By Bosede Olufunmi

The Police on Thursday arraigned a 29-year-old domestic worker, Alkasim Hamza, before a Sharia Court in Kano for alleged breach of trust.

Hamza, who lives at Tal’udu Quarters, Kano State, is facing a two-count charge of criminal breach of trust and cheating.

The prosecutor, Insp. Abdullahi Wada, told the court that the complainant, Umar Aminu-Ahmad, who also resides at Tal’udu Sabin Titi Quarters, reported the matter at Fagge Police Station, Kano, on Aug.5.

Wada alleged that the complainant had entrusted his vehicle to the defendant for repairs with N1.7 million securely kept inside the boot of the car.

The prosecutor alleged that the defendant brought back the vehicle and later discovered that the sum of N500,000 had been taken from the total amount.

He further told  the court that the defendant had allegedly denied knowledge of the money.

The prosecutor said the offences contravened the provisions of Sections 202 and 206 of the Penal Code.

The defendant, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The Judge, Malam Umar Lawal-Abubakar, granted the defendant bail in the sum of N50,000 with  one surety in like sum.

Lawal-Abubakar, who ruled that the surety must be the defendant’s relation, however, ordered the defendant to be remanded correctional centre pending the perfection of his bail conditions.

He adjourned the case until Aug.22 for mention. (NAN))

By Taiye Agbaje

A contractor, Mr Christian Igbo, on Tuesday prayed an FCT High Court, Abuja to dismiss an application by the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) seeking an order setting aside its judgment against the corps and others.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Edward Okpe had on June 22 in a judgment, ordered the NSCDC to pay Igbo over N29 million balance of the contract sum legitimately awarded and executed by him.
The judge also restrained the NSCDC, its Commander-General (C-G), Ahmed Audi; and others from further harassing the contractor over a completed contract.
But in a motion on notice marked: CV/2115/2023 filed by its Director of Legal Services, Umar Mohammed, the corps sought an order setting aside the judgment delivered on June 22 directing them to pay Igbo his balance (N29, 360, 697.00) of the contract sum.
Giving six grounds why the judgment should be vacated, Mohammed argued that the court gave the judgment without jurisdiction.
When the matter was called on Tuesday, Evelyn Charles-Iyanya, who appeared for NSCDC, moved the motion on notice filed by Mohammed dated July 20 and filed July 25.
She urged the court to set aside Relief 4 as contained in Igbo’s originating motion on the payment of the judgment sum of over N29 million, having been delivered without jurisidtcion.
But Igbo’s counsel, Pascal Obioha, prayed the court to dismiss Charles-Iyanya’s application on the grounds that the court had become functus officio to vacate the judgment it delivered.
The lawyer maintained that the court had jurisdiction to have given the June 22 judgment and that the court as at this time, lacked the powers to either review, revisit or set aside its own judgment, as doing so would amount to the court sitting on appeal over its own decision or judgment.
Obioha, in a counter affidavit he filed, argued that Igbo’s originating motion was dully served on the respondents which enabled them to put up several appearances before the court, but they decided not to file counter affidavit to oppose their application.
He said the court gave them several opportunities to defend the suit or raise objection as to the jurisdiction of the court, where necessary, but they waived their right to do so.
The lawyer, who submitted that the court gave the judgment on merit, said by the content of the said judgement, the court had become functus officio in the matter.
“That I know as a fact that when a court becomes functus officio, that court cannot be expected to review its judgement or sit on appeal over its own judgment when the court’s jurisdiction was properly invoked,” he said.
He said the NSCDC’s motion was grossly incompetent and constituted an abuse of court process.
The lawyer, who averred that the motion was strange and alien to law practice, the rules of the court and legal jurisprudence, said it was brought in bad faith.
“This application is vexatious and a ploy to frustrate the applicant from reaping the fruits of the judgment in his favour,” Obioha said, urging the court to dismiss the motion.
Justice Okpe, after listening to the parties, reserved ruling on a date to be communicated to them.
NAN reports that Igbo had, in an originating motion on notice marked: CV/2115/2023 and filed by Obioha, sued the NSCDC, the C-G, and some agency’s officials.
Others joined as respondents include Fabian Ejezie (Finance), Mpamugo Ifeanyi Bartholomew, Victor Olarenwaju, M. Kukuyi (Accountant General Staff in Charge of CPO) and Chukwuemeka Okeke.
Igbo, a businessman and managing director of Davenchris Ventures LTD, IB-Technicals Ltd and Chrisreubben Enterprises, had sought seven reliefs which include an order to enforce his fundamental human rights of freedom, personal liberty, fair hearing and human dignity as guaranteed by Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution.
The judge, while delivering the judgement on the suit filed in January, held that where an application was not controverted by a party, averments therein would be deemed to have been admitted by the party.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamzat

By Femi Ogunshola

A constitutional lawyer and right activist, Dr Kayode Ajulo has cautioned some Nigerians against making derogatory comments on judges sitting at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT).

