Dr. Wahab Shittu (San) examines the legality of the continued service of Inspector General of Police (IGP) Kayode Egbetokun, the arrest and prosecution of Omoyele Sowore.
The Inspector General of Police (IGP) is the highest-ranking officer in the Nigeria Police Force, vested with the authority to maintain law and order. However, the legality of the IGP’s continued service is governed by two primary statutes: the1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended)and the Police Act 2020.
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended in Section 215(1)(a) states:
“There shall be an Inspector-General of Police who, subject to section 216(2) of this Constitution, shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Nigeria Police Council from among serving members of the Nigeria Police Force.”
However, the Constitution does not explicitly stipulate the tenure or retirement age for the IGP.
This silence has historically allowed IGPs to remain in office indefinitely, creating a culture of impunity and undermining institutional accountability.
Section 7(6) of the Police Act 2020expresslystates:
“The person appointed to the office of the Inspector-General of Police shall hold office for four years.”
This provision was a legislative response to past controversies, such as the extended tenure of IGP Mohammed Adamu in 2021, which a Federal High Court later declared unlawful (Suit No.FHC/ABJ/CS/106/2021). The Act’s intent was clearlyto prevent the consolidation of unchecked power and align Nigeria’s policing with democratic norms.
This provision establishes a fixed four-year tenure for the IGP, aiming to ensure stability and continuity in police leadership.
Traditionally, the Public Service Rules mandate retirement at 60 years of age or after 35 years of service, whichever comes first. Rule 020810 of the Federal Government Public Service Rules states:
“The compulsory retirement age for all grades in the Service shall be 60 years or 35 years of pensionable service whichever is earlier.”
Critics argue that since IGP Egbetokun has reached the age of 60, he should retire in accordance with these rules. However, it’s essential to consider the specific provisions of the Police Act,particularly Section 7(6)which is a specialized statute governing police affairs.
The principle of legal interpretation holds that when two statutes conflict, the specific statute prevails over the general one (lex specialis derogat legi generali). In this context, the Police Act, being specific to police administration, takes precedence over the general Public Service Rules.
Furthermore, Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitutionas amendedprovides: “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Since the Constitution does not prescribe a retirement age for the IGP, the provisions of the Police Act regarding tenure are not in conflict with the Constitution.
Given the specific provisions of the Police Act 2020, which grants a four-year tenure to the IGP regardless of age, and the absence of a constitutional stipulation on the retirement age forthis position, IGP Kayode Egbetokun’s continued service is legally valid.
Arrest, prosecution of Sowore
Omoyele Sowore, a journalist and political activist, has been a vocal critic of the Nigerian government. His activism has led to multiple arrests and prosecutions, raising concerns about freedom of expression and the rule of law.
Sowore’s recent arrest was predicated on allegations of cyberstalking and defamation, particularly concerning his reference to IGP Egbetokun as the “illegal IGP.” The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 criminalizes various online offenses, including cyberstalking. Section 24 of the Act states:
“Any person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network that… (b) to bully, threaten or harass another person… commits an offense under this Act.”
The authorities allege that Sowore’s statements constituted harassment and were intended to incite public disorder.
The 1999 Constitutionas amended, under Section 39(1), guarantees freedom of expression:
“Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”
However, this right is not absolute. Section 45(1) allows for restrictions:
“Nothing in sections 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of this Constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably
justifiable in a democratic society… in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.”
The challenge lies in balancing Sowore’s right to free expression with the state’s interest in maintaining public order and protecting individuals from defamation and harassment.
While the state has a duty to maintain public order and protect individuals from defamation, it must also uphold constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression. Any prosecution of Omoyele Sowore should be conducted with strict adherence to due process, ensuring that his fundamental rights are not unduly infringed upon.
I respectfully disagree with the assertion made by Learned Silk Ayotunde Ogunleye (SAN) that the recently amended Nigerian Police Act is a valid law in the presence of the 1999 Constitution, which stipulates specific tenets regarding the tenure of public officers.
The claim that the Police Act can supersede constitutional provisions is fundamentally flawed and undermines the rule of law in Nigeria.
The foundational principle undergirding Nigeria’s legal system is the supremacy of the Constitution, clearly articulated in Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution. This provision unequivocally states: “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
The Constitution serves as the highest legal authority and any legislation that contradicts its provisions lacks legal standing.
In the case of the amended Police Act, the extension of service duration for police officers, particularly the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), contradicts the explicit retirement conditions outlined in the Constitution.
