Flowerbud News

Tag: Court

  • Alleged fraud: Court orders final forfeiture of N70m Abuja property to FG

    Alleged fraud: Court orders final forfeiture of N70m Abuja property to FG

     

     

    The Federal High Court in Abuja has made an order for final forfeiture of an Abuja property valued at N70 million to the Federal Government.

    Justice James Omotosho gave the order on Tuesday following a motion on notice for final forfeiture moved by Emenike Mgbemele, lawyer to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Justice Omotosho held that the EFCC’s application was meritorious, having complied with the earlier court order to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national daily for interested person(s) to show cause why the final order should not be made with respect to the property.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the property in question is located at No. 12, 5th Avenue, 59 Crescent, Gwarimpa in Abuja.

    The anti-graft agency had, in the motion on notice marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2431/2025, sought an order of final forfeiture of the property to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
    .
    It said the property, comprising one unit of 4 bedroom detached bungalow with pent house and two-room boys quarters, was reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

    In the motion dated Feb. 9 but filed Feb. 10 by Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, the lawyer gave six grounds why the motion should be granted.

    Iheanacho argued that the court had the statutory powers under the provision of Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 to grant the relief sought.

    He said the property sought to be forfeited is reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.

    According to him, on 13th of January, 2026, the honourable court made an interim order, forfeiting the property to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

    He said the order had been published in Business Day Newspaper of Jan. 23.

    The lawyer, who stated that no cause had been shown why the property subject of the order of interim forfeiture should not be finally forfeited to the Federal Government, said this was a non-conviction based asset forfeiture proceeding.

    In the affidavit attached to the application and deposed to by Alozie Andrew, an EFCC investigator, he said a petition was received from the Anti-Corruption Network.

    He said on receipt of the petition, it was assigned to his team for discreet investigation.

    He said several investigation activities were carried out which included seeking and obtaining bank records from commercial banks, seeking and receiving corporate details from Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) in respect of the corporate bodies that featured in the case.

    He said they equally sought and received information from EFAB Properties Limited requesting for necessary information, inviting and interviewing persons and representatives of companies that featured in the investigation; among other activities.

    The investigator said the N70 million used in the purchase of the property was traced to the Kogi State internally Generated Revenue Service (KGIRS).

    “That Senator Oseni Yakubu, while serving as the Chairman of KGIRS approved payments to Bespoque Business Solutions Ltd to which he was the sole Signatory to and directed that the sum of Seventy Million Naira (N70,000,000.00) he received as kickback from the consultant, be applied to purchase the said property.”

    Andrew alleged that the N70 million which was received as a kickback by Sen. Yakubu from consultancy fees paid to Bespoque Business Solutions Ltd, was paid to EFAB Properties Ltd in two tranches of N25 million and N45 million.

    “That Senator Yakubu was invited and after being interviewed, he volunteered his statement in writing, under words of caution.

    “That Mr Philip Kuma, the Managing Director of Bespoque Business Solutions Lid was also invited and after being interviewed, he volunteered his statement in writing.

    “That Senator Yakubu confirmed that he purchased the said property in the name of Nuhu Muhammed for Kabiru Aliyu with funds received from the consultant as kickbacks.

    “That Kabiru Aliyu was invited and after being interviewed, he volunteered his statement in writing, under words of caution where he denied being the owner of the said property.

    “That Nuhu Muhammed was also invited and after being interviewed, he volunteered his statement in writing, under words of caution,” he said.

    The official, who said the court had the power and discretion to grant the application, prayed the court to grant it in the interest of justice.

    Earlier when the case was called for ruling, Mgbemele represented EFCC and Mike Enahoro-Ebah announced his appearance for interested party/owner of the property.

    Enahoro-Ebah, who sought the court’s permission, said their motion was filed on Feb.16.

    But Justice Omotosho said the motion was not in the court record.

    “I do not have that motion here before me. I am going to deliver my ruling. Counsel, You know the step to take,” the judge said.

    Enahoro-Ebah responded that though from all indications, the process was not in the file, he said: “We filed on Monday.”

    The EFCC lawyer, however, argued that the commission had complied with the court order made on Jan. 13 and that the publication was done on Jan. 23.

    He said though the commission had 14 days statutorily to make the publication, more days were added to give any interested person the opportunity to show cause.

    Delivering the ruling, Justice Omotosho observed that the EFCC had complied with the interim order forfeiture made on Jan. 13.

    “The court has considered this application and has one issue for formulation;

    “Whether an order of final forfeiture should not be made.,” he said.

    The judge, who cited relevant laws to back his ruling, held that forfeiture is a form of punishment on property unlawfully acquired by an offender.

    He said a preservation order would be made by court to preserve property suspected to have been gotten from proceeds of unlawful activities.

