Flowerbud News

Tag: Court

  • No lodgement, withdrawal traced to Ali Bello in exhibits tendered–Witness

    No lodgement, withdrawal traced to Ali Bello in exhibits tendered–Witness

     

    Flowerbudnews
    Mr Olomotane Egoro, an Access Bank staff, on Monday, admitted that Mr Ali Bello, a co-defendant in the ongoing money laundering trial, neither lodged nor withdrew money in the bank statements tendered in the proceedings.

    Egoro, who is also an EFCC’s 2nd prosecution witness (PW2), stated this while being cross-examined by Bello’s counsel, Abdullahi Aliyu, SAN, before Justice Obiora Egwuatu of a Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Upon resumed hearing, Aliyu applied for some exhibits of bank statements tendered by the anti-graft agency.

    The bank statements belonged to some companies including Vifaz Multibiz Investment Company, Ary Consulting and Integrated Services, Hayzma Business Enterprise, e-Traders International Limited, and Aleshua Solutions Services.

    Other companies’ account statements tendered included that of Whales Oil and Gas, Forza Oil and Gas, Dada Grand Merchant Ltd, and that of the Unnatii and Jamilu Abdullahi.

    When Aliyu asked if there was any lodgement or withdrawal made by Bello in those accounts, the EFCC’s witness, after thoroughly going through the exhibits, said: “None my lord.”

    The lawyer also asked Egoro to confirm from Exhibit E if there was any payment made to T.B Bank United States, e-Traders International Limited, Aleshua Solutions Services and others, and the witness equally said: “None my lord.”

    When asked if there was any withdrawal that exceeded the statutory limit stipulated by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in Exhibit E tendered, the witness said: “I don’t know what the limit was at the time.”

    “Do you know what it is now?” the lawyer asked the witness.

    Egoro responded that for an individual, the statutory withdrawal limit is N5 million while for a corporate body is N10 million.

    The witness, however, agreed that the bank usually adhere to the laid down rules in its transaction.

    He acknowledged that for Hayzma Business Enterprise account, the signatory is the 3rd defendant.

    He also agreed with the lawyer that for e-Traders’ account in Exhibit G, the only person that made payment into that account was the 2nd defendant.

    Egoro confirmed that the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants never made any payment into the account.

    When asked if there was anything wrong in a signatory to an account to withdraw money from the same account, the witness said: “No, my lord.”

    He said he was aware that the federal, state and local governments do award contracts to individuals and that when such contracts are executed, payments are made.

    The witness admitted that majority of the transactions he earlier identified from the accounts belonging to the 2nd to 4th defendants which were suspected to be proceeds of money laundering from the LGAs or Kogi state were proceeds from a loan of N2 billion accessed from the bank by the 4th defendant’s company.

    Justice Egwuatu adjourned the matter until June 24 for counsel for the 2nd to 4th defendants, Mr Nureini Jimoh, SAN, to cross-examine Egoro.

    It would be recalled that in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/573/2022, Bello and three others are facing trial on an alleged N3 billion fraud charge preferred against them by the anti-graft agency.

  • Alleged N1.85bn fraud: Court orders arrest of 3 Electricity Agency officials

    Alleged N1.85bn fraud: Court orders arrest of 3 Electricity Agency officials

     

    Flowerbudnews
    A Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, ordered the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to arrest three officials of Rural.Electrification Agency for failure to appear in court for their arraignment.

    Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling, gave the order for the issuance of arrest warrant against the officials; Emmanuel Pada Titus, Umar Musa Laraye and Henrientta Onomen Okojie, involved in an alleged N1.853 billion fraud.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the ICPC had preferred separate four-count charges against the affected officials over allegations of misappropriation of public funds meant for the provision of electricity to rural communities across the country.

    In the first charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/204/24, the anti-corruption agency sued Titus as sole defendant.

    The commission sued Karaye in the second charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/202/24, while Okojie was equally sued in the charge number: FHC/ABJ/CR/203/24.