Section 18 of the Police Act states that every police officer must retire upon reaching either 35 years of service or 60 years of age.
However, the amendment introduces new language allowing for a maximum of 65 years of age or 40 years of service, which directly conflicts with the constitutional limits.
The Constitution stipulates mandatory retirement conditions to uphold accountability and ensure a periodic refresh of leadership in public offices.
These conditions are not merely suggestions; they are binding legal requirements meant to safeguard the integrity and functionality of public institutions.
By modifying the Police Act to extend the tenure of the IGP, the National Assembly effectively disregards these constitutional safeguards, thereby creating vacancies for potential abuses of power and a lack of accountability.
Claiming that the modified Police Act is now the law stands in stark contradiction to the legal reality that any law seeking to alter constitutional provisions is rendered void.
The notion that the nature of the appointments can somehow allow an IGP to serve beyond the constitutionally mandated retirement age contradicts the very essence of legislative intent and constitutional supremacy.
Furthermore, the manner in which this amendment was passed raises serious concerns about its legitimacy.
The National Assembly approved the bill with remarkable speed—completing all three readings in just 20 minutes.
This rapid passage, especially in light of expressed concerns concerning its legality, casts doubt on the thoroughness of the legislative process.
Lawmaking in a democratic society requires careful consideration, debate, and scrutiny.
Such an expedited passage suggests a potentially flawed intent, aimed at circumventing established legal frameworks rather than serving the public interest.
The assertion that the amended Police Act is now a valid law ignores the fundamental principle of constitutional supremacy enshrined in the 1999 Constitution.
The amendments, which permit an IGP to circumvent established retirement limitations, are in direct conflict with the Constitution and thus void.
Upholding the Constitution is of utmost importance in maintaining the rule of law, accountability, and public trust in Nigeria’s governance structures.
Therefore, it is critical to recognise and reinforce that the Police Act cannot and must not override the constitutional provisions that govern public officers’ tenure in Nigeria.
The law must serve the people, grounded in the principles established by the Constitution, which remains the supreme legal instrument in the country.
The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has secured the conviction of one Lukumanu Sani Waziri, an accountant at Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital (UDUTH), Sokoto, for corruption and abuse of office.
Waziri was found guilty of diverting public funds of over N60 million naira through unauthorised access to the Government Integrated Financial Information System (GIFMIS).
ICPC had in 2021, in a charge number: FHC/ICPC/122021, arraigned Waziri and two others before Honourable Justice M. Abdulgafar of the Federal High Court, Sokoto Division in a nine-count charge of fraud and corruption.
In the course of the trial, ICPC’s Prosecutor, Dr Osuobeni Ekoi Akponimisingha, led evidence before the court on how Waziri, a designated user of GIFMIS in the Teaching Hospital altered financial records and facilitated the transfer of multimillions of government money into private accounts, including his own and that of one Monday Michael Adejo.
Waziri was also said to have, without authorisation, changed the bank account details meant for state taxes of Kogi, Edo, Bauchi and Zamfara states to that of Monday Adejo Michael where the taxes due to the aforementioned states were fraudulently diverted to.
One of the counts against him read: ‘That you Lukumanu Sukumanu Sani Waziri (M) and Monday Michael Adejo (M) sometime in April, 2020 or thereabout, conspired amongst yourselves to take possession of the sums of N6,127,465.75, N8,552,824.60 and 5,939,666.49 totaling N20,619,956.8 (Twenty Million, Six Hundred and Nineteen Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira, Eight Kobo) from the Government Integrated Financial Information System into the First Bank Account of Monday Michael Adejo with account number: 30142906334 on the prompting of Lukumanu Sani Waziri, which reasonably ought to have known that such funds form part of the proceeds of an unlawful act, namely: corruption and fraud and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Sections 18 and 15 (1) ( d ) and punishable under Section 15 ( 3 ) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended).”
In his judgement on Friday, Justice Abdulgafar found Mr. Waziri guilty of seven, out of the nine counts charge levelled against him.
The court thereafter sentenced the convict as follows: ”one year imprisonment or a fine of 200,000 each on Counts 1 and 2; one year imprisonment each on Counts 3, 4, and 5 without the option of a fine; and three years imprisonment or a fine of N500,000 each on Counts 8 and 9.