    According to him, the court shall make a final order of forfeiture when it is confirmed that the property is from proceeds of unlawful activities.

    “Having published the motion on notice and the interim forfeiture order in Business Day Newspaper, there is therefore nothing stopping this court to make the final order

    “In the final analysis, the application of tye applicant has merit and same is liable to be granted,” the judge held.

    After the delivery of the ruling Justice Omotosho advised Enahoro-Ebah to do the needful if unsatisfied with the ruling.

    “Anybody that is interested knows what to do legally.

    “I don’t just deliver ruling immediately, I adjourn for about a week and having done that, the time to react to same has elapsed,” the judge said.

  • Federal High Court gets new chief registrar as Hassan proceeds to the Bench

    Federal High Court gets new chief registrar as Hassan proceeds to the Bench

     

     

    The Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) has approved the appointment of Yahaya Yakubu Shafa as acting Chief Registrar (CR) of the Federal High Court (FHC).

    The FHC’s Director of Information, Dr Catherine Christopher, made this known iin a statement made available to newsmen on Tuesday in Abuja.

    Christopher said the FJSC, at its 98th meeting held on Jan. 22, stated that Shafa’s appointment would take effect from today, Feb. 17.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Shafa’s appointment followed the recent elevation of the outgoing CR, Sulaiman Amida Hassan, to the Bench of the FHC.

    The director stated that Shafa’s appointment is in line with the court’s commitment to ensuring continuity, efficiency and stability in its administrative leadership.

    “Mr. Shafa is a seasoned judicial administrator and legal practitioner with over eighteen (18) years of progressive experience in the justice sector.

    “Prior to his appointment, he served as Executive Secretary of the Nasarawa State Judicial Service Commission, where he played a pivotal role in judicial administration, policy coordination and institutional development.

    “His wealth of experience in court administration, legal practice and institutional reform is expected to further strengthen the administrative machinery of the Federal High Court and the efficient delivery of justice.

    “The Federal High Court Management and members of staff congratulate Mr. Sulaiman Amida Hassan as he moves over to the Bench and hands over administrative leadership to Mr. Shafa.

    “Similarly, the court congratulates Mr. Shafa on his appointment and wishes him a successful tenure in his new position,” the statement concluded.

  • We didn’t coerce Ali Bello to write that property purchased was for ex-Kogi governor–EFCC investigator

    We didn’t coerce Ali Bello to write that property purchased was for ex-Kogi governor–EFCC investigator

     

    Yazid Bawa, an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s investigator, on Tuesday, said that his team did not enforce Ali Bello, a nephew of former Gov. Yahaya Bello of Kogi, to write in his extra-judicial statement that the property he purchased was on behalf of the ex-governor.

    Bawa, who is the 2nd prosecution witness (PW-2) in the ongoing trial-within-trial, told Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja, while being cross-examined by Bello’s counsel, Abubakar Aliyu, SAN.

    The anti-graft agency is prosecuting Ali Bello (1st defendant) and Daudu Sulaiman (2nd defendant) on alleged money laundering to the tune of N10 billion.

    The charges relate to alleged unlawful activities during the tenure of ex-Gov. Bello, who is also facing two different charges bordering on alleged money laundering at the FHC and FCT High Court.

    However, on Monday while Ahmed Abukakar, an investigator and the PW-17 in the main trial was being led in evidence by the EFCC’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, the defence counsel raised an objection to Oyedepo’s plan to tender the eight extra-judicial statements made by Bello and Sulaiman during investigation, as evidence in the case.

    Bello’s lawyer, Abubakar Aliyu, SAN, and Olusegun Jolaawo, SAN, who is representing Sulaiman, had argued that their clients made the statements involuntarily.

    While Aliyu argued that the six statements made by Bello, who is also the current Chief of Staff (CoS) to Kogi State government, were made under duress, Jolaawo submitted that Sulaiman was threatened to make the two statements the prosecution sought to tender.

    The Kogi’s CoS was said to have made those statements on Nov. 29, 2022; Nov. 30, 2022; Dec. 1, 2022; Dec. 10, 2022; Dec. 11, 2022 and Dec. 12, 2022, respectively, while Sulaiman made the two statements on Nov. 30, 2022 and Dec. 1, 2022.

    After taking the counsel’s arguments on Monday, Justice Omotosho ordered a trial-within-trial and directed Abubakar, who is PW-17, to give evidence as PW-1 in the trial-within-trial.

    The PW-1 vehemently denied the allegations.

    At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, the EFCC lawyer called two more witnesses; Yazid Bawa and Adamu Usman Yusuf, to give their testimonies.

