shari’a Court for it’s operation.

Till date, Ede land is one of the notable Muslim-populated towns in Yorubaland with renowned Islamic Scholars and highly recognized Islamic Schools.

Reading the news, what firstly came to my mind was ‘Who are the actual people Hon. Bamidele Salam is representing and whose interest he was protecting when he was making his anti-sharia, anti-Muslims argument?” Was he speaking on behalf of the teeming Muslims on whose back he rode to becoming a representative or he was protecting the interest of his religion?

Coming to the issue of Islamic personal law, by the combined effect of Section 24, 262 and 272 of the Constitution that are been sought to be amended, the Shari’a Court of Appeal of Federal Capital Territory and that of a State will only have jurisdiction on an appeal from lower Court where a ground of appeal raises an issue of Islamic personal law such as marriage, custody and inheritance. Otherwise, Shari’a Court of Appeal will not have jurisdiction. This position has been given effect in plethora of judicial authorities.

The implications of the above is that where an appeal raises issues of Islamic law such as Islamic law on appointment of an Imam or other Islamic positions, contracts executed by Muslims under Islamic law and other Islamic financial obligations etc, Shari’a Court of Appeal will not have jurisdiction to entertain same. Only an High Court will have jurisdiction.

The effects of this is that critical issues of Islamic law are brought before judges who have no knowledge of Islamic law to determine same. This, in many occasions, poses several challenges to adjudication of those cases and just determination of them.

Therefore, seeking to amend those sections is not out of place. Rather, amending them will assist the course of justice.

From the above explanation, it would be seen that amendment been sought has nothing to do with curtailing the freedom of religion of any individual or group of individuals.

Purely, it is just and fair that civil issues that arise from Muslims who chose to execute their obligations under Islamic law have competent Courts and before judges who are learned enough in the field of Islamic law which is the foundation of their transaction.

Killing the Bill is a way of curtailing the fundamental rights of Muslims in Nigeria to the freedom of religion part of which is the right to be governed by Islamic law.

Rejection of the Bill as done by the House of Representatives is a clear indication that many of our representatives are either ignorant of basic issues or are myopic in their opinions.

Lastly, major opposition to the Bill by a Southern lawmaker brings into open again the reason why Muslims in the South especially in Yorubaland have continued to be denied the establishment of Shari’a Court of Appeal despite the provisions for same in the Constitution.

(Qaasim Odedeji
A Lawyer, Chairman, MULAN, Osun State Chapter and immidiate past Amir of MSSN, B Zone is also an indigene of Ede from Amosun Compound.)

 

The Medical and Dental Consultants Association of Nigeria has dragged the Nnamdi Azikiwe University (NAU), Awka, and others to court over who becomes the lawful vice chancellor (VC) of the institution.

The claimants; the Incorporated Trustees of Medical and Dental Consultants Association of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital (NAUTH) and Dr Victor Modekwe, in the suit, prayed the court to perpetually restrain Prof Carol Umobi or any other person from parading themselves as the VC of NAU, Awka in Anambra.

In the originating summons marked: NICN/ABJ/383/2024, the claimants further urged the court to stop the university, the National University Commission (NUC) and the Federal Ministry of Education from recognising Prof Umobi or any other person appointed as the validly elected VC of the university.

Other defendants listed in the suit are the Council, Prof Umobi and the acting Registrar, Mr Victor Modebelu respectively.
Consequently, the claimants, in a letter by their counsel, J.I Ekeoma, dated Oct. 25, drew the attention of the acting VC, Prof Umobi, and the university authority to the pendency of the suit and the urgent need to maintain status quo on the issue.
In the letter which chronicled the events that gave rise to the suit, the claimants accused the university of taking discriminatory steps against the 2nd Claimant, Dr Modekwe and other people in the medical and dental fields in the process of appointing a new vice chancellor of the institution.
They averred that on Sept. 12, the council on behalf of the university, caused a publication to be made by the Vanguard Newspaper and same was published on page 33 of the newspaper.
It said that the said publication outlined a requirement that sought to disenfranchise and exclude the members from faculties of Medicine and Basic Clinical Sciences in the process of applying for the vacant position of the vice chancellor of the university.

The lawyer in the letter stated that “instead of undoing the wrong it did to our client, the university informed the association to reach out to the NUC for clarification as to whether the Fellowship is to be considered as an equivalent to Ph.D for the purpose of appointment as the substantive vice chancellor of the university.”

He alleged that inspite of several demands made by their clients, the university is still taking steps to appoint a new Vice Chancellor based on the discriminatory advert publication.

Meanwhile, the claimants, in their suit, prayed the court to declare that “the Medical Fellowship, being the peak of a medical career, is equivalent to the academic title of a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) for the purposes of the advertisement made by the 1st defendant.”

