Tag: Court

 

 

 

A lawyer, Mr Eric Ifere, has faulted the alleged undemocratic acts by the Cross River State Independent Electoral Commission (CROSIEC) and the state’s house of assembly.

The lawyer, who is counsel to Mr Uket Ifere, a Labour Party (LP) chairmanship aspirant in the scheduled November 2, 2024 local government elections, stated this in a complaint letter written to Gov. Bassey Otu and others.

Others copied in the letter with reference number: IFERE/ELECTION LG 001/2024 and made available to newsmen on Wednesday in Abuja include the Cross River Attorney General (AG), clerk of the state’s house assembly, and chairman of CROSIEC.

“Mr Uket Okoi Ifere, a member of the Labour Party of Lewankom 3 Ketabebe, Ugep, Cross River State, and aspirant to contest as Chairman of Council of Yakurr Local Government Council, has sought our counsel on the poorly drafted amendment/passing into law of the
CROSIEC Law 2002 ( amended 2024).”
He said the complaint was based on the conflicting timetable to the electoral law for the conduct of the proposed LG polls and the infringement on their client’s rights as a member of LP aspiring to contest the forthcoming chairmanship elections.

The lawyer frowned at the recent amendment of the state’s Local Government Electoral Commission Law 2002 by the house of assembly which was allegedly presided over by an unelected speaker.

According to him, on 22 May, 2024, Mr Elvert Ayambem was removed as speaker of the 10th State Assembly by 17 of the 25 members who passed a vote of no-confidence in the Speaker.

Ifere said Ayambem was alleged to have committed “several infractions, including gross financial misconduct and non-compliance with the Cross River State Legislature Funds Management Laws of 2021.

“Since his impeachment, Mr Ayambem has not been validly reinstated as Speaker.”

He said Ayambem “held the position illegally leading up to the passing into law of the CROSIEC 2002 (Amendment Law 2024).

Ifere argued that the action was done in a manner and provisions that were inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.
“These actions have infringed on our client’s rights to contest elections as local government chairman, specifically his right to a fair and transparent electoral process.

“The Cross River State Local Government Commission Electoral (Amendment 2024) is invalid, and all actions carried out under this law are unlawful, null, and void.

“We have advised our client that he is very likely to succeed in a claim at the high court to enforce his rights and have the court declare the Cross River State Local Government Commission Law (Amendment 2024) illegal,” he said

Besides, the lawyer argued that CROSIEC’s imposition of monetary conditions of N1 million on the chairmanship aspirants, including their client, and N200, 000 on the councillorship aspirants on October 4, 2024 was unconstitutional, arbitrary and infringement of Ifere’s fundamental rights.

He further argued that the provisions, under the CROSIEC timetable and schedule of activities for the 2024 LG polls in the state published on October 5, 2024 were contrary to and a gross violation of the provisions of Section 20 of CROSIEC Law (2002) (as amended 2024).
“The timetable deliberately makes it untenable for registered political parties to give the prescribed 21-day written notice to CROSIEC of their intention to hold congresses to nominate their candidates for the election before submitting names of eligible candidates to contest elections,” he said.
The lawyer, therefore, urged the governor and others to halt, amend and remedy these alleged unlawful laws and acts in the interest of justice, transparency, and fairness.
“Specifically, we seek your action to ensure that the rights of our client and the principles of democracy are upheld by reviewing the electoral law, lawfully electing a speaker to preside over the House of Assembly in making laws and revising the CROSIEC timetable to conform with the Cross River State Independent Electoral Commission Law 2002 (amendment 2024),” he said.
According to him, if these actions are not addressed, the possible consequences could be a flagrant abuse of our democratic process, which we believe should be avoided at all costs.
“We urge you to take immediate action to address these issues and ensure that justice prevails,” he said.
Ifere, however, threatened to sue the state government, the house of assembly and CROSIEC if no action was taken within 48 hours of writing the letter.

 

 

A suit filed by the former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, to challenge the order obtained by the EFCC for final forfeiture of her seized assets, was on Monday stalled at a Federal High Court, Abuja.

The matter, which was before Justice Inyang Ekwo, was fixed for further mention in the day’s cause list.

However, the case could not proceed because the court did not sit.

Justuce Ekwo was said to be attending a seminar at the National Judicial Institute (NJI) in Abuja.

The matter was subsequently fixed for Nov. 21.

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, and 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.