He said such comments were troubling and uncalled for.

Ajulo said this in a message in Abuja on Tuesday which he titled:  “Navigating Democracy: Unraveling the Nigerian PEPT and Public Perceptions”.

He said: “Particularly alarming trend is the growing disrespect for the judiciary, characterised by absurd conspiracy theories, slanderous remarks, and baseless allegations often targeting the Honourable Justices.”

He said such trend thrived due to historical perceptions of partiality, polarisation, and the rapid spread of misinformation via social media.

Ajulo said that regrettably, there had been a growing trend of public disregard for both the ongoing tribunal and the broader Nigerian judiciary.

According to him, one malignant trend I have noticed, which is slowly becoming the norm, is the utter disregard and disrespect of the judiciary by Nigerian citizens.

He said this is characterised by ludicrous conspiracy theories, slanderous statements and false accusations, which were majorly targeted at the justices.

Ajulo said such trend was fueled by various factors, including historical instances of perceived judicial partiality, political polarisation, and the amplification of false information through social media.

He said it was imperative to recognise that a healthy democracy relied on the judiciary’s independence and credibility, making it crucial to address and counteract such negative sentiments.

The legal practitioner said the proliferation of misinformation often eroded public trust in the judiciary and undermined the fundamental tenets of democracy.

“In less than 24 hours, I have come across two separate posts on social media which are perfect examples of the negative sentiments in question.

“In the first post, the writer accused a former governor and minister of writing the judgment of the presidential election tribunal, which is yet to be announced.

“In the second post, which was a video, a pastor displayed the pictures of the presiding Justices, and asked his congregation to make certain declarations and ‘lay hands on the Justices’.

“In addition to these, I have also come across several comments castigating and berating the Justices, whilst accusing them of partiality and questionable practices,” he said.

According  to him, what is most upsetting about these accusations is the fact that the Justices in question, by virtue of their calling, the ethics guiding this prestigious profession, and the nature and sensitivity of their offices are not afforded the luxury of addressing these false claims.

He said the plight of the presiding Justices, and the judiciary was a sad one which forced him to act as a voice to an institution unable to defend itself from such onslaught.

“After going through a number of these posts, articles and videos, I have come to the conclusion that these attacks are premeditated and can be traced to have originated from some particular groups and political affiliations.”

He said the Nigerian PEPT remained the canvas capturing Nigeria’s democratic essence, principles, and sentiments.

He added that the Justices presiding over it remained the guardians of justice, entrusted with the monumental task of upholding democracy’s core values. (NAN)

Edited by Edith Bolokor/Chioma Ugboma

By Joan Nwagwu

The Federal Government says it has withdrawn the contempt of court proceedings against organised labour for embarking on a nationwide protest.

This is contained in a letter addressed to the lead counsel to the NLC, Falana and Falana’s Chambers and obtained by the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on Tuesday in Abuja.

The letter dated Aug. 7 to Falana’s Chambers was signed by the Solicitor General of the Federation, Mrs  B.E. Jeddy-Agba.

NAN reports that the Federal Ministry of Justice had through the National Industrial Court (NICN), issued the leadership of organised labour summons on contempt of court for embarking on the protest.

NAN also recalls that organised labour had threatened to embark on a nation-wide strike from Aug. 14, if the Federal Government failed to withdraw its contempt of court charges.

Organised Labour had embarked on mass protest over anti-poor policies of government, especially the removal of subsidy that had brought untold hardship to Nigerians.

The letter reads: “Kindly recall the exchange of correspondence between the ministry and your office on the need for compliance with the extant court orders, restraining industrial action of any kind on the part of the Nigeria Labour Congress and Trade Union Congress.

“The position of the ministry was informed by the need to safeguard the integrity of the court and prevent avoidable service disruption or damage to public facilities.

“Inspite of these exchanges/interventions, the labour unions on Aug. 2, proceeded with the industrial action through public pretests”.

It also said the protest led to disruption of work and the eventual pulling down of the gate of the National Assembly.

“The foregoing, it said, prompted the ministry to initiate contempt proceedings by tiling Form 48 on the same 2nd August 2023 in accordance with Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and Order 9 Rule 13 of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules.

“It is trite that issuance of Form 48 is just the starting point in contempt proceedings which will only crystalise upon the issuance of Form 49 and the consequential committal order.”