They equally urged the court to make “a declaration that the 2nd claimant, being the holder of the Medical Fellowship is qualified to contest in the ongoing process to appoint the Vice Chancellor of the 1st defendant and an attempt to exclude the 2nd claimant from participating in the process is illegal, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

“A declaration that the Vanguard Newspaper publication of September 12, 2024, is a deviation from the publication used in the selection of the Vice Chancellor of the 1st defendant in 2019.
“A declaration that any appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the 1st defendant based on the Vanguard Newspaper publication of September 12, 2024, is illegal unconstitutional, null, and void and of no effect whatsoever.”

They, therefore, urged the court to set aside the newspaper publication, describing it as “an illegality.”

 

 

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Nyanya, on Tuesday, refused an application by Kabiru Turaki, former Special Duties and Inter-Governmental Affairs minister.

Turaki had filed an application seeking to stop a woman, Uwani Arabi and two others from further making any form of publications about a paternity dispute between them.

Justice Aliyu Shafa, in a ruling, refused the motion filed to that effect by Turaki on the ground that he 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 and adjourned the matter until Nov. 13 for definite hearing.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that 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 High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Nyanya, on Tuesday, refused an application by Kabiru Turaki, former Special Duties and Inter-Governmental Affairs minister.

Turaki had filed an application seeking to stop a woman, Uwani Arabi and two others from further making any form of publications about a paternity dispute between them.

Justice Aliyu Shafa, in a ruling, refused the motion filed to that effect by Turaki on the ground that he 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 and adjourned the matter until Nov. 13 for definite hearing.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that 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.

 

Master Chinaemere Opara, has sued the Federal Ministry of Education, the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) and the National Universities Commission (NUC) over the introduction of the new admission policy.

Opara, a 15-year-old Senior Secondary School (SSS) Student, filed the suit through his guardian, Mr Maxwell Opara, his father and a lawyer, at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that in the originating motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1512/2024 dated Sept. 30 and filed Oct. 14 by Wayne Elijah, the SS 2 student listed the ministry, JAMB and NUC as 1st to 3rd respondents respectively.

In his six reliefs, the applicant sought a declaration that the respondents’ minimum age for admission policy to restrict the age of Nigerian citizens for admission into universities in the country is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

He said it amounted to a gross violation of his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under Sections 42 of the 1999 Constitution, 2011 (as amended) and Article 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13(2), 17 and 28 of the African Charter on Human and People Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9 Vol. 1 LFN.

He urged the court to declare that his right to peaceful assembly and association cannot be limited by the respondents’ admission policy.

He also sought a declaration that the policy which restricts his age before exercising his right of association and self-determination as to when to enroll to write the West Africa Examination Council (WAEC) and/or JAMB exams infringed on his right of equal access to public service.

This, he said, is guaranteed under Article 13(2) and (3) of the African Charter on Human and People Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9 Vol. 1 LFN.
Opara, therefore, sought an order of perpetual Injunction restraining the respondents, from attempting to disturb, breach or interfere with his rights.
He equally sought an order setting aside the policy.

In the affidavit deposed to by Maxwell, he said he is the biological father of Chinaemere.

He said Chinaemere is an SS2 student of Sure Start Secondary School who is directly affected by the respondents’ minimum age for admission policy.

He said the policy had impeded on Chinaemere’s right to freedom from age discrimination and education as enshrined in the law.

He said his son “read from online newspaper that the 1s respondent stated that there’s no going back on the implementation of his policy which stated that any person below 16 years would not be qualified to get admission in the university no matter how brilliant the person is.

“That since then the applicant believes that his right to education has been or likely to be violated.

“That the applicant would enter SS 3 in this 2024/2025 academic session with his plan/arrangements of writing his WAEC, NECO AND JAMB in 2025 with his expectations of gaining admission in 2025/2026 university academic sessions.

“That I know as of facts that in Nigeria, there is no specific age limit for gaining admission into universities.

“However, candidates typically must have completed their secondary education and sit for WASSCE or its equivalent.

“That I know as of facts that in Nigeria most universities in Nigeria require candidates to meet certain academic qualifications, such as having a minimum number of credits in relevant subjects and passing the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME).

“That I know as of facts that in Nigeria there is no federal or state law making age a barrier for the applicant to gain admission.

“That the applicant strongly believes that he will perform excellently and make good grades in all the subjects that will be required for him to gain admission.

“That the applicant wants to study Medicine & Surgery whose duration is 6 years along with a mandatory 1-year youths service and 1-year compulsory Medical Externship totalling all 8 years,” Mr Maxwell said.

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

NAN reports that the Minister of Education, Prof. Tahir Mamman, had in July stated that beginning from 2025, candidates under 18 years old would not be allowed to sit for the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination, a prerequisite for admission to higher institutions.

The announcement, however, sparked intense debate among education stakeholders and parents, forcing Mamman to accept 16 years as the admission age into tertiary institutions.