News Agency of Nigeria
Court strikes out charge against Oba Otudeko, others

Court strikes out charge against Oba Otudeko, others

13 total views today

By Sandra Umeh

A Federal High Court Lagos, on Wednesday, struck out a charge preferred by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), against Chairman of the Honeywell Group, Oba Otudeko and others.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, struck out the charge, following EFCC’s information to the court that parties had achieved full settlement in the case.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that EFCC preferred a 13-count charge against Oba Otudeko and a former Managing Director of First Bank Plc, Olabisi Onasanya.

Also charged were a former board member of Honeywell, Soji Akintayo and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

At the last adjourned date of March 17, first defense counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), had informed the court that a meeting involving all counsel, had been convened at the instance of the Attorney General (AG).

He had said that this was aimed at reaching a peaceful settlement of the case.

The prosecution, had confirmed the position to the court, which then adjourned the case for a report of settlement.

When the case was called on Wednesday, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) announced appearance for the prosecution together with Mrs Bilikisu Buhari and S.I Suleiman.

Mr Bode Olanipekun (SAN) appeared for the first defendant, Mr A Olumide-Fusika (SAN) appeared for the second defendant, and Mr Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) appeared for the third defendant.

Meanwhile, Mr Elijah Akefe appeared for the fourth defendant while Mr B.O Ofulue, appeared for the nominal complainant (First Bank).

Counsel to the first defendant (Olanipekun), then informed the court that all outstanding issues between the first defendant and the nominal complainant (first bank), had been resolved.

He told the court that same had been duly communicated to the appropriate authorities, including the prosecution.

Counsel to the nominal complainant (Ofulue), confirmed the position to the court.

In response, the prosecutor confirmed the position to the court that there had been settlement of the issues, and gave a detailed recall of all incidences, including the meetings held as well as resolutions.

Citing the provisions of section 180 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, he averred that in the interest of justice, public policy and the need to prevent abuse of court process, the AG decided that the matter be discontinued.

Counsel to all defendants confirmed the position as stated by prosecution.

Justice Aneke, consequently held: “This charge is hereby struck out”.

Meanwhile, in a statement by its Counsel, Olasumbo Abolaji, Honeywell welcomed the development, calling it a reaffirmation of Otudeko’s integrity.

“Honeywell Group confirms that the legal proceedings initiated by the EFCC against our Chairman, Oba Otudeko, in connection with matters relating to First Holdco Plc, have been formally withdrawn.

“This development marks the closure of a chapter that, while challenging, never diminished our confidence in Otudeko’s integrity or our belief in the principles that have guided his life and leadership.

“At no point was there any finding or admission of wrongdoing, and this conclusion further affirms what we have always maintained, that this was a commercial transaction, investigated by the EFCC and resolved eight years ago.

“Otudeko’s service, enterprise, and nation-building record stand firm and unblemished.

“For over six decades, he has contributed significantly to Nigeria’s economic and institutional development, including distinguished tenures across banking, industry, and public service.” he said

The Group reaffirmed its commitment to creating value through enterprise in food, energy, infrastructure, and financial services.

“As we move forward, we do so strengthened by experience, focused on the future, and anchored in the enduring values that have always shaped our journey,”.(NAN)

Edited by Tosin Kolade

You cannot enforce a judgment you appealed, lawyer tells Natasha

You cannot enforce a judgment you appealed, lawyer tells Natasha

66 total views today

By Taiye Agbaje

A legal practitioner, Ken Harries, says Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan cannot enforce a judgment of the lower court in which she has filed an appeal.

The senior lawyer stated this in Abuja in reaction to the Kogi Central senator’s alleged invasion of the National Assembly (NASS) on Tuesday to resume her legislative duties.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan had, on Tuesday, stormed NASS, along with her teeming supporters, claiming to want to enforce the judgment of the Federal High Court (FHC) sitting in Abuja, which she claimed ordered her recall.

The lawmaker had, recently, filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, challenging the judgment of Justice Binta Nyako of FHC which found her guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of N5 million.

The senator, in her appeal, prayed the appellate court to set aside the judgment delivered on July 4 on the grounds that it was legally flawed, procedurally defective and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

Reacting to the development on Tuesday, Harries accused Akpoti-Uduaghan “of seeking to eat her cake and still have it by appealing the July 4 judgment and still attempting to enforce the same judgment.”

