The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Adeniyi Ademola

  • NJC recalls suspended justice

    NJC recalls suspended justice

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) has recalled Justice Inyang Okoro of the Supreme Court who was suspended with seven other justices in November 2016.

    In a statement issued in Abuja on Saturday by the council’s Director of Information, Mr Soji Oye said the council also recalled Justice Uwani John of the Court of Appeal, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, Justice Hydiazira Nganjiwa and Justice Musa Kurya of the Federal High Court.

    Okoro and seven other judges were suspended after a raid on their homes by the State Security Service.

    Justice Agbadu Fishim of National Industrial Court of Nigeria also benefited from the council’s decision.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that three of the affected judges were charged to court, but only Ademola’s case was conclude in which he was discharged and acquitted.

    Oye said the decisions were taken at the NJC’s 82nd meeting held on May 31 and June 1presided over by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen.

  • Court orders Ohakim to defend self against money laundering charges

    Court orders Ohakim to defend self against money laundering charges

    • Dismisses ex-Imo gov’s no-case submissioN

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the ‎Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered a former Governor of Imo State, Ikedi Ohakim to defend himself against the charges of money laundering brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The judge gave the order in a ruling on Thursday on the no-case submission made for Ohakim by his lawyers – Awa Kalu (SAN) and Chris Uche (SAN).

    Justice Ademola, who dismissed the no-case submission, held that the prosecution has established, through  its six witnesses, a prima facie case against Ohakim to warrant his being called upon to enter defence.

    Ohakim was arraigned before the court on a three-count charge of money laundering on July 8, 2015, to which he pleaded not guilty.

    The ex-Governor is accused of purchasing a property at 60, Kwame Nkrumah Street, Plot No 1098, Cadastral ZoneA04, Asokoro District, Abuja with cash payment of $2.29m which was said to be dollar equivalent of N270m in November 2008.

    The offence is said to be contrary to section 1 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004 and punishable under Section 15(1)(d)‎ of the same law.

    Ohakim is also accused of attempting to conceal the ownership of the property by entering into an agreement as a tenant in the property‎.

    The offence is said to be cont‎rary to and punishable under section 14(1b) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.

    He is further accused of failing to declare the property as part of his assets when asked by the EFCC to do so in January 2014, thereby allegedly committing an offence under section 27(b) and (c) of the EFCC Act and punishable under the same section.

    The prosecution closed its case on May 5, 2016 after calling six witnesses. Rather than open his defence, Ohakim chose to make a no-case submission.

    By his no-case submission, the defendant sought to convince the court to dismiss the charge against him on the ground that the prosecution was unable to lead evidence to warrant him to be called upon to defend himself.

    Had the court upheld the no-case submission, the defendant would have been discharge but the no-case submission having failed, Ohakim is now required to enter his defence by calling witnesses.

     

  • Suspended Rivers CJ: Court adjourns suit indefinitely

    Suspended Rivers CJ: Court adjourns suit indefinitely

    A Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned hearing indefinitely yesterday in the suit filed by the suspended Rivers State Chief Judge, Justice Peter Agumagu.

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola held that since parties agreed to await the outcome of the respondents’ appeals filed against his earlier ruling, the case should be adjourned till the determination of the appeals.

    Agumagu is challenging his March 18 suspension by the National Judicial Council (NJC), which claimed that  he was sworn in without being nominated by the NJC as required by the constitution.

    Sued with NJC are Justices Babatunde Adejumo, Jubril Idris and Cromwell Idahosa (chairman and members of the panel set up by the NJC to investigate allegations against Justice Agumagu).

    Yesterday, Agumagu’s lawyer, Akin Olujinmi (SAN) reminded the court that the case was fixed for the hearing of all pending applications.

    He said his client has also filed an application on June 12 seeking an order to join three new parties in the suit.

    The lawyer informed the court that shortly after its last ruling, in which the court heard the respondents’ objections with the substantive suit, the respondents had appealed.

    Olujinmi added that two of the respondents have also applied for stay of proceedings pending the appeal.

    The counsel told the court that the respondents have served him copies of the record of appeal; some of them have also served him copies of briefs of argument.