    While Bawa (PW-2) was a member of the team, Yusuf told the court that he led the team called Chairman’s Monitoring Unit in Lagos office that interrogated the defendants.

    The witnesses, led in evidence by Oyedepo, also debunked the defendants’ allegations that they were coerced to make the statements.

    They told the court that the statements were taken voluntarily, in the presence of the defendants’ lawyers, and without threats or inducements.

    While Bawa, the PW-2, was being led in evidence by Oyedepo, the witness said: “I am an operative of EFCC. I investigate cases, I interview suspects, gather my evidence and come to court to give evidence.”

    The witness, who said he is currently with Economic Governance and Crime Section of the commission in Lagos, said before then, he was with Chairman’s Monitoring Unit in Lagos Office.

    Bawa, who denied threatening the defendants, also dismissed the allegations that he threatened to keep them in detention if they failed to write the statements in the manner prescribed by the team.

    “During the course of our investigation, we interview suspects. What we do is that we don’t ask them questions but we put forward our findings to them and ask them to respond according,” he said

    The PW-2 said he neither have power to detain nor release a suspect.

    According to him, that power is not vested in me.

    “We didn’t threaten the defendants. We only put forward our findings and asked them to respond to those findings,” he said.

    Speaking on the six statements made by Bello, tagged “Exhibits TWT-A to A5,” the witness insisted that those statements were taken voluntarily.

    “The defendants were cautioned. We put forward the cautionary words and read to them and made sure the defendants understood it.

    “It is part of our tradition that we allowed the defendant with his lawyer. So all these statements were taken in the presence of his lawyer,” he said.

    The witness also said that on Nov. 29, 2022, when Bello chronicled his biography in his statement without the presence of his lawyer that he was not forced to do so.

    He said Bello was asked if he would like to proceed to write the statement without his lawyer and he agreed to do so.

    According to him the Chairman’s Monitoring Unit is a well selected unit.

    “We are carefully selected to ensure that there is no mistake in the work. So we don’t induce, we don’t threaten at all,” he responded.

    Under cross-examination, Aliyu, who appeared for Bello, asked the witness if he knew that his client was arrested on Nov. 29, 2022, and he said: “I cannot remember.”

    “However, if you look at the statement, you realised that he made his statement on 29th November, 2022?” the lawyer asked, and the witness responded in affirmative.

    “Was he in custody then or you released him on bail?” he asked.

    “He was in our custody,” the witness responded.

    When the lawyer asked the witness that as at the time Bello made the statement of Nov. 29, 2022, there was no lawyer with him, the PW-2 responded in affirmative

    The lawyer also asked the witness on questions relating to the duration of time his client took to write each of the six statements.

    “Is it not true that you told the 1st defendant to say that the property he purchased was for Yahaya Bello or else he will rot in detention?” Aliyu asked and the witness simply said: ‘That is not true my lord.”

    “Can you produce before my lord the court order that authorise you to detain him beyond the lawful time,” Aliyu asked.

    “I don’t have the order,” the witness responded.

    “You told the defendant he would rot here otherwise he did what you wanted?” the lawyer asked and the witness responded in the negative.

    When Aliyu asked Bawa if there were video recordings of the interview sessions, the witness also responded in the negative.

    Jolaawo, who appeared for Sulaiman, also cross-examined Bawa.

    He asked Bawa to tell the court how the EFCC got Sulaiman involved in the case.

    The witness said: “During the investigation that was assigned to my team, concerning the former governor of Kogi State, our investigation led to the 2nd defendant.”

    When the lawyer asked the witness if Sulaiman was either invited or arrested, he said: “I cannot remember.”

    He also said he could not remember when Sulaiman wrote the statement of Nov. 30, 2022, and that he could also not remember when he was released from custody.

    “But did you remember that the 2nd defendant brought food for the 1st defendant and you now arrested him?” Jolaawo asked and the witness said: “I don’t t know.”

    “You are wearing a smart wrist watch and you have smart phone?” he asked and the witness responded in affirmative.

    And when the lawyer asked if these were used to record the interview sessions, Bawa responded in the negative.

    The PW-2 said a lawyer, Z.E. Abbas, was always around when Sulaiman wrote the statements.

    When the witness was asked if the team threatened Sulaiman with an electric chair, he said: “Neither myself nor Mr Adamu threatened the defendant with electric chair. In fact, I have never seen one.”

    Adamu Yusuf, who is the head of the team in Lagos office, also gave his evidence and the defence lawyers cross-examined him as well.

    Justice Omotosho then adjourned the matter until Feb. 18 for Bello and Sulaiman to open and close their defence in the trial-within-trial.