Lawyers are opposed to a Bill now before the House of Representatives, which seeks to decentralise the Supreme Court. Instead, they proffered solutions to the challenges plaguing the apex court, writes Assitant Editor ERIC IKHILAE.
With citizens weary of the wheel of justice grinding slowly, including at the Supreme Court, there have been many suggestions on how to address the problem.
One suggestion, which is now in the form of a Bill, is the decentralisation of the Supreme Court.
The unsavoury state of affairs has been attributed to the volume of cases, the insufficient number of Justices, and a somewhat fixation on manual procedure, among others.
To address the challenges, many have suggested various ways, among which is the alteration of the Constitution to reduce the number of cases that get to the Supreme Court.
Some have also suggested an amendment to the Constitution to allow a possible increase in the number of its judicial officers from the current 21; enhanced, while others advise cate for the deployment of technology, among measures.
Keyamo, who was before the Senate as a ministerial nominee, promised to decentralise the Supreme Court if assigned the portfolio of the Attorney- General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.
He argued that the nation’s Supreme Court remains the busiest in the world.
Keyamo added: “My first task will be to unbundle the Supreme Court. It is the busiest in the world and that is not acceptable. Some of the cases that go there are frivolous.
“This country is big enough to have six regional courts where appeals from the regions can be handled appropriately.”
He said cases relating to land and chieftaincy disputes, matrimonial causes and related cases should be made to terminate at such regional courts.
Keyamo explained that his planned reform will allow the current Supreme Court in Abuja to deal only with constitutional issues, political matters, and election disputes that have to do with the interpretation of the Constitution because, at that point, the nation will need the guidance of a central Supreme Court.
The Bill
As if taking a cue from Keyamo, a House of Representatives member, Manu Soro, representing the Darazo/Ganjuwa federal constituency of Bauchi State, has sponsored a Bill which was presented before the House on December 9, 2024.
The Bill aims, among others, to amend Section 230(1) of the 1999 Constitution to allow for the establishment of five regional divisions of the Supreme Court, with the one in Abuja serving as the headquarters.
The sponsor of the Bill proposed that the current Supreme Court will serve the Northcentral geopolitical zone.
One will be located in Umuahia to serve the Southeast; the one to be located in Bauchi will serve the Northeast, the one to be established in Uyo should serve the Southsouth, the one for Lagos will serve the Southwest, while that to be located in Kano should serve the Northwest.
The sponsor of the Bill said it is intended to improve access to justice, reduce litigation costs, and expedite case resolutions.
What lawyers think
Most lawyers are, however, opposed to a decentralised Supreme Court.
Prof. Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), Dr. Joseph Nwobike (SAN), Reverend John Baiyeshea (SAN) and Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) suggested the reduction of the number of cases that end up in the apex court.
They also advocated for the creation of regional Supreme Courts in the mould suggested by Keyamo.
To the senior lawyers, no federation exists without a centralised Supreme Court that deals with fundamental constitutional and related questions.
They equally identified the dangers inherent in having a decentralised Supreme Court in a federation like Nigeria.
Akinseye-George noted that the reason why people are calling for the decentralisation of the Supreme Court is because of inordinate delays and excessive workload of the court.
He said the country’s Supreme Court is overburdened when compared with the Supreme Court of the United States of America which may not have more than 12 cases in a whole year.
Akinseye-George, who is the President of the justice sector reform advocacy group, the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS), said: “What we should do is not to decentralise the Supreme Court. You cannot decentralise a Supreme Court in a federation.
“One of the requirements of a federation is that you must have a single Supreme Court that can interpret the Constitution. And, that is what we currently have.
“However, we need to reduce the number of cases that end in the Supreme Court. Cases of customary law and chieftaincy matters do not need to go to the Supreme Court.
“We need another appellate court which will be final on several other issues. For example, we can have six regional appellate courts to take appeals on matters from that region.
“Such matters will terminate there without going to the federal Supreme Court.
“You can call such courts Zonal Supreme Courts. Luckily we have these geopolitical zones. We can have intermediate courts that have final jurisdiction.”
Akinseye-George said under the arrangement, the current Court of Appeal will still take matters that can go beyond them to the Supreme Court.
“So, by this arrangement, you will have, at the federal/national level, there will be the High Court, the Court of Appeal (as we have now) and the national Supreme Court, which will take only constitutional matters, disputes between two arms of government, between two states, and between the Federal Government and the states.
“The federal Supreme Court should only be saddled with important matters of conditional significance and not just any matter.