The lawyer wondered if taking law into one’s hands, as allegedly shown by Akpoti-Uduaghan’s conduct, was the right way to enforce a judgment.

“In my many years in legal practice, I have not seen such a display of lawlessness from a supposed federal lawmaker.

“How do you invade the National Assembly with a group of touts, claiming to want to enforce a judgment?

“There are procedures for judgment enforcement.

“It is not for an individual to take the law into his or her own hands, create a crisis atmosphere on the pretext of wanting to enforce a judgment,” Harries said.

He recalled that Akpoti-Uduaghan filed an appeal against the judgment about a week ago, faulting the judgment and praying the Court of Appeal to set it aside.

Harries, who queried the rationale behind Akpoti-Uduaghan’s decision to invade the National Assembly, sought to know what judgment she was seeking to enforce.

“How do you enforce a judgment that you have said you are not satisfied with, condemned, appealed and prayed the Court of Appeal to reverse?

“Assuming the judgment is still enforceable, has she complied with all the orders made against her, including that she pay N5 million and publish public apology in two newspapers and her Facebook page?

“If she has failed to obey the same judgment by not complying with the orders made against her, what moral standing does she have to accuse the leadership of the Senate of being lawless?

“Her lawyers should be in a better position to advise her to learn to be lawful and respect the rule of law,” he said.

According to Harries, whoever goes to equity must go with clean hands. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

Court dismisses suit seeking to stop allocation to Kano LGAs

Court dismisses suit seeking to stop allocation to Kano LGAs

83 total views today
By Ramatu Garba
A Federal High Court sitting in Kano, on Monday, dismissed a suit filed by Abdullahi Abbas of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and one other seeking to stop statutory allocations to the 44 Local Government Areas of Kano State.
Abbas, Aminu Aliyu-Tiga, and the APC , through their counsel, Sunday Olowomoran, filed a motion exparte dated Oct. 28, and filed on Nov.1, 2024.
The respondents in the suit are the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Federal Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, (RMAFC), Accountant-General of the Federation, Minister of Finance, Auditor General of the Federation, and Attorney General of the Federation.
Others are the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), the Kano State Government, Attorney General Kano, Kano State Independent Electoral Commission (KANSIEC) and the 44 Kano local governments.
The applicants are seeking a declaration that the 12th to 55th respondents are not democratically elected and constituted pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

They are also asking the court to restrain the Federal Government, the CBN, and the Accountant-General from disbursing statutory funds to Kano’s 44 local government councils.

Justice Simon Amobeda, in his ruling, held that even though a notice of discontinuance which ought to be filed not later than 14 days after service, was filed, a hearing date had been fixed, citing Order 50 Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the court.

“To avoid resuscitating the case in the future, the proper order to make is to dismiss the case.

“In view of this, leave is hereby granted to the applicants to withdraw the case. The suit is hereby dismissed with no cost,” Amobeda said.

Earlier, while addressing the court on the propriety or otherwise of the case, counsel to the applicants, Mr Sunday Olowomoran, on behalf of the lead counsel, Abdul Adamu-Fagge, SAN, made an oral application to withdraw the case.
“My Lord, this suit was appealed. The appellate court on June 30, said this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter and that the Kano State High Court is the proper court to entertain it,” Olowomoran said, urging the court to strike out the case.

Counsel to CBN and RMAFC, Mr. B. D. Uche and S. G. Ahmad, told the court that their clients were not part of the appeal at the appellate court and urged the court to dismiss the suit with a cost of N1 million each.

Counsel to the Attorney-General of the Federation, Tajudeen Abdullahi, urged the court to dismiss the suit, not strike it out, with a cost of N2.5 million.

Counsel to Kano State Government, Bashir Yusuf-Muhammad, urged the court to apply the principle of law by dismissing the suit with a cost of N2 billion against the plaintiffs.

Also, counsel to the Kano State Attorney-General, Sani Mustafa-Dauda, also urged the court to dismiss the suit with a cost of N5 million.

Counsel to KANSIEC, Ibrahim Wangida, urged the court to dismiss the suit, not strike it out.