  • FCT poll: Supreme Court affirms Ishaku as APC candidate for Bwari Area Council

    FCT poll: Supreme Court affirms Ishaku as APC candidate for Bwari Area Council

     

    The Supreme Court, on Monday, affirmed Mr Joshua Ishaku as the lawful candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) for Feb. 21 chairmanship election for the Bwari Area Council.

     

    The five-man panel of the apex court, in a decisive four to one judgment, conclusively resolved the dispute over the rightful candidate for the area coincil.

     

    Reading the lead judgment, Justice Jamilu Yammama Tukur set aside the majority decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja which affirmed the Federal High Court Abuja judgement, declaring Mr Haruna Audi as APC candidate.

     

    Instead, Justice Tukur affirmed the dissenting judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang of the appellate court, which set aside the lower court judgment and affirmed Ishaku as the lawful candidate.

     

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Ishaku had approached the Supreme Court following the decision of the appellate court, upholding the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered by Justice Emeka Nwite.

     

    Delivering the judgement on Monday, the apex court held unequivocally that Ishaku’s suit was neither statute-barred nor premature and that the case did not fall within the insulated confines of internal party’s affairs.

     

    The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the appellant’s action was caught by limitation.

     

    It held that the “inevitable conclusion” from the record was that the appellant had been denied the opportunity to be heard and, therefore, denied fair hearing.

     

    On the question of the internal party’s remedies, the court made it clear that the internal affairs doctrine is not absolute.

     

    The panel held that where party guidelines are violated or statutory and constitutional rights are implicated—particularly under Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act—the courts are not precluded from intervening.

     

    The apex court stated that it is contradictory to insist that a declared winner of a primary election must exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms designed for aggrieved aspirants.

     

    That obligation, the court clarified, rests on the losing aspirant.

     

    Each case, the court added, must be determined on its peculiar facts, and the lower court failed to properly evaluate the material evidence placed before it.

     

    With the appeal allowed in its entirety, the Supreme Court set aside the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal, nullified its affirmation of Haruna Audi as candidate, and ordered the relevant authorities to publish shaku’s name as the APC candidate for the forthcoming council election.

     

    The apex court’s ruling gave full judicial endorsement to Justice Abang’s 96-page dissenting judgment at the Court of Appeal delivered on Jan. 16.

     

    The dispute arose from the APC primary held on June 25, 2025, where Ishaku was declared winner with 33 votes.

     

    The 2nd respondent later challenged that outcome, asserting that a petition had been filed before the party’s Primary Election Appeal Committee, that the committee sat on June 27, 2025, that its report was ratified by the National Working Committee (NWC) on June 30 and that he was issued a certificate of return before his name was forwarded to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

     

    However, a central piece of evidence—Exhibit J—was an affidavit deposed to on oath by the 2nd respondent in an earlier suit filed on July 1, 2025 concerning the same primary.

     

    In that deposition, he expressly acknowledged that Ishaku was declared winner and sought cancellation of the primary.

     

    He made no reference to any petition and no claim that he had been declared winner with 38 votes, and no mention of any ratification by the NWC.

     

    Although the Federal High Court declared Audi the lawful candidate and backed by the majority decision in Appeal Court, Justice Abang disagreed in his ruling.

  • AGF to re-arraign lawyer, co-defendants on amended charge for allegedly cyberbullying senator

    AGF to re-arraign lawyer, co-defendants on amended charge for allegedly cyberbullying senator

     

    The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) will, on March 9, re-arraign an Abuja-based lawyer, Ahmed Abdulrahman, and his co-defendants, for allegedly cyberbullying Sen. Shehu Buba Umar.

     

    Justice Rita Offili-Ajumogobia fixed the date, on Monday, due to the absence of the 4th and 5th defendants in court.

     

    When the case was called on Monday, all the defendants, except the 4th and 5th defendants (Abdulrashid Musa and Nasir Abubakar), were in court.

     

    The AGF’s counsel, Leyii Abueh, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for continuation of hearing.

     

    She said though the court hinted that the amendment to the charge could be done orally with the agreement of the defence lawyers, Abueh said the prosecution sought to go with the formal amended charge.

     

    The lawyer, however, told the court that the defendants could continue to enjoy the earlier bail granted by the court after taking their plea.

     

    Offili-Ajumogobia, who agreed with the prosecuting lawyer’s submission, said since two defendants were not in court, the re-arraignment cannot proceed.

     

    The judge then adjourned the matter until March 9 and 10 for continuation of trial.

     

    It would be recalled that on Feb. 10, Justice Offili-Ajumogobia had advised parties in the case to agree to continue with the earlier charge and to allow the prosecution to correct the mistakes on the charge sheet in order to accelerate hearing in the trial.

     

    The judge, who said justice delay is justice denied, said such a move would save the precious time of the court on hearing another bail applications of the defendants, among others.