“For each region or geopolitical zone, you will have the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the regional Supreme Court, where state offences terminate, without necessity going to the federal Supreme Court,” Akinseye-George said.
Nwobike fears conflicting decision risk
To Nwobike, the proponents of this idea to decentralise the Supreme Court and the sponsor of the Bill seem to have overlooked the inherent benefits of a centralised Supreme Court.
He argued that clearly, a decentralised Supreme Court of Nigeria would not lead to any constitutional or legal benefit to the litigants and the nation.
Nwobike argued: “Apart from encouraging conflicting judicial decisions and opinions, a decentralised Supreme Court cannot be justified on a cost-benefit basis.
“The cost of running a decentralised Supreme Court will be extremely high.
“There are no historical facts or studies which suggest that a decentralised Supreme Court will enhance the delivery of justice.
“What we should do now is to explore the possibility of deploying technology like artificial intelligence to deal with all the perceived challenges facing the court at the moment.
“I will conclude by urging critical stakeholders in the justice sector to oppose this Bill,” Nwobike said.
Baiyeshea observed that there is a severe problem of delay of cases at the Supreme Court, wherein an appeal takes an average of between 12 to 15 years to be heard.
He also noted that not only is the workload there burdensome but the Justices are thoroughly overworked and overwhelmed.
He said: “You know by the nature of Nigerians, they are very litigious, so there is appeal to the Supreme Court on virtually everything.
“The only cases that are heard ‘out of turn’ as we normally say in our profession (that is speedily heard by the court) are political cases.
“So justice is thoroughly delayed at the Supreme Court, leading also to denial of justice invariably.
“Many people whose cases are in the Supreme Court die even before their cases are heard or some other events happen (as a result of many years delay), that may overtake many cases so that the determination of the appeal after like 10 to 15 years makes no sense to the parties anymore.
“Therefore, if there is a way to unbundle the court (decentralise) as it is being contemplated, it will bring great relief to everyone.
“I do not know the details of how the decentralisation is going to be done, all I am concerned with like other citizens and key players in the legal profession is that something has to be done drastically, dramatically, proactively and urgently to address and find a solution to the terrible delay in determining cases at the Supreme Court,” Baiyeshea said.
Okutepa: don’t decentralise Supreme Court
According to Okutepa, the country does not need to have a decentralised Supreme Court.
He fears it will create room for many conflicting decisions that will not augur well for sound jurisprudence.
“The United States of America, with more states and population than Nigeria, has one Supreme Court.
“I am not in support of the proponent of decentralised Supreme Court of Nigeria. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest in the United States.
“Article III of the U S Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorised Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts.
“The Supreme Court of Nigeria, by constitutional arrangements has 21 Justices of that court.
“In the US, since 1869, the court consists of nine Justices – the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate Justices – who meet at the Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC to decide serious issues,” he said.
Okutepa noted that the problems of the Nigerian Supreme Court are not in decentralisation.
He stressed that the Supreme Court of Nigeria is the only one he is aware of that entertains all manner of appeals.
Okutepa said: “The Supreme Court of Nigeria is overwhelmed by unreasonable and unnecessary appeals filed by lawyers to, in some cases, delay justice. This is the sad reality.
“For the Supreme Court to deliver quality judgments, we should think of restricting the appeals that go to that court.
“Those who think that the Supreme Court needs to have divisions and sit in divisions need to have a rethink.
“I would rather suggest that we have regional Supreme Courts and then have one Supreme Court of Nigeria where only appeals dealing with fundamental questions of constitutional construction, fundamental rights, death sentences and serious policy questions are brought before the Supreme Court.
“This should be in areas that are recondite or novel points of law of which the issues have not been notoriously settled by the Supreme Court or where the Supreme Court is being called upon to overrule itself in areas that its previous judgments have effectively put roadblocks to the attainment of justice.
“In other words, all appeals should terminate at the Regional Supreme Court, while only appeals of fundamental significant constitutional importance should go the Supreme Court of Nigeria either as of right or with leave of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. That, to me, is the rational thing to do.”
Okutepa frowned at the current practice where Justices are appointed to the apex court on a regional or geopolitical zone basis.
He argued that under the current arrangements, “the Nigerian system betrays justice in appointments to the Supreme Court where justice is tribalised and regionalised”.
The SAN added: “Justice is not of any tribal origin. But in appointments to our Supreme Court, Justices are appointed as representatives of geographical locations.