“My Lord, KANSIEC has suffered psychological and physical trauma; the office was locked for three months. We have filed processes, services, and printing. We are asking for a cost of N2 million,” he said.

Counsel to the 44 local governments, Eyitayo Fatogun, SAN, also urged the court to dismiss the suit with a cost of N2 million, citing Order 50 of the rules of the court.

Counsel for the 44 elected local government chairmen, Mustapha Hussaini, urged the court to dismiss the suit with a cost of N44 million.

NAN reports that the court, on Oct. 23, 2024, halted the conduct of the local government councils’ election scheduled for Oct. 26, 2025, until KANSIEC is properly reconstituted, as it had previously been dissolved by the court for partisanship. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)
Edited by Ifeyinwa Okonkwo/Sadiya Hamza
NHRC, NGO secure 4 inmates’ release from Suleja corrections centre

NHRC, NGO secure 4 inmates’ release from Suleja corrections centre

75 total views today

By Edith Nwapi

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Hope Behind Bars Africa (HBBA) on Monday facilitated the release of four Suleja Correctional Service inmates.

The release took place during a visit to the facility by NHRC and HBBA in commemoration of Nelson Mandela Day.

Speaking, the Executive Secretary of NHRC, Dr Tony Ojukwu, SAN, explained that July 18 was the official Mandela Day.

“We took leave to celebrate it today because we wanted to celebrate it with the inmates at the Suleja Correctional Centre.

“We celebrate the Mandela Day every year to shine light on the legacy of a man who changed how prisoners should be treated.

“So that their dignity will be maintained, so that poverty will be eliminated.”

He said that prisoners are entitled to the right to food, health, freedom of expression and must be treated with dignity.

He added that there is still hope.

“Today we have also paid fines for those who were locked up because they couldn’t afford to pay,” he said.

Also speaking, Mr Samuel Olukade, Chief Legal Officer of HBBA, expressed concern that there were few correctional centres in the country for female inmates.

He urged corrections officers to treat female inmates with special care.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the four inmates released are Michael Udoh, Abdul Hassan, Mohammed Sani and Yunusa Yusuf.

The fine of N300,000 was paid for their offence.

They were also given transport fares to enable them get home. (NAN) (www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

Rethinking the Death Penalty dilemma in Nigeria

Rethinking the Death Penalty dilemma in Nigeria

104 total views today

By Judiciary Reporters, News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)

With hundreds of inmates languishing on death row and governors increasingly reluctant to sign execution warrants, Nigeria finds itself caught between legal duty and moral conscience.

Although capital punishment remains enshrined in the Constitution, a growing number of legal experts, human rights advocates, and policy stakeholders are calling for sentencing reforms.

This includes proposals to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment, which many stakeholders consider a more humane and legally sustainable alternative.

Under Nigerian law, state governors have the constitutional responsibility to sign death warrants for convicts sentenced to capital punishment.

This authority forms part of their role as heads of the executive arm of government and underscores their responsibility to ensure that justice is carried out.

In addition, governors are empowered to grant clemency, including pardons or commutations, which may ultimately halt an execution.

Nevertheless, international attention has remained fixed on Nigeria’s death penalty policy.

The UN General Assembly has repeatedly called for a global moratorium on executions, with the long-term goal of abolishing capital punishment altogether.

Consequently, Nigeria has come under pressure from international human rights bodies to address its continued application of the death sentence.

Although Nigeria is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides guidance on the application of the death penalty, it has yet to abolish capital punishment formally.

However, there is a de facto moratorium in place, meaning executions are no longer carried out, even though the law allowing for capital punishment remains active.

As a result, several observers and advocacy groups have urged the government to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which commits signatory nations to abolishing the death penalty.

According to the Nigerian Constitution, the decision to sign a death warrant lies solely with the governor of each state.

This discretion allows governors to either approve or delay execution, even after all legal appeals have been exhausted.

While the law permits executions, the practical decision often reflects personal convictions, political calculations, or concerns over human rights.

Since the country’s return to democracy in 1999, executions have been rare.

For instance, the execution of Sani Yakubu Rodi under Sharia Law in Katsina State in 2002, and a series of hangings carried out in Edo during Gov. Adams Oshiomhole’s tenure between 2012 and 2016, remain among the few documented cases.

