If you thought 2020 – what with its many controversies and COVID-19n among others – was unprecedented in the justice sector, you probably need a rethink.
This is because 2021 has been no less eventful, both inside and outside the courts. For instance, names like Igboho, Kanu, Maina, Ojukwu, Kalu, Kogi, etc. hugged the headlines following judicial proceedings. But there were other equally important ones, too, outside courtroom, including the raid on the home of a former governor and his Supreme Court Justice wife and the sanction of judges for granting conflicting orders, among others.
Judgment on Igboho self-determination suit
Call it the verdict of the year and you could be right.
Justice Ladiran Akintola of the Ibadan High Court on September 17, 2021 put to rest whatever doubts may have existed on the fundamentalness of the right to self-determination in a suit filed by Yoruba Nation agitator Chief Sunday Adeyemo popularly known as Sunday Igboho against the Federal Government.
Igboho, who is battling for his release from custody in Cotonou, Benin Republic, ran into trouble with the government, following his agitation.
His home in Soka, Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, was invaded by security operatives on July 1. Some of his properties, including vehicles, were destroyed. One of his cats was also taken away by the security agents who believed that it was Igboho who turned into a cat! Igboho fled, but he was arrested in Cotonou on his way to Germany and detained.
But he challenged the legality of the invasion of his home. He also sought the determination of the propriety of the Yoruba’s struggle for self-determination. He won on both counts.
In a landmark decision, the court not only declared the agitation for self-determination as legitimate, he announced a perhaps unprecedented punishment for the Federal Government.
“Chief Sunday Adeyemo and his group have a right to self-determination and are free to hold their rallies as long as they are peaceful. Self-determination is one of the fundamental human rights of the citizens that cannot be subjugated,” Justice Akintola held.
The judge also awarded N20 billion to Igboho against the Federal Government as aggravated damages over the invasion and destruction of his home by operatives of the State Security Service (SSS) on July 1, 2021.
Respondents in the suit were Attorney-General of the Federation, the State Security Service (SSS) and Director, State Security Service, Oyo State.
The Federal Government has said it will appeal.
The Mainas
The November 8 judgment of Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court in Abuja brought the curtains down on a dramatic legal battle between a former Chairman of the defunct Pension Reform Task Team (PRTT), Abdulrasheed Maina.
Maina and his 20-year-old son, Faisal, were arrested by operatives of the State Security Service (SSS) at the Pennsylvania Avenue Hotel, Utako, Abuja, on September 30, shortly after sneaking into Nigeria from Dubai.
Maina was arrested after a four-year manhunt on suspicion of being involved in a N2 billion pension fraud.
Father and son were arraigned on October 25, 2019, before the Federal High Court, Abuja by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
But the case suffered several adjournments for often dramatic reasons. Faisal jumped bail and stopped attending court.
The judge, who revoked the defendant’s bail and ordered his arrest to no avail, ordered the trial to proceed in his absence.
Maina, who appeared to be relatively fit at the commencement of trial, sent tongues wagging when he was subsequently wheeled into the courtroom by prison officials in the course of the several adjournments. He was very ill, his lawyers argued, and could not walk.
Justice Abang on October 7, found Faisal guilty in absentia on all the three counts of money laundering involving N58.1million of public funds. He sent the defendant to 14 years’ imprisonment.
The judge, on November 8, sentenced the elder Maina, to eight years imprisonment after convicting him and his firm, Common Input Property and Investment and Investment Ltd, on a 12-count charge of money laundering.
He ordered the convict to forfeit N2.1billion and houses to the Federal Government.
Ikoyi Marriage Registry
On December 14, some traditional media and blogs were awash with a report that a Federal High Court in Lagos voided the conduct of marriages by the Federal Government.
The reports specifically claimed that the court declared as illegal and invalid all marriages conducted at the Ikoyi Marriage Registry in Lagos.
The reports threw the public into a frenzy.
It turned out the report was not quite correct. Yes, there was a judgment restricting the Federal Government on some aspects of the matter of marriages, but it did not affect Ikoyi.
The court did not bar the Federal Government-owned Marriage Registries of Ikoyi, Lagos and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja from further contracting marriages under the Marriage Act, 2004.
It did, however, perpetually restrain the Minister of Interior from further contracting marriages under the Marriage Act, 2004 within four Local Government Councils Areas in four states.