    When the three cases were called, none of the three defendants was in court to take a plea.

    The prosecution lawyer, Osuobeni Akponimisingha, told Justice Nwite that Titus, Karaye and Okojie were served with copies of the charges and duly informed of the day’s proceedings, but chose to stay away on their own volition.

    Akponimisingha explained that the defendants were on administrative bail, but owing to their absence from the court, he urged the judge to issue a bench warrant for their arrests.

    He cited Sections 114, 124 and 184 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, to back his application.

    In a short ruling, the judge granted the lawyer’s application as prayed.

    He held that he was convinced that the defendants deliberately absented themselves from the court, while delivering separate rulings on each of the applications.

    Justice Nwite, who ordered the trio’s arrest, directed that they should be produced in court in the next adjourned date.

    While the judge adjourned Titus and Karaye’s cases until June 13 for arraignment, he fixed June 14 for the arraignment of Okojie.

    However, the ICPC arraigned Usman Ahmed Kwakwa, also an official of REA on a four-count charge bordering on fraud.

    Kwakwa pleaded not guilty to the counts preferred against him.

    Justice Nwite admitted him to a N50 million bail after the prosecution lawyer, Akponimisingha, did not oppose the defence lawyer’s bail request.(NAN)(wee.nannews.ng)

  • X-raying Tinubu’s judicial sector reform after 1 year in office

    X-raying Tinubu’s judicial sector reform after 1 year in office

     

    By Taiye Agbaje, News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)

    On May 29 when his administration was inaugurated, president Bola Tinubu promised that his administration would carry out reforms that will have far-reaching implications for Nigerians.

    Reforms in the economy sector such as fuel subsidy removal, the floating of naira and harmonisation of exchange rate have dominated the headlines.

    However, Tinubu has, within this past one year, taken actions that have largely gone unnoticed but which experts say hold the prospect of repositioning the judiciary to meet the yearnings of Nigerians.

    The reason for this is not unconnected to the saying that the judiciary is the bedrock of democracy and last hope of the common man.

    For instance in December Tinubu recommended 11 Justices for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court.

    Following their confirmation by the National Assembly, Tinubu administration made history by becoming the first to ensure that the apex court has full complements of 21 Justices as required by law.

    Section 230 (2) (b) of the 1999 constitution (As amended) provides that, “The Supreme Court of Nigeria shall consist of such number of Justices not exceeding 21 as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.”

    There is no doubt that this will speed up the process of dispensing justice in a court where some cases could last for years.

    It would also ensure that all parts of the country are fairly represented at the zenith of the nation’s litigation hierarchy.

    Another major step taken by the Tinubu administration is the move to improve the welfare of judicial officers. It is fact that in some cases there is coloration between poverty.

    This becomes more challenging when one occupies an office when officers are tempted with financial inducement daily.

    Perhaps it was against this background that on March 19Tinubu has sent a bill to the National Assembly proposing a new structure of salaries and allowances for judicial officers.

    In the letter communicating the bill to the lawmakers, the president said the bill seeks to end the “prolonged stagnation” of the remuneration of judicial officers, adding that it will improve their welfare.

    The letter was entitled “Transmission of judicial office holders’ salaries and allowances bill, 2024.

    The transmission was in accordance with the provisions of section 58, sub-section two of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended,”

    “I forward herein, the judicial office holders, salaries and allowances bill, 2024, for the kind consideration of the senate.

    “The judicial office holders salaries and allowances bill seeks to prescribe salaries and allowances and fringe benefits for judicial officials to end the prolonged stagnation in their remuneration and to reflect contemporary socio-economic realities.

    “While I hope that the judicial office holders salaries and allowances bill 2024 will be carefully, yet expeditiously considered and passed by the senate”, Tinubu said in the letter read by Godswil Akpabio, the Senate President.

    Bill which has been passed by the House of Representatives, seeks to 300 per cent increase in the salaries and allowances of judicial office holders.