These sparse instances underscore Nigeria’s status as a country where the death penalty exists in law but is seldom enforced in practice.

Meanwhile, legal practitioners across the country are divided over the morality, relevance, and enforceability of capital punishment.

The growing reluctance by governors to sign execution warrants has prompted renewed debate about the future of the death penalty in Nigeria.

Speaking to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recently, Mr Stephen Oluebube, a legal expert, said religious beliefs and misconceptions about official responsibilities may be discouraging governors from signing execution orders.

According to him, many religions, especially Christianity and Islam, oppose the unjust taking of human life.

“Hence, many governors think that by signing execution warrants, they are personally responsible for the killing.

“Most of them fail to understand that signing such warrants is a constitutional act of the office, not of the individual,” he explained.

Oluebube further argued that although human rights groups have consistently called for abolition, Nigeria might not yet be ready to completely discard the death penalty.

“Its existence has deterred many from engaging in extreme violence,” he said.

However, another lawyer, Mr Sydney Nwachukwu, held a different view.

He insisted that only God has the right to take life, noting flaws in the judicial process.

“Our judges are human and prone to errors. Many murder convicts may not have the financial resources to pursue appeals up to the Supreme Court,” he said.

He added that he does not support the death penalty and believes the system is too flawed to justify irreversible punishments.

“Our police investigations and judiciary are corrupt and compromised. The entire framework requires an overhaul”.

In a similar vein, Mr Damian Nwankwo described capital punishment as a legal penalty that is rarely enforced because of governors’ increasing moral and ethical reservations.

“Although courts pronounce death sentences, the burden of implementation rests on governors’ consciences,” he said.

Nwankwo listed other reasons for the reluctance, including pressure from civil society, fear of judicial error, and political ramifications.

“Human rights organisations have consistently campaigned against the death penalty. Many governors fear backlash from religious leaders, advocacy groups, and the international community,” he explained.

He also expressed concern over the possibility of wrongful executions, which could spark national outrage.

“For politicians mindful of public opinion and future ambitions, the risks of signing far outweigh the benefits,” he added.

Nwankwo stressed that Nigeria appears to be operating an unofficial moratorium.

“Many death sentences are commuted to life imprisonment, or inmates remain on death row for years without resolution”.

To address this dilemma, Nwankwo called for urgent legal and constitutional reforms.

“We must review the laws governing capital punishment and the governor’s role. Our current legal framework is outdated and misaligned with global human rights standards,” he said.

He urged lawmakers to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole for the most serious offences.

According to him, Nigeria is a signatory to key international treaties that discourage capital punishment, including the ICCPR and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

He added that the reform would reflect Nigeria’s commitment to human rights and improve prison conditions by offering avenues for commutation or retrials.

“Thousands of inmates languish in terrible conditions on death row. We must create pathways for rehabilitation, not indefinite suffering”.

Another lawyer, Mr Thaddeus Mbalian, said Nigeria’s international treaty commitments discourage executions.

He called for internal law reform to bring the country in line with international expectations.

However, he noted that Nigeria’s dualist legal system, where treaties do not automatically override domestic laws, complicates the process.

“Executing judicial decisions has become a challenge. To avoid delays and confusion, we should abolish the death penalty entirely,” Mbalian said.

Similarly, Mrs Queendoline Ekong argued that the death penalty should be removed from Nigeria’s statute books due to long-standing implementation difficulties.

Also, Mr Yakubu Dauda, another legal voice, pointed out that the Federal Government lacks the authority to compel governors to carry out executions.

“Under Section 212 of the 1999 Constitution, only state governors; after consulting their State Advisory Councils on Prerogative of Mercy, can sign death warrants,” he said.

“The president cannot interfere or compel a governor to sign a death warrant. It is a purely state-level constitutional mandate,” he added.

He noted that some governors choose to commute death sentences to life imprisonment instead of signing execution orders, often in response to public and international pressure.

NAN investigations reveal that only three governors have signed death warrants since Nigeria’s return to democracy.

In 2006, Gov. Ibrahim Shekarau of Kano reportedly signed for the execution of about seven inmates.