It noted that upon the intervention of President Bola Tinubu and the decision of the labour unions to call-off their industrial action after meetings with the President and leadership of the National Assembly.

“The ministry did not proceed further with the contempt proceedings, which would have required the issuance of Form 49 within two days of the issuance of Form 48.

“It is self-evident that the none-issuance of Form 49 as at Aug. 4, renders the contempt proceedings inchoate.

“You may therefore wish to advise or guide the labour unions on the practice and procedure of contempt proceedings.

“Also  particularly to the effect that the issues or concerns raised by NLC in its communique on the proceedings, have been overtaken by events,” it said. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

Edited by Sadiya Hamza

By Emmanuel Oloniruha

Sen. Ifeanyi Ararume has described as an abuse of court process, the appeal filed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), seeking to upturn the judgment of a Federal High Court, which ordered his reinstatement as non-executive chairman of the Board of the newly-created NNPCL.

Araraume argued that the appeal by NNPCL was not only incompetent and lacking in merit but also a waste of the precious time of the court, which must be dismissed with a huge cost.

His position was contained in his brief of argument filed July 31 by his team of lawyers, led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN.

Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, had, in a judgment on April 18, 2023, ordered the immediate reinstatement of Araraume as NNPCL’s board chairman.

The court had, in its judgment, held that his removal after his appointment by former President Muhammadu Buhari was illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null, and void and had subsequently nullified the president’s action.

Besides, the court had also ordered the defendants which included Buhari, NNPCL and the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), to pay Araraume the sum of N5 billion being damages he suffered following his unlawful removal as NNPCL’s board chairman.

In addition, the court had declared as a nullity all decisions and actions taken so far by the board in the absence of Araraume.

Dissatisfied by the judgment, NNPCL had approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja, to challenge the decisions and orders of Justice Ekwo of the Federal High Court delivered on April 18.

The NNPCL, in its appellant’s brief of argument, dated June 30, but filed July 3, presented 18 grounds upon which it was challenging the entire decision of the trial court.

Specifically, the appellant through its lead counsel, Mr Yusuf Ali, SAN, urged the appellate court to set aside the judgment in favour of Araraume because the trial court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit, having been statute barred.

He averred that the trial court misled and mis-applied the relevant statutory provisions which led it to the wrong decisions; that Araraume failed to adduce convincing, believable, cogent and compelling evidence in support of his suit; and that the trial court ought not to have entertained the suit, which was filed via originating summons.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in law in holding that the president was wrong in removing Araraume as Board Chairman, adding that the constitution, PIA, 2021 as well as the NNPCL’s Memorandum and Article of Association, “give the power to appoint and remove the the Non-Executive Chairman of the appellant to the 2nd respondent, under the long established and judicially settled principle of he who have the power to hire can fire.”

In addition, the appellant submitted that where a person’s appointment is removed by the person who confirmed the said appointment, such person is not bound to give reason in the letter of termination/ removal as done in this case.

The appellant noted that where the person who confirmed the appointment chose not to give reason for his action, “it is not for the court to embark on a voyage of discovery and import reasons or motive for the termination of the appointment.”

Similarly, NNPCL argued that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the constitution, Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, Section 288 of the Company and Allied Matter Act, to the extent that because the NNPCL was not incorporated as a statutory incorporation, the president can control the NNPCL, adding that the issue of control was never before the court.

The appellant accordingly raised six issues for determination through which it wanted the appellate court to resolve the appeal.

On the first issue, NNPCL submitted that the trial court acted requisite vires to have entertained Araraume’s suit in view of Section 254(c)(1) of the Constitution, Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act and Section 307 of the Petroleum Industry Act, (PIA), 2021.

According to the appellant, the trial court erred in law when it went ahead to hold that the case of the claimant was not statute barred, despite evidence that the suit was filed eight months outside the three months provided by the law.

On the second issue, NNPCL argued that the trial judge was wrong to have entertained the Araraume’s suit on Originating Summons, explaining that where facts in dispute were riotous, hostile and in conflict, Originating Summons was inappropriate.

Besides, the appellant accused Justice Ekwo of not giving them fair hearing when it refused to hear and determine their application for a stay of execution they had filed on January 20, 2023.

NNPCL claimed that at the proceedings of Jan. 23, the attention of the trial court was drawn to application for stay of execution but, “the trial court refused to hear (the) same despite the fact that its attention was drawn to it.”

Faulting the judgment of the Federal High Court, further, the appellant claimed that the trial court was wrong to have ordered Araraume’s reinstatement while at the same time awarding damage on the grounds that such amounted to double compensation.

It was also the submission of the NNPCL that the trial judge erred in law when it granted the declarative reliefs in favour of Araraume even when he did not offer cogent, reliable, believable or convincing evidence to support his claims or prove his entitlement to the claim or even disclosed any cause of action against the appellant.