    Similarly, in June 2023, Tinubu signed another Constitution alteration bill which provides a unified retirement age for all judicial officers of superior courts of record.

    The alteration provides that all pensions, allowances and other retirement benefits of judicial officers shall be charged to the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Federation and paid directly by the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    Judicial experts say this will address a situation where payment of retirement benefits of state judges is left to the state governments to handle, and in many cases, these benefits are owed or delayed.

    Tinubu’s actions have attracted applause from lawyers and other stakeholders in judiciary.

    A Lagos-based lawyer, Josephine Ijekhuemen, described the appointment of the 11 justices as “a positive development for easy and quicker dispensation of justice.”

    She said before now, the apex court was left with 10 justices after the death of Justice Centus Nweze, and the retirements of Justices Amina Augie and Dattijo Muhammad.

    “I welcome the president’s decision to Increase the number of justices of the Supreme Court as required by law,” Ijekhuemen said.

    On the proposed increase salaries and emoluments for judges, the human rights lawyer said the judiciary, being the third arm of government, also deserves to be well remunerated for services rendered.

    “The approval for an increase in the allowance and remuneration of judges is equally a welcome development,” she added.

    Another lawyer, Mr George Itodo, he said Tinubu, so far, had done tremendously well by increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 21.

    He said “the appointment will ensure quick dispensation of cases as there will be more panels to hear cases.

    “There will be early hearing and determination of cases. A situation where you have a matter at the Supreme Court and it will be going for 10 years will be a thing of the past.

    “Because there will be more panels now, it makes things easier. Cases will be quick dispensed with thereby promoting the course of justice.”

    A legal expert, Mr Suleiman Lawal, urged judges to reciprocate the adjustment in their salaries and allowances through impartial and quick dispensation of justice.

    However, some stakeholders say more still needs to be done to make the judiciary perform optimally.

    Mr Paul Daudu, the Chairman of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Bwari Branch in Abuja, listed the challenges to include prolonged pre-trial detention, delayed trials, lack of access to legal representation and poor case management.

    He said the problem also include conflicting and perverse judgments for superior courts of record, unethical practices by some legal practitioners and law enforcement agents, amongst others.

    According to him, there is indeed the perception by ordinary citizens that what presently operates in Nigeria is the ‘administration of law’ and not ‘’administration of justice.’

    “The former being a system riddled by hybrid technicalities, legal jargon, cumbersome adjudicatory procedure and rhetoric,” he said.

    He called on the legal practitioners, as guardians of the law, to reaffirm their commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring access to justice for all.

    Other stakeholders say no reform in the judicial sector is complete without guaranteeing true independence of this third arm of government.

    “The preservation of and non-interference with, the independence of the judiciary and the jurisdiction of the court are so important, if not indispensable’’, argues legal luminary, Afe Babalola, in a piece entitled role of a strong and independent judiciary in a nation. (NANFeatures)(www.nannews.ng)

  • Property dispute: Firm files stay of execution against Appeal Court judgment

    Property dispute: Firm files stay of execution against Appeal Court judgment

     

    Flowerbudnews

    A property firm, Abeh Signature Limited has filed a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal’s judgment pending an appeal to the Supreme Court over a property dispute.

    The property company and Ms Asabe Waziri had locked horns in a legal battle over two bedroom units of flat 3B and 3C at Abeh Signature Apartments located at 1, Mekong Close, Maitama in Abuja.

    Two flats in the property of 15 flats had been in dispute between Abeh Signatures Limited and Waziri.for over two years.

    Justice Musa had, on Feb. 17, 2022, ordered Abeh Signature Ltd to refund N150 million to Ms Waziri, being the amount paid for the two bedroom units of flat.

    The judge equally ordered Waziri to vacate the apartments she purchased from the Chief Executive Officer of the firm, Cecil Osakwe.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment, Waziri, represented by her lawyer, Henry Eni-Otu, appealed the decision.

    In the appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/246/2022, the appellant, Waziri, sued Abeh Signature Limited as sole respondent.