“When I hear such things, I get worried because Justices of the Supreme Court are not trained to deliver justice based on ethnicity or regionalism.
“When justices of the Supreme Court take oaths of office, they swear to do justice to all manner of persons without fear or favour.”
Okutepa added that the Supreme Court must be made relevant by leaving it as one court and not fragmenting it.
He noted: “It is by making appeals going to that court to be on issues of significant importance to the growth and development of Nigerian jurisprudence.
“Today, appeals on matrimonial cases, chieftaincy matters, pre-election matters and post-elections matters, in certain cases, still go to the Supreme Court.
“That has made the docket of that court to be overwhelmed and over-bloated to the irritation of justice.
“Justices of that court are overworked. They are, in most cases, weighed down by irresponsible and irrelevant processes.
“We must tinker with the burdens on their lordships in the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court must look at the motions for leave to appeal to it with critical dispositions to refuse some of those applications.
“This is one area the Supreme Court needs to look at to reduce the burden on it. We do not need to decentralise the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”
Justice Rahman Oshodi of an Ikeja Special Offences and Domestic Violence has remanded one Chidi Gabriel at the medium custodial center over alleged defilement of a minor, aged 14 years.
Gabriel was arraigned by the state government on a one count charge boarding on defilement of a minor.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
M.I Chiaha the defence counsel did not move a bail application.
The prosecuting counsel, Bukola Okewo prayed the court for a triai date following the not guilty plea of the defendant.
Justice Rahman in his ruling remanded the defendant in custody.
“I adjourned this matter to May 7, 2025 for trial and also remand the defendant at the medium custodial center where he is been currently held”
According to the charge, “Chidi Gabriel on or about the 23rd day of 2020 around Okokomaiko junction, Alaba, Lagos state in ikeja Judicial Division did have unlawful sexual intercourse with one (name withheld) aged 14 years by inserting your penis into her Vagina”
Afamefuna and Nwachukwu, sons of Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, have withdrawn their application before a Lagos High Court in which they were seeking to be joined as parties in a 2011 suit filed by Ogbonna Ojukwu and others against the Ojukwu Transport Limited, (OTL) and others.
Justice Adebayo Oyebanji will on March 10, 2025, entertain the withdrawal of the joinder application filed before his court.
The application, dated December 16, 2024, seeks to withdraw their earlier request to be joined as parties in the property dispute suit involving Ojukwu Transport Limited (OTL).
The originating suit, marked LD/794/2011, was filed by Ogbonna Ojukwu and others against OTL, while judgment was delivered in 2018.
Justice Oyebanji had while delivering judgment in the suit, granted possession of Ojukwu Transport Ltd properties in Lagos to OTL including No 29 Oyikan Abayomi Drive, Ikoyi Lagos.
Until his death in 2011, the Late Chief Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu was a party to the suit.
OTL, sequel to the judgment of the court, had executed a warrant of possession on all its properties in Lagos with certificate of completion of execution of warrant’ obtained in July 2022.
However last year, Afamefuna and Nwachukwu applied before the court to be joined as “Interested parties in the matter” and also be exempted from the already executed warrant in the case which judgment was delivered in June 2018.
A twist was introduced into matter last month when the duo filed a ‘Notice of Withdrawal’ of their earlier application seeking to be joinder before the court.
The application dated December 16, 2024, seeks to “wholly withdraw their motion for joinder in the suit against the claimants/respondents.
At the last hearing of their application for joinder on April 22, 2024, OTL Director, Dr. P. Ike Ojukwu, their agent, Mr Massey Udegbe and lawyer, Chief Ifeanyi Okumah were in court while Bianca, her sons and their lawyers were absent.
Justice A. M. Lawal had, in the 2022 judgment, granted a restraining order against interference with Afamefuna and Nwachukwu’s possession of the properties pending the harmonisation of Ojukwu properties by OTL.
Afamefuna and Nwachukwu, claiming to be unaware of the matter before Justice Onyebanji, had last year served a ‘Notice of Disobedience of Court order’ on OTL, the Ojukwu and other tenants of the property.
In their application seeking to be joined in case before Justice Onyebanji, Bianca’s sons claimed that they were not aware of the pendency of the suit and were not included as interested parties in the case.
They argued that it would amount to a miscarriage of justice for the matter to be conclusively decided without their input as the issues in the case affect their interest.
Meanwhile, OTL had last year, following the judgment of Justice A.M. Lawal, harmonised the management of its assets and reaffirmed Massey Udegbe and Co as its estate agent and published the same in two national newspapers.