Gov. Adams Oshiomhole of Edo signed in 2012 for two prisoners who were later hanged.

Gov. Godwin Obaseki, also of Edo, signed for three inmates in 2016, and those executions were carried out shortly after.

As the national conversation continues, legal experts agree that the current state of capital punishment in Nigeria is unsustainable.

They insist that the absence of executions, albeit legal provisions, contributes to public uncertainty and weakens confidence in the justice system.

They, however, recommend replacing the death penalty with life sentences for the most heinous crimes and aligning domestic law with international best practices.

Without clear policy direction, they warn, the country risks further erosion of justice and continued ambiguity over the fate of those on death row. (NAN)

***If used, please credit the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN).

Appeal Court orders reinstatement of retired ACP Idachaba

Appeal Court orders reinstatement of retired ACP Idachaba

156 total views today

By Taiye Agbaje

The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Friday, ordered the immediate reinstatement of ACP James Idachaba, who was compulsorily retired by the Police Service Commission (PSC).

Justice Mohammed Danjuma, who delivered the lead judgment, also reversed the directive by the PSC, requiring him to refund eight years’ salaries with effect from Aug. 1, 2025.

The appellate court, in the appeal filed by Idachaba’s lawyer, Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, set aside the decision of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN).

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice O.O. Oyewumi of the NICN had, on 15 May, 2024, dismissed Idachaba’s originating summons challenging his compulsory retirement from the force.

At the trial court, Idachaba stated that, following his promotion to the rank of assistant commissioner of police in 2023, he noticed that his salary was stopped by the PSC and the police after a decision was made to compulsorily retire him without a “fair hearing.”

He added that the PSC failed to provide him with any documents containing the allegations brought against him or the record of the proceedings of the plenary where the purported decision to summarily retire him was reached.

His lawyer, Ojukwu, sought 11 reliefs.

He argued that the compulsory retirement and salary refund directive constitute a violation of his right to a fair hearing and are, therefore, null, void, and of no effect.

He urged the court to compel PSC to reinstate his client immediately and unconditionally, restoring him to the rank of ACP with all rights, entitlements, and emoluments from Aug. 18, 2023, among other reliefs.

However, the NICN, on May 15, 2024, dismissed Idachaba’s suit on the grounds that the appellant failed to prove his case or justify why the court’s discretionary power should be exercised in his favour.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant filed his appeal on Sept. 24, 2024.

But the police opposed the appeal.

Delivering the judgment on Friday, the three-member panel of justices held that the issues formulated for determination were resolved in favour of Idachaba and against the respondents.

“It follows that this appeal is meritorious and hereby succeeds,” the judge said.

The judge ordered that the judgment of the lower court, in suit number: NICN/ABJ/288/2023, is hereby set aside.

The appellate court also awarded the sum of N2 million against the 1st and 2nd respondents to be paid jointly and severally. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

Stakeholders urge NASS to align constitution review with democratic practices

Stakeholders urge NASS to align constitution review with democratic practices

133 total views today

By Ebere Agozie

Stakeholders in the judicial sector have urged members of the National Assembly to ensure the proposed constitution review aligns with democratic best practices.

 

They gave the charge at a one-day Webinar Series No. 14 of the Rule of Law Foundation organised to address the Problems of Modern Day Nigeria through Constitutional Amendment.

 

The event was to commemorate the 45 years anniversary of call to the Nigerian bar and 30 years of conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria on JB Daudu.

 

Daudu in his paper, which he averred as his `Input as it Relates to the Ongoing Process Of Constitutional Amendment’, said that the review must also ensure historical lessons and the urgent need for public trust in Nigeria’s legal system.

 

“If the Nigerian elite are to be honest to themselves, they will readily agree that the reason for bad governance and corruption in Nigeria is not the nature of the constitution in view.

 

`It is the attitude of the leaders and those at the helm of authority to the basic principles of governance.

 

“I have always believed that a constitution is not what determines how a country is run. It is the honesty, the decency, the God-fearingness of the leaders that will determine it.”

 

He added that any constitution can be applied equitably and fairly unless personal interest comes into play.

 

Daudu said that if a constitution is not properly applied, it would not bring about the much needed justice and peace in the society.