    The Appeal Court in Abuja , in a unanimously judgment on May 21, overturned the decision of the lower court.

    The three-member justices, led by Justice Hamma Akawu Barka, vacated the lower court order on the grounds that the judgment was devoid of credible evidence and constituted a miscarriage of justice.

    The appellate court also awarded a N500, 000 cost in favour of Waziri.

    But in a swift reaction, the respondent, through his lawyer, Victor Giwa, in an application dated May 22, prayed the court to stay the execution of the judgement pending an appeal to the apex court.

    Waziri, in the motion, prayed the court for the following order: “An order for stay of the execution of the judgment delivered by this honourable court on the 21st day of May, 2024 in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/246:2022 between Asabe Waziri v. Abeh Signature Limited, pending the final determination of the substantive Appeal.

    “An order of injunction restraining the appellant/respondent whether by herself or her privies, assigns, agents, personal representatives, successors-in-title from acting in any manner to give effect to the judgment of this court delivered on the 21″ day of May, 2024 pending the determination of the appeal.”

    Some of the grounds of the application include: “The appeal in this case has been entered with the records of appeal already copied and transmitted to the registry of this honourable court

    “The respondent/applicant is highly desirous of prosecuting this appeal ard unless this application is granted, the respondent will give effect to the judgment of the lower court.

    “The respondent/applicant has good and substantial grounds of appeal as well as triable issues, with a reasonable chance of success upon being heard and determined on its merit.

    “It is in the interest of justice to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive appeal.”(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

  • Property dispute: Developer, Cecil Osakwe, loses as Appeal Court nullifies FCT High Court decision

    Property dispute: Developer, Cecil Osakwe, loses as Appeal Court nullifies FCT High Court decision

     

    Flowerbudnews
    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has unanimously upturned a judgment of Justice Othman Musa of an FCT High Court, directing a property developer, Cecil Osakwe, the CEO of Abeh Signature Ltd, to refund N150 million to Ms. Asabe Waziri.

    The three-member justices, led by Justice Hamma Akawu Barka, vacated the lower court order on the grounds that the judgment was devoid of credible evidence and constituted a miscarriage of justice.

    The appellate court also awarded a N500, 000 cost in favour of Waziri.

    It would be recalled that the FCT HIGH Court had, on February 17, 2022, delivered the judgment in which it ordered Ms. Waziri to vacate the 2-bedroom property she purchased from Osakwe.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment, Ms. Waziri, represented by her lawyer, Henry Eni-Otu, Esq., appealed the decision.

    In the appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/246/2022, the appellant, Waziri, sued Abeh Signature Limited as sole respondent.

    She argued that the lower court relied only on written statements (affidavits) without considering oral or documentary evidence to support the developer’s claim of money laundering against her

    Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the trial judge could decide the case through originating summons given the conflicting information in the affidavits by the parties and the clear documentary evidence presented by the appellant.

    In a unanimous verdict, the three-member panel led by Justice Akawu Barka, set aside the judgment of the lower court in its entirety and awarded cost of N500,000.00 in favour of the appellant, Ms. Asabe Waziri.

    The certified true copy of the judgment, which was delivered on Tuesday, May 21, 2024, was made available to newsmen on Sunday in Abuja.

    The Court of Appeal declared that the judgment of the trial court was not supported by credible evidence and constituted a miscarriage of justice.

    Justice Barka, in his judgment, stated: “It is clear that the respondent, having benefitted more from the transaction, seeks to vitiate the contract possibly to further benefit from it.

    “I agree with the appellant’s counsel that the appeal is destined for success and should be allowed.

    “Hence, having resolved all issues in favor of the appellant, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.

    “The judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in suit No: CV/2435/2021, delivered on February 17, 2022, is hereby set aside, and all actions taken consequent to the said judgment also stand vacated.

    “The appellant is entitled to costs assessed at N500,000 (five hundred thousand Naira only). Appeal allowed.”