Of the five properties in Bianca and son’s 2012 suit, OTL claims that it had not been paid rent for 12 years (N144m) by Uche Obilor/West African Offshore Limited, occupants of 30 Gerard Rd,Ikoyi, Lagos.
It also claimed that the occupants of 32a Commercial Avenue,Yaba, Foursquare Gospel Church, has not paid OTL any rent since 2017 while 4 Macpherson Rd,Ikoyi has been under Police ‘lock and key’ since July 2015.
It also insisted that 29 Oyinkan Abayomi Rd, Ikoyi has been unoccupied for over 20 years while 13 Ojora Rd, Ikoyi is in good condition with good tenant-landlord understanding.
A security expert, Alhaji Ahmed Rabiu, has sued Virgin Atlantic Airways before the Federal High Court in Lagos for alleged breach of contract and the loss of his luggage on board its London to Lagos flight on September 24, 2024.
Rabiu is demanding $4000 for the value of the items contained in the stolen luggage and N20 million as damages for the distress, inconvenience and solicitors’ fees incurred in the course of recovering the luggage.
In an affidavit filed in support of the suit, the passenger averred that he boarded flight No. CNY3JV from London-Heathrow, United Kingdom, to Murtala Mohammed Airport in Lagos after undergoing rigorous security checks.
He was properly checked in, along with his tagged prime luggage, by the Defendant’s operational staff.
But after the plane landed in Lagos, he waited at the conveyor belt from the moment the baggage carousel was activated until it was switched off.
He said while every other passenger on the defendant’s flight picked their luggage and left except him who became devastated.
The plaintiff also maintained that he immediately informed the defendant’s staff on ground and he was given the Defendant’s Loss of Baggage Form to fill out and submit, which he did immediately.
But the airline neither gave him his luggage, replaced it or pay for the value of the contents of his luggage.
The plaintiff claimed that he was devastated by the fraudulent action of the defendant’s relevant operational staff and their recklessness or negligence.
This, he said, led to the disappearance of his newly bought bag containing his purchases in London properly received and tagged in an accident-free flight which landed in Lagos on schedule.
He further stated that the defendant’s failure to deliver his luggage to him upon arrival in Lagos after straining his finances to purchase the defendant’s flight ticket was a huge breach of contract.
Ahmed also claimed that upon the theft and loss of his luggage, he caused his lawyers to write the defendant a demand letter requesting the luggage or payment for the contents of the luggage.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not respond to the letter, and his lawyer, yet again, sent a reminder, which, again, was not responded to.
He insisted that he had suffered enormous economic losses and emotional distress and that it is in the interest of justice that the court grant his claims.
The plaintiff averred: “There was neither accident nor armed robbery on the plane from London-Heathrow to Lagos Nigeria and there is no reason why the Plaintiff’s prime luggage could no longer be found upon arrival in Lagos.
“The plaintiff’s luggage was at all material times at the care and control of the Defendant’s staff, who ought to exercise maximum care on the plaintiff’s luggage.
“The theft and loss of the plaintiff’s luggage under the defendant’s custody has caused significant inconvenience and distress, and the contents of the said luggage were precious valuables purchased from Zara stores, Mark and Spencer, Diesel jeans outfit, Primark, Calvin Klein, Puma and AC & Co for the plaintiff’s use, his five male children, family and friends as well as valuable gift items for the plaintiff’s boss and colleagues in the office valued over £4000 (Four thousand Pounds). The Plaintiff shall rely on the Loss of Baggage Form showing the loss of the Plaintiff’s luggage.”
Virgin Atlantic Airways had not responded to the suit.
Justice Alexander Owoeye has fixed February 10 for a hearing.
An activist, Dr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, has sued Governor Charles Soludo and three others before the High Court of Anambra State, Awka Division, for embarking on a land document recertification and revalidation exercise outside the provisions of the Land Use Act, 1978.
In an originating summons, Okonkwo alleged that conducting such an exercise against the provisions of federal legislation violates the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
According to him, the imposition/demand of N25,000 land recertification/revalidation tax on Anambra land owners by the state government, without an iota of authorisation by the Land Use Act, constituted a mega financial fraud, and hence, should be investigated thoroughly by the Police.
The plaintiff, who deposed a 14-paragraph affidavit in support of the originating summons, alleged that the “illegal” land document recertification/revalidation exercise was deployed to corruptly enrich the budget for Soludo’s re-election campaign, ahead of the forthcoming November 8, 2025, Anambra State Governorship Election.