 

The governor of Kogi State, Usman Ododo, said that it is imperative to stress the importance of constitutional amendment.

 

Ododo was represented by Muiz Abdullahi, SAN, the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice of the state.

 

He added that the amendment in Nigeria cannot be over-emphasized as some of the provisions of the constitution are no longer in tune with international best practices.

 

“Amendment of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is therefore crucial for the following reasons.

 

“To promote the rule of law by strengthening the independence of the judiciary, enhancing the protection of human rights and access to justice.

 

“To strengthen federalism in Nigeria, state governments should be made more independent by proper devolution of powers. More power should be devolved to state governments for rapid development across the country.’’

 

The governor urged that the federal and state governments should be allowed to legislate on issues that border on mining and others.

 

Ododo said that this would address provisions in the constitution that are capable of causing confusion or multiple interpretations.

 

“For example, who legislates on items not contained in either the exclusive or concurrent legislative list.

 

“We have to bring the constitution at par with changing times in order to align same with international best practices.

 

“It should ensure that the constitution is a reflection of the aspiration as well as the needs of the citizens of the country for an efficient promotion of good governance and national development’’.

 

He, thereafter, congratulated Daudu for the milestone of celebrating greatness, success and outstanding impact in the legal provision in Nigeria and beyond. (NAN)

Edited by Ismail Abdulaziz

Court rejects prayer stopping NASS from approving Rivers’ budgets

Court rejects prayer stopping NASS from approving Rivers’ budgets

142 total views today

By Taiye Agbaje

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, dismissed a motion seeking to restrain the National Assembly from approving budgets or appointments of Rivers Government under the current Sole Administrator.

Retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas was appointed as Rivers’ Sole Administrator by President Bola Tinubu following the six-month suspension of Gov. Siminalayi Fubara.

Justice James Omotosho, in a ruling on Friday, held that the court could not grant the relief sought because what the applicants intended to stop had been completed.

Justice Omotosho held that the court was aware that the Senate, on June 25, passed the budget of Rivers State submitted by the administrator.

The judge further held that the implication was that the act sought to be restrained was a completed one and proceeded to dismiss it.

He also held that some of the issues raised in the motion on notice are contained in the substantive suit, which would be better determined when the main suit is being decided.

The judge adjourned until Oct. 20 for the hearing of the substantive suit.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1190/2025, was instituted by some indigenes of Rivers and a group, the Registered Trustees of Hope Africa Foundation.

Other plaintiffs are King Oziwe Amba, Chief Julius Bulous, Chief George Ikeme, Chief Amachelu Orlu and Prince Odioha Wembe.

They had dragged the National Assembly and the Clerk of the National Assembly to court as 1st and 2nd defendants.

The applicants sought “an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants “from further interference, approving, supporting and engaging in any legislative activities including approving, appointment or budgets of Rivers State Government.”

They argued that this was in furtherance to the alleged illegalities and unconstitutionally forwarded proposed state budget by Ibas, “arising from the unconstitutionally prohibited ‘voice vote’ not provided for under the constitution pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit by this honourable court.”

NAN observes that while the main suit was filed on June 19, the motion for interlocutory injunction was filed on June 24.

The plaintiffs prayed the court to restrain the defendants from further acting on any requests from the emergency government in the state pending the determination of the substantive suit.

They contended that the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers was without the required legislative approval because the voice votes adopted by the National Assembly in approving the emergency rule was unconstitutional.

In his counter argument, lawyer to the National Assembly and its clerk, Mohammed Galadima, urged the court to reject the motion for interlocutory injunction, arguing that it was without merit.

In the affidavit filed by the defendants, they argued that the facts deposed to in the plaintiffs’ supporting affidavit to the motion “are contrived falsehood and calculated misrepresentation of the facts as they occurred.”

They argued that there had never been any illegality in their actions and that there is no breach of the constitution as alleged by the applicants.

The defendants also faulted the plaintiffs’ claim that the emergency rule was a violation of their fundamental rights to be governed by a democratically elected government.

The National Assembly and its Clerk said they would be seriously prejudiced by the grant of the motion as it would create pandemonium and confusion in governance in Rivers.

They added that the grant of the motion would not be in the interest of justice.
Justice Omotosho fixed July 18 for the ruling.