     

    Two witnesses had, earlier, given their evidence in the ongoing trial of Abdulrahman and his co-defendants.

     

    One of the witnesses, Rabiu-Rangers Abdullahi, on Feb. 9, told the court how David Daure, the 2nd defendant, attempted to use the name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Amb. Yusuf Tuggar, to defraud Sen. Umar.

     

    The AGF and Minister of Justice, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, had, in December 2025, taken over the prosecution of the matter from the Inspector General (I-G) of Police.

     

    Abdulrahman (1st defendant) and his co-defendants were initially being prosecuted by the I-G.

     

    The I-G, in the initial charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/526/2025 and filed by Anthony Egwu on Oct. 6, 2025, named David Daure, Ishaq Muhammed, Abdulrashid Musa and Nasir Abubakar as 2nd to 5th defendants respectively.

     

    The defendants were, on Oct. 30, 2025, arraigned on 11 counts which also bordered on alleged cybercrime, defamation, advance fee fraud, among others.

     

    They, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts and they were remanded in Kuje Correctional Centre before they were admitted to bail.

     

    In count one of the earlier charges, the defendants were alleged to have, sometime in 2025, conspired among themselves “to commit an offence, to wit; cyberstalking against Senator Shehu Buba Umar.”

     

    The offence is said to be contrary to Section 27(1)(b) and punishable under Section 21(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention etc.) Act 2015 (as amended) 2024.

     

    In count three, Abdulrahman was alleged to have, sometime in 2025, intentionally sent a video via his Tiktok handle with user name “Kibanna Channel” and his Youtube channel to defame the lawmaker by linking him to sponsorship of banditry with a view to tarnishing his image as a serving Senator.

     

    The suspect was alleged to have stated that “Senator Umar, a serving Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a sponsor of banditry and called for his investigation, a statement you made by means of computer systems and network knowing same to be false, for the purpose of causing breakdown of law and order and causing the Senator fear of death”.

     

    The offence Is also said to be contrary to Section 24(1)(5) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act 2015 (as amended) 2024, among other counts, among others.

  • Alleged extortion of inmates: Lawyer asks NCoS CG to probe, sanction officers at Kuje Prison

    Alleged extortion of inmates: Lawyer asks NCoS CG to probe, sanction officers at Kuje Prison

     

    A legal practitioner, Mr Bala Dakum, has petitioned the Controller-General (CG) of Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS), Sylvester Nwakuche, over allegations of corruption, abuse of office and extortion of inmates levelled against the controller in charge of Kuje Prison and his officers.

    Dakum, in the petition dated February 11, 2026, and received same date, also copied the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, and his counterpart in the Ministry of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo.

    He called on the CG to carry out an independent and thorough investigation into the allegations against the officers and to mete out appropriate punishment to erring officers.

    “I am a Solicitor to over 100 inmates in Kuje Correction Centre Abuja, in my capacity as a legal practitioner and concerned stakeholder in the administration of justice system, I hereby petition you.

    “It is with deep sense of responsibility that I write on behalf of my clients to formally bring to your attention a series of grave allegations bordering on abuse of office, corruption and gross misconduct against the Controller in charge of the Kuje Correctional Centre, Abuja (name withheld) and his aides.

    “The inmates, their families, and other credible sources have repeatedly alleged that the officer has used his position to facilitate a systematic extortion of inmates through his aides (names withheld).

    “These acts reportedly include, but are not limited to, demands for unlawful payments in exchange for access to basic rights and privileges such as medical attention, movement within the facility, humane treatment and other services that inmates are legally entitled to without inducement.

    Dakum, who is the Principal Partner of B.I. Dakum & Co law firm, alleged that these acts are carried out with the knowledge, consent or tacit approval of the controller in charge, thereby creating an environment of fear, exploitation and injustice within the facility,

    “Such conducts, constitute serious violation of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act, the Public Service Rules and the constitutional rights of inmates, as well as undermines public confidence in the correctional system, safety of inmates, officers and the administration of justice as a whole.

    “The situation is creating serious agitations among the inmates and unless you act fast, the situation may degenerate into chaos and the safety of the officers and inmates will be in danger.

    “Given the sensitive nature of the allegations and the strategic position occupied by the officer, there is a reasonable apprehension that his continued stay in charge of the Kuje Correctional Centre, Abuja may interfere with any impartial investigation, intimidate potential witnesses, or lead to suppression of evidence,” he said.

    Dakum, therefore, made three demands.

    “That an independent and thorough investigation be instituted immediately into the allegations of extortion, abuse of office, and misconduct against the officers (subject their accounts to forensic investigations).