    He said it was proper for the court to adjourn the case because the respondents have compiled records of appeal and have even filed briefs of argument.

    NJC’s lawyer Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Fola Shotikare (for Justice Adejumo) and Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) for Justices Idris and Idahosa, did not object to Olujinmi’s suggestion that the court should adjourn.

    The respondents are challenging the court’s decision to hear the substantive suit and the preliminary objection,  noting that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.

    It is their contention that jurisdiction is a constitutional issue that goes to the root of the case, that must first be resolved before further steps are taken.

  • NJC investigates Justice Ademola

    NJC investigates Justice Ademola

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja, appeared yesterday before an investigative committee of the National Judicial Council (NJC.

    It was learnt that the judge’s appearance followed the petitions written against him on how he handled the trial of a former Director of Pension Accounts in the Office of the Head of Civil Service of the Federation, Sani Teidi Shaibu.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting Shuaibu for his alleged complicity in the stealing of about N5 billion pension funds belonging to civil servants.

    One of the petitions was said to have been written by Shuaibu’s wife, who queried the manner the judge handled her husband’s trial and the judge’s alleged refusal to grant him bail.

    Another petition, it was learnt, was written by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which also queried the judge’s handling of the accused bail.

    Justice Ademola was said to have suspended hearing in the case, insisting on the disposal of a petition written against him on the case, before proceeding with its hearing.

     

    The judge had once refused to allow the accused person on bail on the ground that documents submitted by some of the sureties were found to have been forged. Some officials of the Federal High Court linked with the deal are now on trial.

    The Executive Secretary of the NHRC, Professor Bem Angwe was quoted recently to have assured Shaibu that his commission will look into his case. Prof Angwe had encountered Shuaibu at the Kuje prison, Abuja during one of the NHRC’ prison inspection visits.

    Justice Ademola attracted public attention recently when, in a judgment, he said members of the House of Representatives, who defected from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the opposition All Progressive’s Congress (APC) had no business remaining in the House having defected from the party that sponsored them before the expiration of their tenure.

    The judgment was on a suit by the PDP, with which it sought to restrain members of the House from altering its current leadership composition.

     

  • Party: Judge’s comments unnecessary

    Party: Judge’s comments unnecessary

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) has said Justice Adeniyi Ademola did not order the 37 members of the House of Representatives, who defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC), to vacate their seats, because he is not competent to issue such an order.

    It said the issue of whether or not the lawmakers could defect was not before Justice Ademola.

    In a statement in Lagos yesterday by its Interim National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the party, however, said it would appeal the ruling because Justice Ademola’s perpetual injunction, restraining the concerned lawmakers from participating in motions and debates in the House, is unconstitutional and defeats the purpose for which the members were elected.

    The APC said Justice Ademola’s unsolicited comments were unnecessary and had no foundation in law or fact, hence should be ignored.

    It asked the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) to sanction Justice Ademola for engaging in mischief, which could bring the bench into disrepute.

    “If this case had been issued a day later than Monday, we would have said the judge was caught in the web of April Fool! Alas, he indeed made the ruling on Monday, hence the need for us to take it seriously for several reasons.

    “Firstly, the question whether the House of Representatives members should vacate their seats was not a question before Justice Ademola for determination. The only question for him to determine was whether the APC members, with their numerical strength at that time, had the right to change the House leadership such as the Majority Leader, Chief Whip and their deputies. So Justice Ademola had no business commenting on seats being vacated.

    “Secondly, it is unprofessional and unethical for one judge to delve into a matter that is sub judice in another court. A judge should not make comments on matters being litigated in another court. The question of seats being vacated or otherwise is being heard by Justice Ahmed Mohammed in the Federal High Court in Abuja who, on March 29, said the issue was still before him and was not ripe for judgment,” the party said.

    The APC recalled that it raised the alarm on December 14, last year that PDP was planning to change the course of justice.

    The party wondered whether there is any link between what is clearly an exercise in judicial rascality and President Goodluck Jonathan’s recent boast in Kwara that the PDP would soon retrieve its ‘stolen’ mandate from those who defected from the PDP to the APC.

    “It is necessary to unravel this so the PDP and the Presidency, in their desperation, will not paint the Judiciary with their brush of failure and crash our democracy,” it said.