    Other members of the appeal panel include Justices Abba Bello Mohammed and Okon Efreti Abang.

  • Court dismisses suit seeking re-adoption of 1963 Republican Constitution

    Court dismisses suit seeking re-adoption of 1963 Republican Constitution

     

    Flowerbudnews

    A Federal High Court, Abuja, has dismissed a suit seeking an order restoring to full operation the 1963 Republican Constitution in Nigeria and repealing the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a judgment, dismissed the suit for being incompetent.

    Justice Ekwo held that 1963 Republican Constitution is not an existing law and no action could be founded to it as the applicants had done.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the applicants are King Oziwe Amba Albert (Regent King of Diobu Kingdom, Delta Nigeria), Chief Wombo Bulus, Otunba Karim Sekanobi, Chief James Onyi Kokomi, Comrade Danjuma Modu (For themselves and representing the Peoples Confederal Constituents Assembly of Nigeria (PECCAN)) and Centre for Probity and Democratic Studies as 1st to 6th defendants respectively.

    The applicants had sued the President of the Senate and National Assembly of Nigeria; Clerk of the National Assembly and Chairman Senate Committee on Constitution Amendment as 1st to 3rd respondents in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/18/2022.

    The suit was instituted pursuant to Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 (FREPR 2009); Chapter IV, Sections 35, 36, 42, 46, 315 and Transitional Constitution Decree No. 24 of 1999; and Sections 1 and 140 of the 1963 Republican Constitution of Nigeria.

    It was also filed pursuant to Articles 13, 14, 20 and 21 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, LFN 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ACHPRRE Act 2004),

    And Articles 1, 2, 7, 21 and 30 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as UNUDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as ICCPR) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

    They described the 1999 Constitution as an “expired military Decreed Transitional Constitution.”

    Giving eight reliefs, the applicants, who described 1963 Republican Constitution as “peoples’ made” constitution, prayed the court to declare that the continued use and continuing amendments of the “expired military decreed Transitional Constitution, No. 24 of 1999,” at the military transfer of power to civilian democratic rule since 1999, had created a constitutional vacuum.

    That it had forced “majeure violation of the applicants’ minorities rights to belong to united country and be governed by the agreed terms of the union of Nigeria as contained in referral 1963 Republican Constitution and applicants’ fundamental rights to own and use their natural resources on their native land/region as protected under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, UN Charter and International Covenant on Civil and Political Right to which the Federation of Nigeria is a member signatories.”

    They, therefore, sought “an order compelling the NASS to re-adopt, return and restore to full operation with necessary amendment the partially military suspended and lifted foundational peoples’ made 1963 Republican Constitution for the unity, progress and peaceful co-existence of all ethnic nationalities including the applicants’ protected minorities rights in the 1963 Republican Constitution with necessary amendments.

    “An award of N1 trillion in damages against the respondents for their illegal and reckless dereliction, abandonment and abuse of their legislative duty in the use and engagement in unwarranted and unconstitutional amendment of the expired military Decreed Transitional Constitution as cover and instrument to oppress, dominate, recolonised and seizure of the applicants protected rights to properties, wealth and natural resources for their personal and sectional/class gains.

    “An order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from further organising, undertaking and engaging in any amendment to the long exhausted and expired military Decreed Transitional Constitution of Decree No. 24 of 1999.”

    But the respondents, in a joint counter affidavit, faulted some paragraphs in the applicants’ affidavit.

    They argued that contrary to their submission, the 1999 Constitution remains active and effective until it is repealed by the National Assembly.

    In the preliminary objection filed, the respondents said the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

    They said the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action or any cause of action at all against them.

    The respondents, who submitted that the fundamental right enforcement procedure adopted by the applicants was inappropriate for the determination of the subject matter, added that the case was not initiated by due process of law.

    According to them, it is in the interest of justice to strike out or dismiss the suit.

    Delivering the judgment, Justice Ekwo said that the first thing to note in the case was that the applicants founded the action on Sections 33, 34, 35, 36 and 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and Order 2 Rule 1 of the FREPR 2009 In one breath.