    “That the officers be redeployed or transferred to a non-sensitive post pending the conclusion of investigations, in order to preserve the integrity of the process and ensure the safety of my clients.

    “That appropriate disciplinary and legal actions be taken against the erring officers.”

    The lawyer said he was compelled to write the petition in the overriding public interest and the need to protect the rights and dignity of persons in custody.

    “I trust in your office’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of professionalism within the Nigerian Correctional Service.

    “However, in the unlikely event that No immediate action is taken, I shall not hesitate to petition other relevant law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies for proper investigation.

    “I did not attach evidence of transfer of funds to the officers in issue in the interest of safety of my clients some of whom are still in their custody. I shall present the evidence at your request.

    “Please accept the assurances of my highest professional regards,” he concluded.

    When contacted in a telephone interview on Thursday, the Public Relations Officer of NCoS, Ms Jane Osuji, said though she was not in receipt of the petition, she requested that a copy of it be forwarded to her.

    “I will find out if we have gotten it and if anything has been done, then I will get back to you,” she said.

    After some hours of her receipt of the document, another phone call was put across to Osuji.

    However, in her response through a WhatsApp message, the PRO said these are allegations the NCoS CG would not take lightly.

    “Thank you very much for reaching out to me on the above.

    “Kindly let me revert back to you by tomorrow (Friday) on it.

    “These are allegations the Controller-General does not take lightly. I need to confirm he is in receipt of the petition and bring it to his notice, please.

    Thank you and good night,” Osuji responded.

    But as at the time of filing the report on Friday, Osuji was yet to get back.

  • 2027: Court to hear suit seeking to stop political parties from imposing outrageous nomination fees Thursday

    2027: Court to hear suit seeking to stop political parties from imposing outrageous nomination fees Thursday

     

     

    The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed tomorrow, Thursday, for the hearing of a suit filed by a human rights lawyer, Ejime Okolie, seeking to stop political parties from imposing exorbitant fees for expression of interest and nomination forms for aspirants ahead of 2027 general elections.

    Justice Binta Nyako fixed the date following the suit filed by Okolie against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and 19 political parties.

    Okolie, suing for himself and on behalf of millions of Nigerian citizens desirous of participating in the electoral process, prayed Justice Nyako to direct INEC to issue binding guidelines that will regulate reasonable maximum thresholds for the fees.

    He also sought an order restraining the parties from fixing or enforcing any expression of interest (EOI) or nomination fees for the primaries of 2027 general elections that have the effect of excluding qualified Nigerian citizens from contesting in the polls.

    Besides, he sought an order that the reliefs granted herein shall operate prospectively, for the protection of constitutional rights ahead of the elections.

    He urged the court to declare that the fixation, imposition and enforcement of exorbitant fees for nomination forms by the parties prior to 2023 general elections, as a condition to contest in the primaries, excluded many qualified Nigerian citizens, including himself, from the contest.

    Okolie said the act violated his fundamental rights to freedom of association guaranteed under Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    He, therefore, urged the court to declare that the imposition of financial barriers which disproportionately exclude ordinary Nigerian citizens from political participation amounts to discrimination contrary to Section 42 of the constitution.

    The lawyer, who listed 19 political parties including the All Progressives Congress (APC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), African Democratic Congress (ADC), among others, as 1st to 19th respondents, also joined INEC and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 20th and 21st respondents in the fresh suit.

    The case, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/04/2026, was dated and filed Jan. 5.

    Giving 11-ground of argument, the lawyer said that the application is brought in the public interest to protect the constitutional rights of Nigerians to political participation.

    He said his net income for the year 2025 was less than N2, 400,000.00 (two million, four hundred thousand naira) and that many professionals and youth earn even less.

    He said that before the primaries for the 2023 general elections, political parties fixed non-refundable EOI and nomination fees ranging from millions to tens of millions of naira.

    Citing instances, Okolie said the APC fixed its presidential form at N100 million, governorship at N50 million, Senate, N20 million; House of Representatives, N10 million, and state’s assembly, N2 million, per aspirant.

    He said the PDP fixed its presidential EOI at N5 million and nomination form at N35 million; governorship at N1 million and nomination form, N20 million; Senate at N500,000 and nomination form, N3 million; House of Representatives at 500,000 and nomination form, N2 million, while state’s assembly was at N100,000 and nomination form, N50Q, 000, respectively.

    He said other parties like All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Social Democratic Party (SDP) and others also had fees ranging in millions of naira for EOI and nomination.

    According to him, these fees have no statutory backing from INEC which regulates elections and set campaign finance limits through the Electoral Act, 2022.

    The lawyer, who stated that the current national minimum wage is N70,000 per month, submitted that a lot of qualified workers earn less than N1, 000,000 annually.