    The party urged its supporters not to panic, as the judgment was clearly intended to cause mischief, adding, however, that the plan by the PDP and the Presidency had fallen like a pack of cards.

  • Tambuwal, Ihedioha appeal judgment against defecting lawmakers

    Tambuwal, Ihedioha appeal judgment against defecting lawmakers

    The House of Representatives, its Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal and Deputy Speaker Emeka Ihedioha have appealed Monday’s judgment by Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, restraining some defecting members of the House from altering the composition of its leadership.

    In a notice of appeal filed in Abuja yesterday by their lawyer, Mahmud Magaji (SAN), the three appellants faulted Justice Ademola’s reasoning and urged the Court of Appeal, Abuja to set aside the judgment.

    The judgment was on a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/4/14 filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) against the House, its principal officers and members of the House, who defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The appellants, who raised seven grounds of appeal, with a promise to add more, argued that the judgment is “perverse, not supported by the reliefs sought by the plaintiff”. They added that the trial judge “erred in law when he granted reliefs not sought by the plaintiff”.

    The appellants contended that the judgment “is against the weight of evidence” and that Justice Ademola erred “when he granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and “went further to hold that the 1st to 39th respondents ought to have resigned their seats as members of the 1st appellant.

    They argued that the judge erred when he held that the reliefs of the 1st respondent (PDP) were justiciable and proceeded to grant the reliefs sought without considering the provision of Section 30 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap L12 Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

    The section provides that “neither the President nor the Speaker, as the case may be, of a legislative house shall be subjected to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of any power conferred on or vested in him by or under this Act or the standing orders of the Constitution”.

    The appellants argued that trial judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the suit, which was predicated on the internal affairs of the House, which is protected under Section 60 of the Constitution. They said the reliefs sought by the PDP were not justiciable, yet the trial judge proceeded to grant them.

    They contended that the PDP lacks the locus standi to institute the case because it was not predicated on any recognised legal interest; the reliefs sought were not supported by any legal evidence and that the judge failed to reckon with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Fawehinmi vs Akilu (1987) 12 SC 136, Amaechi vs INEC (2008)1 LRECN 1.

    The appellants faulted the trial judge for holding that the suit was rightly commenced with originating summons, without regard to the provision of Order 3 Rule 6 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009.

    They also argued that Justice Ademola was wrong to have held that the claims of the PDP do not amount to an abuse of court process when there are similar cases involving the same parties, still pending before the court.

    They referred to the suit between Senator Bello Hayato Gwazo and 79 others vs Alhaji Bamaga Tukur and four others and argued that the parties and reliefs sought were similar with those on which the judge gave judgment.

     

  • N5b pension ‘fraud’: Court to hear bail application Feb 21

    In Abuja Federal High Court yesterday fixed February 21 to resume hearing in an application for the bail of Sani Shuaibu, who is charged with stealing N5 billion pension fund.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls that Shuaibu, a former Director of Pension Accounts in the Office of the Head of Civil Service of the Federation, had been in Kuje prison for eight months.

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola said he picked the date to enable the second accused, Eric Omoefe, a former Manager of the defunct Oceanic Bank Plc, to be present in court.

    The judge had granted them bail for N500 million each with two sureties in like sum. The sureties, the court said, must deposit their property title deeds with the court registry.

    He ordered the accused to deposit their travel documents with the court’s registrar and avoid travelling without the permission of the court.

    Shuaibu was alleged to have connived with Omoefe to steal the money meant for pensioners in the country, using nine companies to siphon the fund at different times.

    NAN reports that the EFCC had arraigned the accused on June 7, 2013 on a 22-count charge bordering on conspiracy, fraud, breach of public trust, etc.

    However, eight months after being granted bail, Shuaibu and Omoefe are still in Kuje prison.

    Shuaibu’s counsel, Mr Sunday Ameh, had at the last hearing of the case, informed the court that his client had met all the bail conditions as ordered by the court.

    He had described his continued stay in Kuje prison as “strange”.

    However, when the matter came up at the resumed hearing on Monday, Mr Godwin Obla (SAN), counsel to the EFCC, informed the court that the second accused was not in court.