The Councils are Eti-Osa in Lagos State, Egor in Edo State, Owerri Municipal in Imo State and Port Harcourt City in Rivers State.
The orders are contained in the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment of Justice Daniel Osiagor delivered on Wednesday, December 8, 2021, seen by The Nation on December 15.
The four plaintiffs in the suit marked FHC/ LS/CS/816/18 were Eti-Osa Local Government Council Area, Lagos State; Egor Local Government Council Area, Edo State; Owerri Municipal Local Government Council Area, Imo State and Port Harcourt City Local Government Council Area, Rivers State.
The three defendants are the Minister of Interior; Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice; and a firm, Anchor Dataware Solutions Limited (party joined by order of the court on April 9, 2019).
Justice Osiagor, however, refused to direct the Minister of Interior to return all marriage certificates issued within the respective plaintiffs’ Local Government Councils since June 8, 2004, as demanded by the plaintiffs.
The judge also refused to order the Minister of Interior to return all the fees/money paid by couples since June 8, 2004, to the plaintiffs’ Marriage Registries for re-issuance.
Regarding the plaintiffs’ prayer for an order sealing all Federal Marriage Registries in their local governments, the judge granted the prayer in part.
He granted the prayer to the extent that there shall be no Federal Marriage Registry in the Marriage Districts (Local Government Councils) save Ikoyi and Abuja Federal Marriage Registry which predate the 1999 Constitution.
The order, the court held, is without prejudice to the Minister of Interior’s “exclusive powers” to issue licences to places of public worship to celebrate marriages all over the federation.
Ojukwu
2021 can’t go by without a mention of the names Chidinma Ojukwu and Usifo Ataga
The Lagos State Government is prosecuting 21-year-old Miss Ojukwu and two others over the alleged murder of Ataga, the Chief Executive Officer of Super TV.
Chidinma – a 300-level Mass Communication student of the University of Lagos – and one Quadri Adedapo were arraigned before Justice Yetunde Adesanya of the State High Court sitting at the Tafawa Balewa Square on Lagos Island.
They were docked on a nine-count charge alongside Ojukwu’s sister, Egbuchu Chioma from whom the late Ataga’s iPhone 7, was said to have been recovered.
The charge dated August 31, was filed by the Lagos State Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Mrs Olayinka Adeyemi.
N20b Kogi bailout loan
The news must have sent shockwaves around Kogi. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on August 31, secured an interim court order freezing a Kogi State salary bailout bank account with N19.333,333,333.36 (billion).
It claimed that the money, meant for the payment of Kogi State workers, was instead domiciled in an interest-yielding account with the bank.
Justice Tijjani Ringim made the order pending the conclusion of investigation by the EFCC.
The state challenged the order, arguing that the anti-graft agency was wrong. On October 15, the EFCC withdrew its suit seeking the forfeiture of the N19.3b.
Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke granted the order of withdrawal sequel to a motion filed and argued by the counsel to EFCC, Mr. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, leading Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo.
One of the six grounds upon which the judge granted the prayer was that questions resulting in the commencement of the suit had been clarified, and an intention had been shown to return the N19.3b to the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Nnamdi Kanu arrest, ‘extradition’
Did the Federal Government break local or international law in bringing the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu back home in June?
The question was on the minds of many Nigerians in the days after the controversy.
The Federal Government said Kanu was re-arrested abroad and returned to Nigeria to resume his terrorism trial from which he allegedly absconded four years ago.
Kanu was apprehended on Sunday, June 27, according to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister for Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN.
“He has been brought back to Nigeria to continue facing trial after disappearing while on bail regarding the 11-count charge against him,” Malami said at a news conference in Abuja.
Kanu was also accused of instigating violence in the Southeast that resulted in loss of lives and property of civilians, military, para-military, the police and destruction of civil institutions and symbols of authorities.
He fled the country in September 2017, after an invasion of his home by the military in Afara-Ukwu, near Umuahia, Abia State. The government obtained a court order on September 20, 2017, to designate IPOB as a terrorist group and to proscribe it.
Since his re-arrest, there have been speculations about where and how he was nabbed. Kenya, one of the countries suspected of involvement in the saga, denied involvement.
But his Germany-based brother Kingsley Kanu, claimed on November 4, that the Kenyan Government had admitted it did not follow extradition proceedings before sending his brother to Nigeria.