    “This illustrates the economic gulf between what ordinary citizens earn and the cost of EOI fees,” he said.

    He argued that Sections 65, 106, 131 and 177 of the constitution prescribe qualifications for elective offices and do not include financial capacity.

    He further argued that political parties are created and regulated under Sections 222 to 229 of the constitution and cannot operate outside constitutional limits.

    Okolie submitted that INEC is constitutionally and statutorily empowered under the Electoral Act, 2022 to regulate political parties and ensure internal democracy.

    He said that unless the court intervenes before the 2027 general elections, the political parties will repeat “the unconstitutional practices witnessed before 2023 elections, by fixing exorbitant fees.”

    The lawyer stated that the suit is preventive, not speculative, and seeks judicial protection of constitutional rights.

    Although none of the political parties had filed their defence, INEC, in its preliminary objection filed on Jan. 28, urged the court to dismiss the suit.

    According to the commission, this honourable court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit as presently constituted and same should be dismissed ‘in limine.’

    INEC’s lead counsel, Sulayman Ibrahim, SAN, argued that Okolie lacked the locus standi (legal right) to institute the suit.

    The lawyer argued that the subject matter of the suit which is regulation of the sale of EOI forms and nomination fees are internal affairs of the political parties and a no-go area for the courts.

    “This honourable court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit,” he submitted.

    But Okolie, while responding to INEC’s argument on points of law, stated that the objection is misconceived, constitutionally narrow and seeks to resurrect doctrines that had been consistently rejected in public interest and fundamental rights litigation.

    On whether he lacks locus standi in a fundamental rights enforcement action, the lawyer said INEC’s position is legally obsolete.

    According to him, locus standi is deliberately relaxed under the fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009.

    “The Preamble, Paragraph 3(e)of the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules mandates courts to ‘Encourage and welcome public interest litigation in the enforcement of fundamental rights,” he argued.

    He said the provision constitutionally overrides the restrictive approach urged by the commission.

    On whether the fixing of exorbitant EOI and nomination fees is an internal affair of political parties, Okolie argued that internal affairs doctrine is not absolute.

    According to him, while political parties enjoy internal autonomy, such autonomy ends where constitutional rights begin, citing a previous case by the Supreme Court.

    On whether the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the suit, the lawyer argued that jurisdiction is triggered by the claim, and not the defence.

    He described INEC’s objection as technically driven, substantively hollow and inconsistent with modern constitutional jurisprudence, urging the court to dismiss the objection and hear his substantive fundamental rights application on the merit.

  • Owo church attack: Witness tells court efforts made to arrest suspected terrorists

    Owo church attack: Witness tells court efforts made to arrest suspected terrorists

     

     

    The 8th prosecution witness (PW-8), on Wednesday, gave details of efforts made to apprehend the suspected terrorists who allegedly attacked St. Francis Catholic Church in Owo, Ondo State on June 5, 2022.

    The PW-8, who was a member of the Amotekun Security Network, told Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja while being led in evidence by counsel for the Department of State Services (DSS), Ayodeji Adedipe, SAN.

    The witness, simply identified as “SSH” for security reasons, said he was one of the officials deployed to go to the scene of the attack.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the DSS is prosecuting Idris Abdulmalik Omeiza (25 years), Al Qasim Idris 20 years), Jamiu Abdulmalik (26 years), Abdulhaleem Idris (25 years) and Momoh Otuho Abubakar (47 years) on alleged terrorism offences in respect of the church attack.

    At least, 40 worshippers were killed and over 100 persons sustained varying degree of injuries.

    Led in evidence by Adedipe, the witness chronicled how the team made efforts to arrest the attackers.

    “On June 5, 2022 as an operative of Amotekun, we received a distress call from the anti-kidnapping squad.

    “We were on an anti-kidnapping mission when we received a call that there was an attack at the St. Francis Church, Owo.

    “So, we were asked to withdraw and go to St Francis Church. On getting to the church, we met a crowd and managed to enter the premises.

    “When we entered the church premises, we saw several dead bodies on the floor, both inside and around the church, including some injured people, including women and children,” he said.

    The witness added: “We later came outside the church to gather information, and learnt that the attackers were four in number and that they left the church in a blue Nissan car.

    “We got into our vehicle and started to trail them towards Ute Road, because that was the information we got.

    “We were able to get close to them because our vehicle was more efficient than the one they were carrying.”

    SSH said at a point, the attackers “suddenly parked their car and ran into the bush. One of our men and a volunteer went after them while the rest of us waited strategically.”

    The witness said they later heard gun shots, adding: “After a while of gun shots, our colleague came out of the bush and informed us that the hunter has been killed.

    “We were able to get back to the bush to take the body of the hunter,” the witness said.