NAN recalls that Justice Ekwo had, on June 21, 2023, fixed Oct. 23, 2023 for hearing of the suit

The judge had fixed the date after lawyer who appeared for Alison-Madueke, Benson Igbanoi, and EFCC’s counsel, M.D. Baraya, regularised their processes in the suit.

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 Mediterranean Shipping Company Nigeria Limited has been dragged to the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos over allegations bordering on loss of cargo.

The shipping company was sued before Justice Friday Nkemakonam Ogazi alongside Five Star Logistics Limited as the 2nd defendant in the suit dated and filed on June 14, 2024.

In the Writ of Summons marked: FHC/L/CS/1034/2024 filed by Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq, a Human and Constitutional lawyer of Fred-Young & Evans LP., Cargomark Investments and Logistics Limited and Sunrise Estate Development Limited are listed as 1st and 2nd plaintiffs.

They sought “a declaration that the 1st defendant as the disclosed agent of Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A, the owner of Vessel MSC CORCOVADO III, Voyage No. POD/Terminal NGTIN/5 in Bill of Lading No. MEDUJ5050698 is personally liable for the act, default, omission or commission of Mediterranean Shipping Company SA against the plaintiffs.

A declaration that the 1st defendant is liable for the default of Mediterranean Shipping Company SA to deliver Container Number: NONE0654928 containing Steel Security Fences covered by Bill of Lading No. MEDUJ5050698 to the plaintiffs since 19th June, 2023, the date of landing of its Vessel at Tincan, Lagos, Nigeria.

A declaration that the 2nd defendant who has the duty to receive Container Number: NONE0654928 at its terminal upon its arrival at Tincan, Lagos, Nigeria and who received payment from the plaintiffs for its container Import Invoice has an obligation to ensure that the container is delivered to the plaintiffs.

An order for the 1st defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of US $ 84, 287. 90 (Eighty Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Seven United States Dollars and Ninety Pence) or the naira equivalent at the parallel market rate at the date of liquidation of the sum as special and aggravated damages for loss of Container Number: NONE0654928.

An order for the 1st defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of N100 million as general damages for loss of Container Number: NONE0654928, dent on their business reputation, increase in operating cost of construction and breach of the contract under the Bill of Lading No. MEDUJ5050698.

An order for the 1st defendant to pay the plaintiffs, 10 per cent post judgment interest on the judgment sum from the date Judgment is delivered till the date of final liquidation.”

In their joint statement of claim, the 1st plaintiff, a licenced forwarding and clearing agent and limited liability company, is the consignee while the 2nd plaintiff, a limited liability company in the real estate development business, is the notify party under the Bill of Lading No. MEDUJ5050698.

The 1st plaintiff’s Operating Manager, Mr Amos Duru, in his written statement on oath, stated that the 1st defendant is the Nigerian subsidiary of Mediterranean Shipping Company SA, a global container shipping and logistics Company.

He said by a Bill of Lading No. MEDUJ5050698, the plaintiffs entered into a contract with Mediterranean Shipping Company SA (“the Carrier”) and the 1st defendant for shipment of the container from Cape Town, South Africa to Tincan, Apapa in Lagos, on 26th May, 2023 with the scheduled arrival date of 19th June, 2023.

“The 2nd plaintiff required the Steel Security Fences around the period of the scheduled date of landing to urgently complete some real estate construction in line with the timeline in its contract with its clients.

“After the scheduled date of landing, the 1st plaintiff’s representatives visited 2nd defendant’s port gate at Tincan, Apapa where the container was to be disembarked from the Carrier’s Vessel MSC CORCOVADO III, Voyage No. ZA319A, POD/Terminal NGTIN/5 Star (“the Vessel”), to effect necessary payments, identify the container and claim the same.”

Duru said the plaintiffs paid the sum of N437, 671. 23 through the 2nd defendant to clear the container

He, however, said that after several months in search of the container at the landing port, it was not found.

“Despite series of correspondences between the Plaintiffs’ representatives and that of Mediterranean Shipping Company SA and the 1st defendant to locate the container, the container was not still found,” he added.

Although the suit came up for mention on Thursday, 3rd October 2024, Justice Ogazi adjourned the matter until January 23, 2025 to enable the defendants file their defence to the plaintiffs’ claim.

 

Flowerbudnews

An Abuja-based master baker, Miss Faith Iwu, has threatened to sue the Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) if alleged restriction placed on her account is not lifted.
Iwu’s lawyer, Mojisola George, gave the warning in a letter addressed to the GTB’s secretary dated Sept. 12 and received by the bank on Sept 19.