     

  • Court restrains Reps from changing House leadership

    Court restrains Reps from changing House leadership

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has temporarily restrained the House of Representatives and its principal officers from effecting any changes in the composition of its leadership.

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola, in a ruling yesterday, ordered parties in a suit by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) against the House of Representatives and some of its members, to maintain status quo (allow things to remain as they currently are) pending the determination of the suit.

    The judge elected to hear the substantive suit with the notices of preliminary objection filed by the defendants.

    Mr. Justice Ademola, in ordering parties to maintain the status quo, held that even when a court’s jurisdiction to hear a case was being challenged, it has the power to decide whether or not it has jurisdiction.

    He held that a court has the power and duty to preserve the res (the subject of dispute) until it decides whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear the case.

    In electing to hear the preliminary objections with the originating summons, the judge relied on the provision of Order 29 Rule 1 (a) and (b) of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules.

    He ruled out the possibility of hearing a motion for interlocutory injunction filed by the plaintiff.

    Justice Ademola fixed February 3 for hearing of both the defendants’ objection and the substantive suit. He ordered parties to file their written addresses before then.

    The ruling was on arguments by lawyers representing parties, on how the court ought to proceed in hearing the case in view of the various applications filed by parties.

    For over two hours yesterday, lawyers in the case, who were mostly senior advocates, argued on the sole issue of whether or not the court should first determine the question of jurisdiction before hearing the substantive suit.

    The defence team, which included Sebastine Hon (SAN), Mahmoud Magaji (SAN), Eric Apia and Tairu Adebayo urged the court to first determine their objection against the court’s jurisdiction before hearing the substantive suit.

    The plaintiff’s lawyer, Yunus Usman (SAN), urged the court to either hear his motion for interlocutory injunction before the defence objection or hear both together and rule first, on the objection.

    He argued that it was the position of the law that a court, even when its jurisdiction was challenged, must first preserve the res by making preservative orders, before determining whether or not it possesses the jurisdiction to hear the substantive case.

    The PDP, in the suit it filed on January 7, wants the court to, among others, restrain the House of Reps, its Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, other principal officers and its defecting members in the House from taking any step “to alter or change the leadership of the 1st defendant (PDP)”.

    The suit has the House of Representatives Speaker, Deputy Speaker and other principal officers of the House and its former members who defected to the All Progressive Congress (APC) as defendants.

    An officer of the PDP, Nanchang Ndam, stated in a supporting affidavit that while the defection of some of the defendants was still a subject of litigation before Justice Ahmed Mohammed, the defendants, particularly the Minority Leader, Femi Gbajabiamila, have issued threats to change the leadership of the House.

    He stated that unless the defendants were restrained, they could carry out the threat and thereby prejudice the earlier suit, cause a breakdown of law and other and paralyse the activities of the House.

    The plaintiff raised two questions for the court’s determination and sought for four reliefs.

    The PDP wants the court to determine whether, in view of the mandatory provision of Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution, and in view of the pendency of an earlier suit by the defecting law makers, they (the defecting legislators) can participate in any proceedings to remove the House’ principal officers.

    The party equally wants the court to determine whether, in view of the provision of Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution and the pending suit by the defecting legislators, they (the defecting law makers) can lawfully alter the composition or constitution of the House’s leadership.

    It is praying the court to declare that in view of Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution and the pending case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/621/2013, the defecting lawmakers “cannot lawfully vote and contribute to any motion for the removal or change of any of the principal officers” of the House.

    PDP also wants the court to declare that the defecting lawmakers, who are plaintiffs in the earlier suit before Justice Mohammed of the same court, “are not competent to sponsor, contribute or vote on any motion calling for the removal or change in the leadership of the House or the removal of any principal officers of the House”.

    It prayed the court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from “altering or changing the House’s leadership.

    In their preliminary objections, Magaji (for House of Reps, Tambuwal and Ihedioha), Hon (for 12th and 13th, 15th to 30th defendants) and Apia (for 36th to 41st) defendants) urged the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

    They contended, among others, that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to institute the suit; that the suit is not justiceable; that the court lacked the jurisdiction to dabble in the internal affairs of the House, and that the case amounts to an academic or hypothetical exercise.