The court papers obtained by our reporter listed the governor, Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, his Lands, Survey and Urban Planning counterpart, and the Commissioner of Police, Anambra State Police Command, as the first to fourth defendants.
Anambra State Government had in a public notice through the Ministry of Lands, Survey and Urban Planning, signed by the Permanent Secretary, Nkeiru Mokwe Esq., on behalf of the Commissioner, announced the commencement of the mandatory land recertification/Revalidation of all land title documents, including those of both State and Private Lands.
But Okonkwo in suit number A/23/2025, asked the court to interpret Sections 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 26, 46(1) AND 50(1) of the Land Use Act, 1978, regarding the powers of Anambra State Governor in relation to land.
He urged the court to determine whether the first, second and third defendants who purport to arrogate the powers of Recertification and Revalidation of all the title documents in Anambra State (State and Non-State Land) have shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the Land Use Act, 1978 clearly and specifically authorised their action.
He also asked the court to determine whether the recertification/recertification fee/tax of N25,000.00 contained in Exhibit ‘A,’ which was charged to the Anambra State land owners, is not contrary to Part II of the Schedule to the Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Act, Cap. T2 LFN 2011, and therefore illegal and unconstitutional, and subject to account and refund to the defrauded people of Anambra State.
As a property/land occupier in Anambra affected by the public notice, he maintained that his civil rights had been violated by the announcement of the government, contained in Exhibit ‘A’.
He stated that if the court failed to intervene, he would lose his property rights by the first, second and third defendants illegally excluding the particulars of his land/property from their record, which would make him to suffer irreparably.
Pursuant to sections 6(6) (a) & (b), 272(1) and 315(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the plaintiff sought 13 reliefs, including a declaratory order, order for account, injunction and exemplary damages in his favour, against the first, second and third defendants for N10billion.
The other reliefs sought are: “A declaration that the plaintiff as a property owner in Anambra State affected by the public notice on Land Recertification/ Revalidation, tagged, ’ Exhibit A’, can invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Honourable Court to correct the fundamental errors of Law committed by the defendants.
“A declaration that neither the public notice’ issued by the Permanent Secretary, Nkeiru Mokwe Esq. for the Commissioner nor the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants have the powers, to superintend over the exemption with respect to Federal Land, in Section 49 (1) of the Land Use Act, 1978.
“A declaration that the ‘Public Notice’ Exhibit ‘A’, signed by the agent of a known principal (Mrs. Nkeiru Mokwe Esq.) Permanent Secretary for Mr. Commissioner, usurped the legislative powers of a State (Anambra State) captured in Section 4(7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) without any iota of authority.
“A declaration that Exhibit ‘A’ – public notice issued under the hand of Mrs. Nkeiru Mokwe Esq. (Permanent Secretary) for Mr. Commissioner: is neither an ‘Edict’ nor subsidiary instrument in respect of the governor’s powers in relation to land and therefore, is illegal, unconstitutional and tantamount to public officer’s scam/obtaining N25, 000.00 from the citizens of Anambra State for recertification of land under false pretences.
“A declaration that a court in Nigeria has power to inquire into and pronounce on the legality of Exhibit ‘A’ public notice’ demanding tax of N25,000.00 or levy to be paid by citizens to the State or otherwise of an “Edict” contrary to the taxes and levies (Approved List for collection) Act.
“A declaration that the defendants or public officers acting on their behalf has no power to issue Exhibit ‘A’ ‘public notice’ on Land, outside the mandatory provisions of the Land Use Act, 1978 which is a Federal Legislation.”
In addition, Okonkwo asked the court to declare that the recertification of Land Documents tax of N25,000.00 levied or charged required to be paid by citizens / Land Owners in Anambra State to the State or to be collected by the State in Nigeria are not contained or stated in Part II of the Schedule to the Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Act, Cap. T2 LFN 2011, and therefore its imposition/demand constituted “financial fraud” on Anambra State citizens, therefore, illegal null and void.
He urged the court to declare that the first to third defendants without any lawful authority demanded taxes of N25,000.00 from Anambra State Land Owners, pointing out the law raised a trust by implication and clothes them with fiduciary character for the purpose of making them accountable.