He said the Kenyans admitted this in its November 2, 2021, defence to a suit he filed in Kenya on behalf of Mazi Kanu.
He is facing trial before Justice Binta Murtala Nyako of an Abuja High Court, charged with treason, terrorism and illegal possession of firearms, among others.
Kalu
Not many Nigerians expected the September 29, 2021 judgment of a Federal High Court in Abuja stopping further trial of former Abia State Governor Orji Uzoh Kalu and his firm – Slok Nigeria Limited – for alleged N1.7billion fraud.
Justice Inyang Ekwo, in two judgments on September 29, 2021 held, among others, that since Kalu and his firm were not mentioned in the judgment of the Supreme Court, which voided their earlier conviction and sentencing, and ordered a retrial, the judgment could not be applied to them.
Justice Ekwo held that it was only the former Account Director in Abia State Government House, Ude Jones Udeogu, named in the Supreme Court judgment, that could be re-tried as directed by the Supreme Court.
States vs. Federal Government
VAT dispute case
The judicial dispute between some states and the Federal Government (represented by the Federal Inland Revenue Service – FIRS) over the collection of the Value Added Tax (VAT) is one of the highlights of the year.
At the last hearing in the case on October 7, this year, the Court of Appeal in Port-Harcourt adjourned indefinitely to allow for the resolution of issues raised by Rivers State, particularly its request for a new panel to hear the case.
The court had, on September 30, granted the application by Lagos State, through its Attorney-General, to be made a respondent in the appeal filed by the FIRS.
The appeal by the FIRS is against the August 9, 2021 judgment by Justice Steven Pam of the Federal High Court in Port-Harcourt voiding VAT and related taxes, and holding that states could collect such taxes.
Stamp duty dispute
One of the cases of the year was the suit by the Attorneys-General of the 36 states against the Federal Government (sued through the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), accusing the government of failing to remit funds generated from stamp duties into state accounts.
In the suit which is before the Supreme Court, the states are arguing that they are the sole authority to collect stamp duties and not the Federal Government.
In the suit filed before the apex court on August 24 and marked SC/CV/690/2021, the states’ AGs want the court to, among others, determine whether or not “having regard to the mandatory provisions of Section 4(2) of the Stamp Duties Act Cap. S8 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) the plaintiffs (all the state attorneys) are not the sole authority to administer and collect stamp duties on all transactions involving individuals/persons within their respective states.”
Dispute over funding of judiciary
Who should fund the recurrent and capital expenditures of all courts named in the Constitution? States and the Federal Government have been locked in a dispute on this with serious implications for the efficiency of the judiciary.
The Supreme Court is expected to render its verdict in the dispute.
On October 4, Supreme Court reserved judgment in the suit, marked SC/655/2020, after taking final arguments from lawyers to parties and listening to the opinions of the five amici curiae invited by the court.
By the suit, the states want the court to void the Executive Order 10 issued by President Muhammadu Buhari in 2020 on the funding of the judiciary and to hold that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to fund the recurrent and capital expenditures of all courts named in Section 6 of the Constitution, including State High Courts, Sharia Court of Appeal and the Customary Court of Appeal.
Recovered loot dispute
There is also another suit, SC/395/2021 filed on June 16, 2021 by the 36 states against the Federal Government, seeking to, among others, compel it to account for looted funds so far recovered since 2015.
The plaintiffs claimed that the Federal Government had since 2015 recovered, from international and domestic forfeiture, N1.8 trillion, 167 properties, 450 cars, 300 trucks and cargoes and 20 million barrels of crude oil worth about N450 billion, but illegally appropriated the assets meant for the three tiers of government.
The case is pending before the Supreme Court.
Baba Ijesha
Nollywood and its fans were jolted in the second quarter of the year when a popular actor, James Olanrewaju a.k.a Baba Ijesha, was accused of child defilement by a comedienne, Damilola Adekoya, a.k.a Princess.
Baba Ijesha was subsequently charged before an Ikeja Special Offences Court, after police investigation, on a six-count charge of indecent treatment of a child, sexual assault, attempted sexual assault by penetration and sexual assault by penetration.
In the course of trial, Baba Ijesha denied voluntarily making a confessional statement to the police. Rather, he alleged that he was tortured, following which the court approved a trial-within-trial to determine the truth.
Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo upheld the prosecution’s argument during the trial-within-trial and ordered the defendant to enter his defence in the matter.
Baba Ijesha is set to enter a “no case submission” in the court at the next adjourned date of January 26, 2022.
Ondo Governorship Poll
The Supreme Court on July 28, upheld the election victory of Ondo State Governor Rotimi Akeredolu of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The apex court, in a split decision of four-to-three, dismissed the appeal of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the October 10, 2020 governorship election, Eyitayo Jegede, SAN.
A seven-man panel of justices of the Supreme Court heard the appeal.
While the majority of the judgment that affirmed Akeredolu’s victory was delivered by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the dissenting minority verdict that upheld Jegede’s appeal was delivered by Justice Mary Peter-Odili who was the head of the panel.
The apex court, in its majority verdict, said it found no reason to set-aside the concurrent judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Ondo State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, which earlier dismissed Jegede and PDP’s case for being incompetent.
Jegede and the PDP had approached the apex court to void the July 16, 2021, judgment of the appellate court in Akure, which validated Akeredolu’s election.
The appellate court had affirmed the decision of the tribunal which dismissed the joint petition Jegede and the PDP lodged against the declaration of Akeredolu as the valid winner of the Ondo governorship contest.
Jegede and the PDP had, in their case, queried the legal validity of Akeredolu’s nomination by the National Caretaker Committee of the APC headed by Yobe State Governor, Mai Mal Buni.
The appellants prayed court to determine whether signing of such nomination form by Buni did not amount to a gross violation of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
They specifically urged the court to determine whether Buni, as a sitting governor of Yobe State, could double as National Chairman of the APC to sign the nomination of Akeredolu, SAN, for the governorship election.
However, the Justice Theresa Orji-Abadua-led panel of the appellate court dismissed their case which it said only succeeded in part.
Though the appellate court acknowledged that the issue raised by the appellants had constitutional implication, it, nevertheless, held that non-joinder of Buni as a party in the matter, proved fatal to Jegede’s case.
The appellate court, therefore, declined to set-aside the decision of the election tribunal, which held that the issue of Buni signing Akeredolu’s nomination form was an internal affairs of the APC.
Dissatisfied, Jegede and PDP, approached the Supreme Court, urging it to determine whether it was a matter of necessity to join the Chairman, APC National Caretaker Committee and Governor of Yobe State, Buni, in the petition he lodged against Akeredolu’s candidature, in spite of immunity provided for governors in Section 308 of the 1999 constitution.
On his part, Akeredolu, aside from seeking the dismissal of the appeal, also lodged his own Cross-Appeal.
He contended, among others, that Jegede’s petition was statute barred, insisting that it was filed outside the 14 days period stipulated by the Constitution.
Likewise, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, also lodged a Cross-Appeal, equally maintaining that Jegede’s case was statute barred.
Akeredolu, APC and INEC, prayed the apex court to set aside the verdict of the appellate court and uphold the results of the October 10, 2020 governorship election as declared.
Siege to Odili’s residence
One of the most controversial incidents in the justice sector this year was the October 29 attempted siege to the Abuja residence of a former Rivers State Governor, Dr. Peter Odili and his wife – the second most senior Justice of the Supreme Court – Justice Mary Odili.
A Chief Superintendent of Police, Lawrence Ajodo had applied for and obtained a search warrant from the Wuse Zone 6 Magistrate’s Court in Abuja, for execution on the residence.
Ajodo allegedly claimed he was acting on behalf of a certain Joint Asset Recovery Team allegedly being coordinated by the Federal Ministry of Justice.
He said the application was based on an ongoing investigation into whistleblower information suggesting that “criminal activities” were taking place in the house.
Security operatives invaded the home on October 29 to execute the warrant, but were stopped by vigilant security officials who found inconsistencies on the warrant.
The magistrate who issued the warrant reportedly revoked it later that day on the grounds that he was misled to issue it.
The Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, who superintends over the Federal Ministry of Justice, distanced himself from the raid. So did the police, EFCC and Department of State Security (DSS).
There were several wrinkles on the face of the matter and the public was suspicious.
Was this a case of mistaken identity since Justice Odili’s residence is not No. 9 Imo Street as contained in rge warrant but No. 7 Imo River Street?
Since there were robust denials from AGF Malami, the DSS and EFCC, who did it?