NAN reports that the Senate had, on June 25, passed the 2025 budget of Rivers, totalling ₦1.485 trillion, following the third reading of the appropriation bill on the floor. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

A’Ibom CJ tours correctional centres, frees 123 inmates

A’Ibom CJ tours correctional centres, frees 123 inmates

133 total views today

By Isaiah Eka

The Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom, Justice Ekaette Obot, has rounded off a three-day facility tour of correctional centres in the state and set free 123 inmates.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that 62 out of the 123 inmates were released on health grounds.

NAN reports that four inmates regained freedom in Ikot Abasi custodial centre; 17 inmates were released in Eket centre, 29 in Ikot Ekpene centre, while 73 were set free in Uyo custodial centre.

The CJ’s official visits to the custodial centres across the three senatorial districts began on Monday, July 14 and ended on Thursday, July 17.

The chief judge observed that most of the offenders had minor offences and had overstayed in the custodial centres beyond the period they were supposed to stay, if they had been convicted.

She, however, released some on compassionate, health grounds and lack of diligence prosecution.

A typical case in Uyo custodual centre, was a case of one Etieno Okon, who was 15 years when he was detained and had been in custody for five years, without trial, for cultism charge.

The CJ, in discharging the inmates in all the centres, charged them to be of good behaviour and shun all acts that might bring them back to the custodial centre.

Obot expressed displeasure on the number of inmates awaiting trials, some without any charge preferred against them still in custody, with some staying more than the sentence of their crime if convicted.

She charged prosecutors on the need to ensure that no one was denied justice and they should not infringe on the fundamental rights of the accused.

The chief judge commended all the judges, magistrates, court officials and Controller of Correctional Centre, Akwa Ibom Command for their commitment and steadfastness throughout the three-day exercise.

She prayed God Almighty to grant the sick ones released speedy recovery and sustain those still in incarceration.

In his remarks, the Controller of Correctional Centre, Akwa Ibom Command, Mr Frank Okonkwo, thanked the chief judge for her visit to the facilities and the goodwill extended to the custodial centres in the state.

Okonkwo highlighted some of the challenges confronting the centres to include dilapidated facilities and lack of logistics to convey inmates to court on time.

He appealed to Gov. Umo Eno of Akwa Ibom to extend support and assistance to the custodial centres in the state to ensure better welfare for inmates. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Maureen Atuonwu

Leadership crisis: Appeal Court affirms Kabir Ibrahim’s sack as AFAN president

Leadership crisis: Appeal Court affirms Kabir Ibrahim’s sack as AFAN president

172 total views today

By Taiye Agbaje

The Court of Appeal, Abuja on Thursday, affirmed the removal of Mr Kabir Ibrahim as president of the All Farmers’ Association of Nigeria (AFAN) by the Federal High Court (FHC) Abuja.

A three-member panel of justices, in a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Danjuma, also awarded the cost of N200,000 against Ibrahim.

Danjuma held that Ibrahim’s appeal, marked: CA/ABJ/CV/554/2022, was devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.

Danjuma further held that the two issues raised by the appellant (Ibrahim) for determination were resolved in favour of Mr Farouk Mudi, the authentic president of the association.

“This appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

“The judgment of the lower court, delivered on the 24th day of March, 2022, is hereby affirmed and a cost of N200,000 is hereby awarded against the appellant and in favour of the respondents.”

The other two members of the panel equally adopted the judgment and joined in dismissing the appeal.

The panel, which was headed by Justice Ali Gumel, also had Justice Anthony Ogakwu as members.

Ibrahim had approached the Appeal Court following the judgement delivered by retired Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the FHC, on March 24, 2022, restraining him from parading himself as president of AFAN.

Justice Taiwo, in the judgment, also declared the election held on April 10, 2021, by AFAN General Assembly in Kano which produced Mudi and members of its National Working Committee (NWC) and National Executive Council (NEC) as valid.

The judge, therefore, ordered Ibrahim, whose tenure, he held, had expired since June 14, 2019, to hand over the assets and property of the association in his possession and custody.

Ibrahim and Mudi had locked horns in a legal battle over the leadership position of the farmers’ association.