The plaintiff, therefore, demanded an award of exemplary damages in his favour, against the first, second and thirrd defendants in the sum of Ten Billion Naira (N10,000,000,000.00) only for knowing that Exhibit ‘A’ (public notice) is unconstitutional and yet, went ahead to impoverish Anambra State land owners, for their dubious personal interest.
He asked for an order of perpetual injunction from the court, restraining the 1st to 3rd defendants, their servants, agents or privies howsoever from issuing or pursuing the recertification/ revalidated exercise contained in Exhibit ‘A’ at any other time both now and in the future, except in consonance with Land Use Act, 1978 or any valid law subject to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
He requested an order directing the Inspector-General Nigeria Police Force (the fourth defendant) to investigate his co-defendants’ deployment of Exhibit ‘A’ to commit mega financial fraud on the land owners in Anambra State, recover the sums of monies collected, and upon the citizens, make a demand to the Nigeria Police Force to ensure that a Police investigation report is issued, and the public officers involved, brought before the law to answer for their crime.
Finally, the plaintiff prayed the court to order the 1st to 3rd defendants to refund to the Anambra State Land Owners their N25,000.00 recertification tax, illegally levied on them in the State, as the imposition of tax/levy can only be validly levied for breach of the law, whether under civil process or after conviction for an offence.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the matter.
The President, Societal Concern Organisation, Ambassador Oluwayomi Oluwapelumi has won the ‘Personality of the Year Award: 2024’.
The award was conferred on her in recognition of her contribution in the field of social transformation.
The conferment of the award which held on Sunday, January 26, 2025 was done by the ChinmayaFoundation, an international People’s Enhancement Organisation for peace and harmony based in India.
In her reaction to award. Amb. Oluwapelumi said she was profoundly grateful to the Chinmaya Foundation for this exceptional recognition as the Personality of the Year Award: 2024.
“It is truly humbling to be acknowledged by such a distinguished international organization committed to peace and harmony.
“This award represents not just my individual efforts but also the collective commitment of those who share my vision for meaningful social transformation. It reinforces the importance of building bridges across borders, uniting people through shared values, and working tirelessly to improve lives and communities.
“I extend my heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Chinmaya Dash, Founder and International Chairman of the Chinmaya Foundation, and the entire team for recognizing and celebrating impactful contributions worldwide. Your work inspires countless individuals to strive for excellence and selfless service. “
Amb. Oluwapelumi said the honor would serves as a motivation to continue pursuing initiatives that foster social progress, inclusivity, and harmony adding, “together, we can achieve remarkable transformations for a better world. “
An Iwo-based businessman, Mr. Toba Amusan, has been ordered to pay N500,000 compensation to a 56year-old trader for instigating his unlawful arrest and detention.
In a judgment delivered by Honourable Justice F.A. Sodamade of Osun State High Court, sitting in Iwo, the court dismissed the application of stay of execution brought by Amusan against the earlier judg-ment of the court delivered in May 2024.
Fifty-six year Isikilu Kehinde had dragged the State Commissioner of Police; the Commander, Anti-Vice Intelligence Squad of Nigerian Police, Osun Command; Sgt. Opebiyi Abiodun and Mr. Toba Amusan to court over his arrest and eventual detention for four days without trial.
In a 20-paragraph affidavit, personally deposed to by him, Kehinde stated that ‘his arrest on 14th day of April 2024 by the 1st I’m o 2nd and 3rd respondents at the instance of the 4th respondent is unconsti-tutional, malicious, illegal, frivolous, harassing, vexation and gross violation’ of his fundamental human rights as enshrined in the Constitution of Nigeria and Articles 5,6 and 12 of the African Charter on Hu-man and People’s Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 49 LFN 2004.
He demanded Five Million Naira (N5million) as damages for his unlawful arrest and detention from 14th day of April 2023 to 19th day of April 2023.
According to him, he “was unjustly detained by the 1st to 3rd respondents over a land dispute, which is pending before the State High Court.”
Although, the respondents had challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case, Justice Soda-made ruled in favour of Kehinde and ordered Amusan to pay N500,000 as compensation in addition to public apology.
“By virtue of the same S.35 (6), any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained should be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person.
“Since damages is constitutionally allowed, damages in the sum of N500,000, as claimed by the appli-cant, is awarded against the 4th respondent in favour by the applicant.
“The award of damages is in addition to public apology as claimed by the applicant,” the court ruled.
But in his efforts to overturn the court judgment against him, Amusan filed an application for a stay of execution pending the appeal he filed against the judgment.