    He added that they later took the Nissan car to their office, before it was moved to the state headquarters of Amotekun.

    Under cross-examination by defence lawyer, Abdullahi Mohammad, the witness said he could not remember how many of them brought out the hunter’s corpse from the bush.

    On whether they made efforts to identify the actual owner of the Nissan car, the witness said: “Before we moved the vehicle to the state headquarters in Akure, the owner came to our office to identify himself as the owner of the vehicle.”

    When asked if they interviewed the owner of the vehicle, the witness said the interview was conducted in their office, but that he was not part of those who interviewed the owner of the car..

    At the conclusion of the cross-examination, Adedipe prayed the court to grant an adjournment to three consecutive days to allow the prosecution called its last set of witnesses and close its case.

    The defence lawyer did not oppose, following which Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned until March 24, 25 and 26 for continuation of trial.

  • Court adjourns trial of defendants who allegedly cyberbullying lawmaker until Feb. 16

    Court adjourns trial of defendants who allegedly cyberbullying lawmaker until Feb. 16

     

    The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, adjourned the trial of an Abuja-based lawyer and four other social media influencers, who allegedly cyberbullying Sen. Shehu Buba Umar, until Feb. 16.

    Justice Rita Offili-Ajumogobia fixed the date following an application by Leyii Abueh, counsel for the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), seeking the court’s permission to re-arraign the defendants on amended charge.

    It would be recalled that two witnesses had given their evidence in the ongoing trial of the lawyer, Ahmed Abdulrahman, and his co-defendants.

    One of the witnesses, Rabiu-Rangers Abdullahi, on Monday, told the court how David Daure, the 2nd defendant, attempted to use the name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Amb. Yusuf Tuggar, to defraud Sen. Umar.

    The AGF and Minister of Justice, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, had, in December 2025, taken over the prosecution of the matter from the Inspector General (I-G) of Police.

    Abdulrahman (1st defendant) and his co-defendants were initially being prosecuted by the I-G.

    The I-G, in the charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/526/2025 and filed by Anthony Egwu on Oct. 6, 2025, named David Daure, Ishaq Muhammed, Abdulrashid Musa and Nasir Abubakar as 2nd to 5th defendants respectively.

    The defendants were, on Oct. 30, 2025, arraigned on 11 counts which also bordered on alleged cybercrime, defamation, advance fee fraud, among others.

    They, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts and they were remanded in Kuje Correctional Centre before they were admitted to bail.

    Upon resumed trial on Tuesday, the prosecution lawyer, Abueh, informed the court that though the matter was for continuation of trial, she said an amended charge had been filed.

    The lawyer sought the permission of the court to substitute the initial charge with the amended one.

    The defence lawyers, including Abdul Mohammed, SAN; Hamza Danttani, Afix Matanmi and A A. Badmus, did not raise any objection and the judge ordered that the charge be read so that the defendants could take their plea.

    However, while the counts were being read, the judge asked the prosecuting counsel if there is any significant change in the amended charge.

    Abueh told the court that in the initial charge, there was a mistake in the name of the lawmaker, who is the nominal complainant.

    She also said that the law cited in the earlier charge was not appropriately captured and that the prosecution had an additional evidence to tender in the trial.

    Justice Offili-Ajumogobia then advised that if the defence lawyers would not oppose to correcting the minor mistakes in the earlier charge and the need to bring in additional evidence, the amended charge could be dropped in order to accelerate hearing in the trial.

    The judge, who said justice delay is justice denied, said such move would safe the precious time of the court on hearing another bail applications of the defendants, among others.

    The defence and the prosecution lawyers agreed with the judge’s suggestion and the matter was adjourned until Feb. 16 for the prosecution to address the court on the need for the amended charge and for the defence to respond appropriately.

    In count one of the earlier charge, the defendants were alleged to have, sometime in 2025, conspired among themselves “to commit an offence, to wit; cyberstalking against Senator Shehu Buba Umar.”

    The offence is said to be contrary to Section 27(1)(b) and punishable under Section 21(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention etc.) Act 2015 (as amended) 2024.

    In count three, Abdulrahman was alleged to have, sometime in 2025, intentionally sent a video via his Tiktok handle with user name “Kibanna Channel” and his Youtube channel to defame the lawmaker by linking him to sponsorship of banditry with a view to tarnishing his image as a serving Senator.

    The suspect was alleged to have stated that “Senator Umar, a serving Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a sponsor of banditry and called for his investigation, a statement you made by means of computer systems and network knowing same to be false, for the purpose of causing breakdown of law and order and causing the Senator fear of death”.

    The offence Is also said to be contrary to Section 24(1)(5) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act 2015 (as amended) 2024, among other counts, among others.