While Ibrahim filed the first suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/329/2020 to drag Mudi to court, Mudi, on his part, sued Ibrahim in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/322/2020.

Delivering judgment in the first suit between Incorporated Trustees of All Farmers Association, Ibrahim and Rev. Tobias Iwu Vs. Admiral Murtala Nyako and Farouk Mudi, the judge said that the defendants contended that Ibrahim’s tenure as AFAN president had expired after his five-year single term as stipulated by their constitution.

Taiwo aligned with the arguments of the defendants canvassed by their lawyer, Modibbo Bakari, that Ibrahim, who became president on June 14, 2014, ought to have vacated office on June 14, 2019.

This, the judge held, is in accordance with the provision of Article 13 (1) of AFAN Constitution since there was no provision for tenure elongation in the body.

He said that it was a fact that AFAN executive committee held an election that produced Mudi as the president.

“I am at a loss when reading the processes before me, especially the application by counsel for the plaintiffs,” the judge had said.

According to him, cases are not won by arguments by counsel but the evidence before the court and addresses of counsel in court are meant to assist the court.

Taiwo, who held that the 1st plaintiff (Incorporated Trustees of AFAN) cannot be made a party in the first suit, said that only the NEC of AFAN had the authority to approve an action to be instituted in the name of the association, going by Article 11 of the association’s constitution.

“There is nothing before the court to show that the NEC of the plaintiffs authorised the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs,” he said.

The judge, therefore, held that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs (Ibrahim and Iwu) cannot join the suit without the approval of the NEC, citing other cases to back his judgment.

“The law says he who asserts must prove. I am of the well-considered view that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs cannot be plaintiffs in this suit without authorisation. if they want to be plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff must authorise,” he said.

Justice Taiwo then dismissed the suit.

Delivering judgment on the second suit between AFAN Vs. Ibrahim and his lead dissolved NWC and NEC of AFAN (1st defendant) and Inspector-General of Police (2nd defendant) filed by Mudi, the judge also agreed with the plaintiff that Ibrahim (1st defendant)’s tenure had expired.

He said the substantive matter was whether Ibrahim was still the president.

“I have read the constitution of the association which says the tenure of its elected officers shall be for five years tenure.

“I find that the 1st defendant and the EXCO were inaugurated on 14th of June 2014,” he said.

Taiwo, who noticed a contradiction in the date Ibrahim averred to have assumed office, said though the embattled president claimed he was inaugurated on June 15, 2014 in the affidavit he deposed to, he was actually inaugurated on June 14, 2014.

He said Ibrahim and his led EXCO’s tenure ought to have expired on June 14, 2019.

“At that point, the 1st defendant and his EXCO cease to be in office,” he said.

The judge, who struck out the name of the IGP from the suit, said that a cause of action had not been established against the 2nd defendant to join him as a necessary party.

Justice Taiwo, who granted all the reliefs of the plaintiff, said that there should be no need for consequential order.

Mudi, through AFAN, had sued Mr Ibrahim and his dissolved NWC over alleged refusal to hand over the association’s assets and property.

In the originating summons filed by Bakari, Mudi asked the court to stop Kabiru Ibrahim-led NWC from parading themselves as executive members of the association.

He had wanted the court to determine whether by virtue of the established law of AFAN, Ibrahim whose tenure expired in June 14, 2019, was still vested with powers to manage and run the affairs of the association.

He sought a declaration of the court that by the combined effect of Article 13.1 of the Constitution of the AFAN and Section 593 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1 Cap. C20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, the 1st defendants who were inaugurated in June 2014 had served their single term of five years which tenure expired in June 2019.

He also sought a declaration that by virtue of the provision of the aforesaid Article 13.1 of the plaintiff’s constitution, the 1st defendants are divested of any powers, rights, prerogative and/or privileges to perform or carry out the work, duties and/or functions of the National Executive Council and/or National Working Committee or any other committee or committees whatsoever whether collectively or severally.

“An order directing the 1st defendants to hand over the assets and property of the plaintiff in their possession and custody.

“A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendants from parading themselves or holding out as members of Exco and executive, among others.” (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

X
Welcome to NAN
Need help? Choose an option below and let me be your assistant.
Email SubscriptionSite SearchSend Us Email