A copy of the certified true copy of the letter was made available to newsmen on Monday in Abuja.

The lawyer described the bank’s action as “unlawful and in flagrant” disregard for the principles of contractual banking obligations.

According to her, while she understands that the restriction was purportedly linked to a civil transaction involving a third party, GTB lacks the legal or moral right to take such a decision without an express court order or lawful justification.

George, who said the restriction had caused her client significant financial hardship and embarrassment as she was unable to honour her obligations to her suppliers and vendors, demanded immediate and unconditional lifting of the restriction.

The legal practitioner said Iwu opened the account with the bank in 2016.
“Sometime in August, our client observed with utter dismay that she is unable to withdraw from the ATM machines around her.

“She assumed that it was a general network downtime that will be subsequently resolved but later realised that inflows were coming in but she couldn’t send money or use the GT World App.

“Upon a visit to the branch at Kubwa Phase 4, she was told that her account has been restricted. She wasn’t given any explanation, or lawful basis for such restriction.

‘This action has caused our client significant financial hardship and embarrassment, which we deem to be a blatant violation of her rights as a customer of your bank.

“Let it be unequivocally stated that this is a purely civil matter with no criminal element whatsoever and as such your bank has no legal or moral authority to restrict our client’s account without an express court order or other lawful justification,” George said.

According to her, the restriction on her (Iwu’s) account constitutes a gross breach of the bank’s fiduciary duty, a violation of her rights to access her funds, and a serious breach of contract.

The lawyer threatened that failure of the bank to do the needful within 48 hours of receiving the letter might result in legal action.

“Legal action for damages arising from the financial losses, reputational damage and emotional distress will be instituted.
“Formal complaints will be lodged at the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) for a thorough investigation into the bank’s conduct.

“And legal redress seeking damages for breach of contract, unlawful restriction and other consequential losses suffered by our client will be pursued,” she said.

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by Pan African Development Corporate Company Ltd. against the Federal Government to demand N2 trillion in damages over alleged copyright infringement.

Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling, dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was statute barred.

Justice Ekwo held that the suit was instituted after the period allowed by the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA), 2004 had lapsed.

“The yardsticks to determine whether an action is statute barred are the date when the cause of action accrued, the date of commencement of the suit as indicated in the writ of summons and period of time prescribed to bringing an action to be ascertained from the statute in question,” he said.

The judge said he found that the cause of action in the case accrued on June 22, 2021 when the plaintiffs claimed that they found out that former President Muhammadu Buhari had inaugurated a steering committee on poverty reduction by establishing Private Equity Fund.

“However, the plaintiffs waited till April 19, 2023 before commencing this action.
“This means that this action was not commenced within three months stipulated by law.

“As the saying goes, equity protects and aids the vigilant and does not aid the indolent or layabout,” he said.
According to Justice Ekwo, it is a basic principle of law that limitation Law or Act removes the right of action, the right of enforcement and the right to judicial relief and leaves the plaintiff with a bare and empty cause of action, which he cannot enforce.
He stressed that where the law provides for the bringing of an action within a prescribed period in respect of a cause of action, it must be brought within that time frame.
He said: “Proceeding shall not be brought after the time prescribed by such statute.
“As it is, I find that the right of action of the plaintiffs has been extinguished by virtue of the statute bar in Section 2 (a) of the POPA, 2004 and I so hold.”
Citing previous Supreme Court decision, the judge said: “where a preliminary objection succeeds, there will be no need to go further to consider arguments in support of other issue or issues for determination.
“This matter therefore ends here. I have already found that this matter is statute barred.
“I therefore make an order dismissing this action for being initiated outside the time prescribed by law.
“This is the Order of this court.”
Although the judgment was delivered on Monday, its certified true copy (CTC) was made available to News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on Thursday.
The plaintiffs; Pan African Development Corporate Company Ltd. and Odilim Enwebgara had, through their lawyer, C.P. Aninwoya, filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/ CS/529/2023 before ex-President Buhari left office.
In the suit, they sued President, Federal Republic of Nigeria; Federal Republic of Nigeria; National Steering Committee of the National Poverty Reduction With Growth Strategy; Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.
They also joined the Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment; Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment; Governor, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN); and CBN as 1st to 8th defendants as 5th to 8th defendants.
In the writ of summons filed on April 19, 2023, they sought 12 reliefs, including a declaration that the acts of the minister of Industry and the ministry in proposing, sharing or presenting to the ex-President and the Nigeria “claimants’ copyrighted Information/proposal titled: “PROPOSAL TO THE MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND INVESTMENT ON “THE EQUITY INVESTMENT BANK OF NIG” and/or adaptation of same by the 5th and 6th defendants before presentation to the 1st and 2nd defendants without the consent or authority of the claimants, constitute Infringement of the claimants’ copyright guaranteed under the Copyright Act.”
They, therefore, sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining all the defendants and their agents from further infringing on the claimants’ copyright pertaining to the claimants’ copyrighted “PROPOSAL TO THE MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND INVESTMENT ON “THE EQUITY INVESTMENT BANK OF NIG.”
They also sought an order for delivery up to the claimants all copies of publications and materials regarding the NIGERIA INVESTMENT AND GROWTH FUND that infringed on the claimants’ copyrighted proposal to the ministry.
The plaintiffs further sought an order compelling the CBN and governor to process and grant the claimants’ application for license to establish Equity Investment Bank of Nigeria upon fulfilment of necessary conditions as required by law.
They sought “the sum of one trillion naira as compensation for compulsory acquisition of the claimants’ intellectual property over and pertaining to claimants’ proposal” to the minister and “general damages in the sum of one trillion naira,” among others
But CBN and its governor (7th and 8th defendants), in a preliminary objection dated Aug. 10, 2023, sought an order striking out the suit.