    “On another breath, they seek the same 1999 Constitution (as amended) to be declared null and void because It was brought into effect by the expired military decreed Transitional Constitution as cover,” he said.

    The judge said it was a clear case where the applicants took advantage of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution in one breath and on the other breath, sought to have the same constitution declared null and void,

    He said they also brought the action pursuant to the provisions of the FREPR 2009 which is constitutional instrument made pursuant to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution which constitution they also sought to be declared null and void.

    He said the applicants cannot be approbating and reprobating at the same time.

    According to the judge, in law, such is not allowed in our jurisprudence.

    “The applicants are barred by the doctrine of approbating and reprobating.

    “The doctrine is about the prevention of inconsistencies.

    “It is either the applicants accept the law against which they are acting against in toto, or repudiate same.

    “Simply put, this action cannot be allowed to stand and I so hold,” he said., while dismissing the case on this ground.

    Justice Ekwo also noted that the applicants founded the case on the provisions of Sections 1 and 140 of the 1963 Republican Constitution.

    He said they ought to know that the 1963 Republican Constitution does not exist.

    “It actually ceased to exist upon the enactment of the 1979 Constitution and I refer to Section 274 thereof.

    “In the same vein, the 1979 Constitution ceased to exist upon the coming into force of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) from the moment the said 1999 Constitution (as amended) took effect from 29th May, 1999,” he said, citing previous cases.

    He said upon the coming into force of the 1979 Constitution, the 1963 Constitution went into abeyance and would only apply to a cause of action that arose under it.

    According to the judge, it can never be that a Sovereign State like Nigeria will have two constitutions operating contemporaneously.

    “It needs to be stated firmly that the 1963 Republican Constitution is not an existing law and no action can be founded to it as the applicants have.

    “Founding this action on the provisions of the 1963 Republican Constitution demonstrates that the applicants are either willfully mischievous or unwittingly ignorant of the law.

    “The effect of a repealed law has been stated by the court in no unmistaken terms.

    “A repealed law no more has legal life as it does not exist any longer. It cannot be cited as if it still exists.

    “It cannot be quoted side by side with an existing law as the counsel to the appellant did in the instant case.

    “Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, the repealed law such as the 1963 Republican Constitution has long ceased to be part of the corpus juris, and must be treated as revoked or abrogated.

    “In fact, it has since been removed from the statute book and thereby cannot form part of the existing law.

    “That is why it cannot be found in the 1990, 2004 or 2010 Laws of the Federation.

    “It is my conclusion at this point that, this action has fully collapsed thereby leaving no room for any other issue in this cause to be considered and I so hold.

    “I make an order dismissing this case for being incompetent. This is the order of this court,” the judge declared.(NAN)(www.nanews.ng)

  • Group decries AGF’s alleged plan to take over case 6 years after commencement

    Group decries AGF’s alleged plan to take over case 6 years after commencement

     

     

    Flowerbudnews

    A rights group, Center Against Injustice and Domestic Violence (CAIDOV), in collaboration with Advocate for Social Justice and Defence of Rule of Law, has condemned alleged plan by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, to take over prosecution of a case six years after the matter commenced..

    The group, which raised the alarm at a press briefing in Ikeja, said the case involved a foreign oil company and five others accused of $8.4million fraud.

    It would be recalled that Trafigura Beheer BV Trafigura PTE Ltd is facing trial alongside two oil marketers – Osahon Asemota and Yusuf Kwande as well as Mettle Energy and Gas, Renbrandt Ltd and Jil Engineering and Oil Services Ltd.

    The defendants had been, for six years, facing a three-count charge of conspiracy, stealing and receiving stolen property preferred against them by the Police Special Fraud Unit (SFU) before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Ikeja Special Offences Court.

    The prosecution had accused the foreign oil company, alongside its four co-defendants, of stealing 6.4 metric tonnes of diesel oil worth $8.4million belonging to Nadabo Energy Ltd sometimes in October 2008.