Was it the police or any of the other security forces?
Were they gunning for Mrs Odili’s husband Dr Odili, who recently sued the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) over the seizure of his international passport?
The NIS said that its action followed a request from EFCC which claimed that Dr. Odili was on its watch list.
However, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja had on October 18, 2021 declared that the seizure of Odili’s passport was illegal.
The incident, reminiscent of a similar raid on judicial officers’ homes in 2016, caused a nationwide outrage with fingers immediately pointed at Federal Government security agencies.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the National Assembly, the Supreme Court management, human rights groups among others all demanded that must action against the perpetrators.
In perhaps its most strongest terms yet, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Tanko Muhammad-led Supreme Court blew hot over the raid.
“This incident brought back, rather painfully, the ugly memory of the October 2016 midnight invasion of the homes of our respected justices with no satisfactory explanations as to the true motive behind such brazen assault on our collective sensibility,” the apex court added in a statement.
So far, 15 suspects said to be involved in the raid have been arraigned at the Federal High Court, Abuja. They were slammed with 18-count amended charge which borders, among others, on forgery, criminal trespass, intimidation, threats, and extortion. Twenty-two defendants were on the charge but seven are still at large. The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charge.
NJC hammers judges
In a long-awaited move, the National Judicial Council (NJC) on December 16 moved to stem the recurrent menace of indiscriminate granting of conflicting orders and injunctions by some judges.
The judiciary’s highest decision-making organ punished three judges of courts of concurrent jurisdiction who issued conflicting ex parte orders in the leadership crisis that dogged the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) this year.
Two of the high court judges — Okogbule Gbasam and Nusirat Umar — were barred from moving to the “higher Bench” in the next two years.
The third, Edem Kooffreh of the High Court of Cross Rivers State, will remain on the same spot for five years.
Gbasam is a judge of the Rivers State High Court while Umar is of the Kebbi State High Court.
The trio received warning letters which also placed them on a watchlist by the NJC.
They were found culpable of issuing conflicting orders in cases involving the former National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Prince Uche Secondus.
A statement by NJC Director of Information, Soji Oye, said the decisions were reached at a meeting presided over by the NJC Deputy Chairman, Justice Mary Peter-Odili.
The statement was, however, silent on the fate of the other three High Court judges in Anambra, Jigawa and Imo states.
Prior to the NJC’s move, there had been complaints by stakeholders including former Chief Justices of Nigeria (CJNs) about and promises by the judiciary to tackle the problem.
EndSARS: Confusion, controversy trail report
Nearly one year after it was inaugurated, the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry on #EndSARS on November 15 submitted two documents — a consolidated report on cases of police brutality and another on the Lekki Tollgate incident investigation — to Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu.
Sanwo-Olu set up a four-man committee to examine it within two weeks and “bring forward the white paper that would be considered at the Lagos State executive council and presented as the white paper coming from the panel of inquiry.”
Hours afterwards, a purported version of the 309-page document appeared in the media space.
That version alleged that nine people died at the Lekki tollgate on October 20, 2020 from gunshots fired by the military
But several analysts found that the version was ridden with errors and inconsistencies that appeared to impugn the competence and integrity of the makers.
The Lagos State government on November 30 released the White Paper. In it, the state rejected the panel’s claim that there was ever any form of massacre at the Lekki tollgate during the incident.
The White Paper stated that the findings of panel that nine people were killed by soldiers at Lekki tollgate on October 20, 2020 were based on assumptions and speculations.
The government, in the White Paper, said the inconsistencies and contradictions in the entire report concerning the number of persons who died at the tollgate on the fateful day and the cause of death rendered the panel’s findings and conclusions thereon as totally unreliable and, therefore, unacceptable.
“It is quite astonishing that in the list of eleven (11) deaths set at pages 297 – 298 two (2) of the names appeared twice (Kolade Salam, Folarunsho Olabisi as Nos. 37 and 38).
“Furthermore, the person listed at No. 46, Nathaniel Solomon, who testified as a witness and petitioned the judicial panel of inquiry in respect of his brother who allegedly died at Lekki tollgate on October 20, 2020 was also listed as dead person.
“Remarkably, Nathaniel Solomon’s deceased brother (Abata Solomon), was then also listed as No.2 on the list of persons who died at Lekki tollgate,” the report stated.