They argued that the action was statute barred and hence fundamentally incompetent going by POPA, 2024.
Besides, they said the suit was a gross abuse of judicial process and that the claimants’ case does not disclose reasonable cause of action against them.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Ekwo upheld the arguments of the CBN and its governor that the action was statute barred.

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, fixed Oct. 24 for the hearing of a contempt charge filed by the reinstated Deputy Governor of Edo, Philip Shaibu, against Godwins Omobayo, over alleged refusal to obey court judgment.

Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after Shaibu’s counsel, Reuben Egwuaba, informed the court that a contempt charge had been filed for the committal of Omobayo, who took over as deputy governor, to prison due to his refusal to comply with the valid order of the court.

Justice Omotosho equally ordered that Omobayo be served with all the court documents, including Form 49, filed on Sept. 19 in order to be given the opportunity to purge himself of the contempt charge.

“This matter is hereby adjourned to 24th day of October for hearing of the motion on notice dated 13th September and filed 19th September seeking for committal of Engr Marvellous Godwins Omobayo and to give him opportunity to defend himself.

“I hereby made an order that the motion be served on Marvelous Godwins Omobayo to enable him file necessary defence ,” the judge said.

Earlier, Egwuaba prayed for a short adjournment since the current state government’s tenure would be coming to an end on Nov. 12.

The lawyer said the court judgment delivered on July 17 was duly served on Omobayo and that several letters were also written to the house of assembly but to no effect.

It was earlier reported that Justice Omotosho, on Tuesday, also struck out the two separate motions filed by the Edo Government and the house of assembly challenging the reinstatement of Shaibu as deputy governor.

The judge, in a ruling, also awarded the cost of N200, 000 each against the state government and the assembly, making a total of N400, 000.

The development followed an application by lawyer to the state’s Attorney-General (AG), Marvin Omorogbe, and that of the house of assembly, Sonia Egbunia, seeking to withdraw the motions for stay of execution.

They said the intention to withdraw the motion was as a result of the records of appeal which had been transmitted to the Court of Appeal.

Although Egwuaba, who appeared for Shaibu did not opposed their intention to withdraw the two motions, he, however, asked the court for a N50 million cost each against the AG (3rd defendant) and the assembly (6th defendant) but the judge awarded the sum of N400, 000 against the two defendants.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Omotosho had, on July 17, voided the impeachment of Shuaibu as the deputy governor of Edo by the house of assembly.

The judge, in the judgment, ordered his reinstatement to office on the grounds that the house of assembly failed to comply with due process in the purported impeachment.

Justice Omotosho also held that the allegation on which the assembly based the impeachment proceedings was untenable in law and did not constitute a gross misconduct.

The judgment was on the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/478/2024 with Shuaibu as the plaintiff.
The reinstated deputy governor had sued the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the Deputy Governor of Edo, the AG, Chief Judge of Edo, Speaker of Edo House of Assembly and the Edo State House of Assembly as 1st to 6th defendants respectively.