    During the six-year’s trial, 17 witnesses testified on behalf of the prosecution before the agency closed its case while the defendants have so far, called four witnesses.

    Speaking, the Convener of the group, Gbenga Soloki, said the trial took a puzzling turn when the Director of Public Prosecution of Federation, Federal Ministry of Justice, Mr M.A Abubakar, by a letter dated Feb. 29, 2024, announced the takeover of the prosecution by the office of the AGF.

    “According to the letter, the takeover of the prosecution of the case was in exercise of AGF’s powers under Section 174(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which provides to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other authority or person,” Soloki said.

    He said based on the group’s investigations, AGF took over the prosecution of the case as a result of the complaints to his office sequel to a letter dated Nov. 7, 2023.

    He said the takeover of the matter by the office of the AGF would only lead to more delays.

    According to him, the same Section 174(3) of Constitution of the 1999 Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which empowered AGF to takeover prosecution of matters also provided that the AGF of the federation should have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process.

    He queried why other options as provided by law which would not cause further delays in the case were not explored before the aggrieved parties in the suit resorted to writing to the office of the AGF.

    According to him, it is our humble view that there are quite a number of options available for any of the parties before the court that has any complaint against the handling of such matter by the judge.

    “Such parties can complain directly to the National Judicial Council (NJC), a body responsible for discipline of judicial officers or lodge a complaint with the Chief Judge of the State who has the administrative power to look at such complaint and reassign the matter to another judge or asked the trial judge to continue if such complaint usually initiated via a petition is found unmeritorious.

    “However, in the instant case, fear is been expressed in some quarters that the matter may have been infested with virus of delay.

    “The AGF is a quiet achiever and the group is also aware that he is a stickler for rule of law and a notable combatant in the defence of justice,” Soloki said.

    He, therefore, made a plea to the AGF to ensure fairness and justice to all parties by allowing the trial court to decide suit base on merit and evidence before it.

    “We are calling on the AGF to always look at the larger picture of his office as commanded by Section 174(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

    “We urge the Honourable Attorney- General to continue to work as he has started well on restoration of public confidence in the system and etch his own name in gold anytime the history of administration of criminal justice system of the country is being told.

    “There is no doubt, history beckons on the AGF and this is the time to make the difference as no affinity to any institutions, persons or group should stop him from making history at this period of time in our nation,” he concluded.

  • Judges’ sanction: Ex-NHRC chairman faults NJC’s disciplinary measures

    Judges’ sanction: Ex-NHRC chairman faults NJC’s disciplinary measures

     

    Flowerbudnews
    Prof. Chidi Odinkalu, former Chairman, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), has faulted the recent disciplinary measures meted out to three judges by the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    Odinkalu alleged that the NJC, under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, “has destroyed its own credibility.

    He spoke in an interview on Channels TV programme: “Politics Today,” monitored by the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Abuja.

    NAN reports that the NJC, at its 105th meeting dated May 16 but made available to newsmen on Monday, issued warning letters to three judges and barred two of them from elevation to higher bench for a period.

    Justice Inyang Ekwo of a Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja was barred from being elevated to a higher Bench for a period of two years “for abuse of discretionary power of a judge by wrongly granting an ex-parte order in suit number: FHC/ABJ/C/626/2023 Juliet Ebere Nwadi Gbaka & 2 Ors V Seplat Energy Plc & 12 Ors.”

    Justice G. B. Brikins-Okolosi of Delta State High Court was also barred from being elevated to a higher Bench for a period of three years “for failure to deliver judgement within stipulated period in Joseph Anene Okafor Vs Skye Bank, suit number: A/94/2010 after parties had filed and adopted their final written addresses.”

    However, the NJC cautioned Justice Amina Shehu of Yobe State High Court for issuing writ of possession conferring title on the defendant in suit number: YBS/HC/NNR/1cv/2020 when there was no subsisting judgement of any court to enable His Lordship issue the writ.”