They therefore urged the court to determine the appeal in their favour and set aside the judgment of Justice Ekwo delivered on April 18, 2023.

Responding, Araraume faulted the appeal for being incompetent on the grounds that the said brief of argument was filed by a non-party in the suit.

According to Araraume, there is no proper appellant before the Court of Appeal because the NNPCL that he sued is different from the Nigerian National Petroleum Company that filed the brief of argument and as such it lacked the locus standi and the legal personality of any brief of argument in this appeal or to prosecute same.

“We submit that this is not a case of misnomer, but consistent with the position and attitude of the “Appellant” as if the 2nd respondent defendant sued by the 1st respondent at the court below was still a parastatal of government.”

Meanwhile, Araraume has urged the court to dismiss the appeal with substantial cost for being a gross abuse of court process.

According to him, the trial court acted within its constitutional and statutory jurisdiction when it entertained, heard, and determined his suit against the NNPCL, then President Buhari and the CAC.

Araraume claimed that NNPCL was wrong in challenging the court’s jurisdiction on the premise that his case was a labour or employment related matter, which should be heard by the National Industrial Court.

“In view of the clear position of the 1st respondent as Director/Non-Executive Chairman of the appellant, it was wrong and incorrect to regard the 1st respondent as an employee of the appellant or employee of the 2nd respondent.”

Araraume further argued that his case arose from the operation of the appellant as a corporate entity incorporated under the CAMA, 2020.

On the issue of protection Araraume in the reply filed by his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, pointed out that the provisions of Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act and Section 307 of the PIA, 2021 were not applicable to the suit as statutes of limitation.

According to him, “an elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not a Public Officer,” adding that the Public Officers Act was intended to protect the officer from detraction and unnecessary litigation but never intended to deprive a party of legal capacity to ventilate his grievance in the face of stark injustice.

Besides, Araraume submitted that the mode of commencement of the suit was appropriate being one of the interpretation of the provisions of the constitution, CAMA, 2020 and PIA, 2021, since there was no hostile or hotly contested facts.

In addition, he submitted that the necessary parties were before the court; and, as such, there was no breach of the right to fair hearing of any non-party.

“The court below was right to have granted the reliefs sought in the circumstances, (the) same having been proved in accordance with the law, and there being no defence thereto.”(NAN)

Edited by Ismail Abdulaziz

By Taiye Agbaje

A non-governmental organisation has urged the Federal High Court, Abuja to nullify all certificates of no objection issued by Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) since 2007 over alleged breach of the agency’s law.

The NGO, under the auspices of the Registered Trustees of Network for the Actualization Of Social Growth and Viable Development (NAFGAD), told the court in a fresh suit filed by its lawyer, Timilehin Odunwo.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that certificate of no objection is a document which authenticates that due process was followed in the course of contract procurement, especially at a national or subnational scale.

The group, in its originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1056/2023, had sued the president, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the BPP and its director-general as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.

In the suit dated Aug. 1 and filed Aug. 2, NAFGAD alleged that since the BPP was established in 2007, its National Council on Public Procurement (NCPP) had never been constituted contrary to relevant laws.

The group accused the BPP of taking decisions on its own volition, without supervision and in accordance with the establishment act.

It maintained that a non-constitution of the NCPP would breed corruption in the system to the detriment of the society.

It said despite its letters to the AGF and the BPP on the alleged unlawful act, the letters were ignored and the agency continued to issue certificate of no objection to procuring entities without recourse to the National Council’s regulations in line with its mandate.

The group, therefore, sought six reliefs which include “a declaration that the non-constitution of the National Council on Public Procurement by the President of Nigeria amounts to a breach of Section 1 (1&4) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007.

“A declaration that all the certificates of no objection issued over time by the Bureau of Public Procurement since 2007 till date, having not been supervised by a legally constituted National Council on Public Procurement in line with Sections 2 &6(1) of the Procurement Act, 2007 is void.

“A declaration that the appointment of the Director General of the Bureau of Public Procurement by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria without the recommendation of a constituted National Council on Public Procurement is a complete breach and total disregard to Section 7(1) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007 and therefore illegal.

“An order of the Honourable Court mandating the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to constitute the National Council on Public Procurement for the purpose of the appointment of the Director General of the Bureau of Public Procurement.

“An order of this Honourable Court prohibiting the Bureau of Public Procurement from further issuing certificate of no-objection to any government agency, parastatals or person until the National Council on Public Procurement is constituted,” among others.

The case is yet to be assigned to a judge for determination. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

============
Edited by Sadiya Hamza