Omobayo was, on April 8, sworn in as the new deputy governor after Shaibu’s impeachment by the state’s house of assembly.

 

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday, struck out the two separate motions filed by the Edo Government and the House of Assembly challenging the reinstatement of Philip Shaibu as deputy governor.

Justice James Omotosho, in a ruling, also awarded the cost of N200, 000 each against the state government and the assembly, making a total of N400, 000.

The development followed an application by lawyer to the state’s Attorney-General (AG), Marvin Omorogbe, and that of the house of assembly, Sonia Egbunia,seeking to withdraw the motions for stay of execution.

Although Reuben Egwuaba, who appeared for Shaibu did not opposed their intention to withdraw the two motions, he, however, asked the court for a N50 million cost each against the AG (3rd defendant) and the assembly (6th defendant).

Justice Omotosho had, on July 17, voided the impeachment of Shuaibu as the deputy governor of Edo.

The judge, in a judgment, ordered his reinstatement to office on the grounds that the house of assembly failed to comply with due process in the purported impeachment.

Justice Omotosho had held that the allegation on which the assembly based the impeachment proceedings was untenable in law and did not constitute a gross misconduct.

The judgment was on the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/478/2024 with Shuaibu as the plaintiff.

The reinstated deputy governor had sued the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the Deputy Governor of Edo, the AG, Chief Judge of Edo, Speaker of Edo House of Assembly and the Edo State House of Assembly as 1st to 6th defendants respectively.

Dissatisfied with the judgement, the AG, through his lawyer, Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, and the assembly’s counsel, Ken Mozia, SAN, filed separate motions for stay of execution before Justice Omotosho.

The judge fixed Sept. 24 for hearing of the two motions.

When the matter was called on Tuesday, Egbunia, who represented the assembly, told the court that though the matter was slated for hearing, she said in view of the fact that the record of appeal had been transmitted to the Court of Appeal, she would be withdrawing the motion for stay which they filed on July 19.

Also, Omorogbe, who appeared for the AG, sought to withdraw their motion for stay filed on July 18.

They said similar motion had been filed at the Court of Appeal,” she said.

Responding, Egwuaba did not oppose the application for withdrawal.

“However, we are asking for a cost of N50 million each. Our reason for the substantial cost is that the order of your lordship on July 17 is so clear and it was a declaration order,” he said.

The lawyer, who argued that issues had been joined in the motion, said the assembly and the AG knew that no stay of execution of such order could have been granted by the court.

He said the assembly had been truncating the order of the court and that was what led to their filing of Form 48.

He said they were duly served with the court judgment but their motions were done in a way to interfere with the course of justice and to prevent Shaibu from benefitting from the fruit of his legal victory.

“We urge you to grant our prayer,” he said.

Egbunia and Omorogbe objected to Egwuaba’s application for award of fines against their clients.

Ruling, Justice Omotosho, struck out the two motions seeking for stay.

The judge then ordered that the house of assembly and the AG should pay a N200, 000 fine each in favour of Shaibu.

 

 

The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday, adjourned the trial of Ali Bello and his co-defendants until Sept. 26.
Justice Obiora Egwuatu adjourned the matter for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s 3rd prosecution witness (PW-3), Jamilu Abdullahi, continued with his evidence-in-chief.

It will be recalled that the EFCC, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/573/2022, is prosecuting Bello and three others on an alleged N3 billion money laundering charge.

While Bello is the 1st defendant, Yakubu Siyaka Adabenege, Abba Adaudu, and Iyadi Sadat are 2nd to 4th Defendants respectively.

At the resumed trial, the EFCC’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, led the PW-3, Abdullahi, an Abuja-based Bureau De Change (BDC) Operator, in evidence with respect to the alleged offence.9

PW-3 in his oral evidence, told the court that he is the owner of the company, E-Traders International Limited.

Abdullahi explained how the 2nd defendant in the charge, Abba Adaudu (a businessman) deposited cash and made electronic transfers into his company’s Access Bank and personal accounts.
Giving the breakdown, he confirmed the receipt of several cash and electronic deposits paid into his accounts by Daudu.
All the said payments were made between 2021 and 2022.

Justice Egwuatu adjourned the matter until Sept. 26 for continuation of trial.
It would be recalled that the judge had, on June 24, adjourned the matter until today (Sept. 24) after the PW-2, Olomotane Egoro, an Access Bank Complaint Officer, was discharged from the witness box.

Egoro was discharged from the witness box following the completion of his evidence and cross examination by the defence counsel.