    Reacting in the interview, Odinkalu said the measures had destroyed the system of discipline and accountability in the judiciary.

    “One of the so-called disciplinary measures announced by the NJC last Friday was against a judge of the Yobe State High Court who issued a warrant of possession without an underlined judgment.

    “That really is burglary; it is at the minimum, a theft. So a judge decides to issue a warrant to collect somebody else’s property with no judgment underlying it.

    “That is a crime! Do you know what the NJC did? They said ‘they are going to write a love letter to this woman to warn her not to do it again.’

    “If you did that kind of thing (pointing to the journalist), you will be in jail, either as a pretrial detainee or a convict,” he said.

    Odinkalu, who is also a lawyer, said even though the judge was found to have done this, the NJC resolved to write to caution her.

    He described the NJC’s act as “a slap on the wrist.”

    Citing another instance, he said: “Another of the cases they announced was a judge in Delta State who wasted seven years after address without issuing a judgment.

    “They also said they were going to issue a warning and he will not be promoted for another three years.”

    According to Odinkalu, that is destroying the system of discipline and accountability in the judiciary.

    “You cannot tell me and you cannot tell any reasonable Nigerian that a judge who abuses their power for the purpose of stealing other people’s property under colouration of the rule of law, manifestly, should be written and be cautioned.

    “The person does not have any business being a judge, but because this chief justice has wasted the authority of the judiciary, he cannot run a disciplinary system that works. That is the problem.

    “So all of those announcements on discipline they made last Friday, absolutely made my point that this current chief justice lacks the authority to say anything credible on discipline and accountability in the judiciary,” he concluded.

    The human rights activist, who condemned the recommendation of Ariwoola’s family members as judges in the latest list of 86 judicial officers, advised President Bola Tinubu not to single out judges for salary increase.

    He said increasing the salaries of judges without commensurate increase in the judiciary workers’ salaries would be counter-productive because the output of judges depends on the wellbeing of the judiciary staff members.

    “You cannot just single out judges because they are not the only people in the system.

    “By singling out judges will ensure that this will not be sustainable,” he said.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

  • Court adjourns alleged forgery suit against Ex-NIRSAL MD

    Court adjourns alleged forgery suit against Ex-NIRSAL MD

     

    Flowerbudnews
    A Federal High Court, Abuja has adjourned a suit filed by the police against Mr Aliyu Abdulhameed, former Managing Directing, Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL) Plc, over alleged document forgery until June 8.

    Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the case after prosecuting counsel, CSP Celestine Odo, sought an adjournment to enable them out their house in order.

    When the matter was called, Odo said though the matter was slated for trial commencement, the prosecution was constraint to ask for further date.

    Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, counsel for Abdulhameed and his co-defendant, Babangida Abdullahi, did not oppose the application for adjournment.

    Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the matter until June 8, June 9 and June 10 for trial commencement.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Abdulhameed and Abdullahi were arraigned on March 13 on a 10-count charge before the judge but pleaded not guilty to the counts.

    They were, however, admitted to terms of administrative bail earlier granted to them by the police.

    NAN reports that the criminal charge, dated and filed Nov. 28, 2023, was marked: FHC)ABJ/CR/555/2023.

    In the charge signed by Odo, Legal/Prosecution Section of the Nigeria Police Force Headquarters, the defendants, and others now at large, were alleged to have, about Oct. 23, 2023, conspired among themselves to commit an offence of forgery.

    In count two, the defendants, and others now at large, sometime in Oct. 23, 2023, were alleged to have conspired among themselves to commit the offence.

    The offences are said to be contrary to Section 3(6) and punishable under Section 1(2){c} of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, Cap. M17, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010.

    NAN reports that former President Muhammadu Buhari had, on Dec. 1, 2022, fired Abdulhammed on allegations of corruption bordering on agric loans.

    NIRSAL, a $500m non-bank financial institution, is a creation of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) mandated to manage agribusiness-related credit risks in Nigeria.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)