The Nation Newspaper

Tag: AGF

  • Senate tackles AGF over untreated audit reports

    The Senate Tuesday tackled the Auditor General of the Federation (AGF) Anthony Ayine over his claim that no audit report submitted to the National Assembly had been comprehensively treated since 1999.

    Chairman, Senate Committee on Public Accounts, Senator Mathew Urhoghide, who responded to AGF’s claim, said that Ayine has not submitted any audit report since he took over as AGF in 2017.

    Urhoghide said that by law, the AGF should have concluded work on 2018 audit report because the law states that report should be submitted six months into the new financial year.

    The Edo South Senator noted that the major problem of the office of the AGF is incompetent man power.

    According to him, some of those who work in the office of the AGF were those who have nothing to do with auditing.

    Insisting that the Public Accounts Committee was not created only to consider audit report, Urhoghide noted that in 2016, they discovered that N14billion was removed from one federal fund meant for intervention in states that were distressed and given to the Ministry of Defence.

    He noted that although the AGF queried the removal of the fund, he (Urhoghide) called the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Defence to his draw his attention to it, “because it is an extra-budgetary allocation made to them.”

    He said that the removal of the N14 billion was apart from the N2.7bn given to the Defence Ministry “behind the doors from the Service Wide Votes.”

    Urhoghide said that he asked what the ministry did with the funds.

    The committee chairman who said that “it is only Public Accounts Committee that can see all those things” noted that the Permanent Secretary expressed surprise and said, “we didn’t form a new division in the army.”

    Urhoghide said, “The much I know since I became the Chairman, Senate Committee on Public Accounts, about a year and half ago, is what I can say.

    Read Also: Senate tackles AGF over untreated audit reports

    “When the Auditor General came for his budget defence, I told him that the fact that we have not conducted hearing on his queries does not mean that he should not bring audit reports.

    “We have not received audit report for 2016. The Auditor General resumed office in 2017. Since he came, he has not submitted any audit report to the National Assembly. He is even supposed to be concluding works on 2018 because the law said that it must be submitted, six months into the new financial year.

    “This is the fourth month. By the time we get to June end, he is expected to submit audit report for 2018. He doesn’t have the competent manpower to conduct audit.

    “Our committee is not set up to consider audit report alone. We have a lot of motions that we moved, we have submitted reports on status enquiries of those whose audited accounts have been submitted.

    “We investigated and submitted reports on the subsidy issue, the $1bn euro-bond issue, withdrawals made from the Service Wide Vote from 2012 till date.

    “If we have audit reports from 2015 till date, we would be

  • Reps summon CBN governor, AGF over N33b pension fund

    The Governor of Central Bank (CBN), Godwin Emefiele and the Accountant-General of the Federarion (AGF), Ahmed Idris are to appear before the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

    The two are to clarify alleged remittance of N33billion pension deductions to the Federal Government by National Pension Commision (PenCom) before the House of Representatives ad hoc Committee investigating alleged irregularities in PenCom.

    The Chairman of the Committee, Johnson Agbonayinma said  noticeable discrepancies in the pension deductions claimed to have remitted by the Acting Director-General (DG) of PenCom, Aisha Dahir-Umar made the appearance of the two critical to the investigation.

    While appearing before the Committee at the public hearing yesterday, the Nigerian Union of Contributory Pensioners (NUCP) accused PenCom and Pension Fund Administrators (PFAs) of several infringements.

    In its presentation, the group regretted that the new pension scheme, has compounded, rather than alleviating problems faced by retirees under the Contributory Pension Scheme.

    U.C. Ekpo and Emezuru Eugene signed the memorandum where PenCom was accused of failing to review contributors’ pension every five years as provided in Section 173 (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    The Union also observed  persistent delays in payment of retirees’ benefits to over two years as well as  lack of standardised template and transparency in computation of lump sums paid after retirement.

    PenCom was also faulted for gender inequality in the payment of lump sums in contravention of the Pension Reform Act.

     

  • Court to rule on AGF’s objection to MTN’s suit May 7

    The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday reserved ruling on a preliminary objection by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) challenging a N3billion suit by MTN Nigeria Communication Ltd.

    MTN sued the AGF for demanding N242 billion and $1.3 billion as import duties and withholding tax assessments from it.

    By a September 10, 2018 writ, MTN is challenging the legality of the AGF’s assessment of the import duties, withholding tax and value-added tax.

    But, the AGF, in the preliminary objection, is arguing that the suit was statute-barred, thus robbing the court of jurisdiction.

    Arguing the motion yesterday, AGF’s counsel Mr Tijani Gazali urged the court to strike out the suit on the ground that was instituted outside the time prescribed by law.

    He said the AGF was covered by Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, so there was no issue of abuse of office.

    He said rather than MTN responding to the demand, it filed the case.

    But, MTN through its counsel Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who led Damia Dodo (SAN) and Prof Fabian Ajogwu (SAN), argued that the AGF’s objection was unfounded.

    MEN’s lawyers maintained that the AGF’s contentions were unacceptable and unknown to law.

    They argued that the cause of action actually crystalised when the AGF made a demand of MTN and threatened the company with court action on August 20.

    Previous correspondence from the AGF was acted upon in good faith by the company, Olanipekun continued.

    He revealed that the previous correspondence had requested a self-assessment.

    He posited that the organisation not only undertook the self-assessment but went ahead to submit the result of that process to the AGF’s office.

    The assessment, he said, was undertaken by KPMG and showed clearly that no back taxes were owed to the country.

    He said AGF’s letter heightened issues and led to the company seeking to protect itself from the unlawful actions of the AGF.

    The learned SAN further argued that to the extent that the letter has not been withdrawn, the cause of action continues to exist.

    Therefore MTN remains within its rights to approach the courts, he said.

    Counsel to AGF was asked directly whether the cause of action had been withdrawn, but he declined to respond.

    Olanipekun further posited that from the AGF’s pleadings his office had admitted the submission of MTN in so far as his main argument is not in response to the core issues raised by MTN, but to whether or not the AGF is protected in law from the consequences of his actions.

    The SAN argued that it is implicit in the AGF’s failure to address the substance of MTN’s case, that the AGF is aware it does not have the legal authority to take the action it has taken.

    The AGF is contending that the suit disregarded Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act, which provides that any lawsuit against a public officer must be within three months of what was complained of.

    But, MTN is seeking a declaration that the AGF’s demand of N242 billion and $1.3 billion from it was premised on a process that is malicious, unreasonable and based on incorrect legal reasons.

    The plaintiff said the purported “revenue assets investigation” carried out by the Federal Government for the period of 2007 – 2017 violated Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

    MTN is praying the court to declare that the AGF acted in excess of his powers by directing a “self-assessment exercise” which usurps the powers of the Nigerian Customs Service to demand duties on imported physical goods.

    It is seeking a declaration that the AGF acted illegally by also usurping the powers of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) to audit and demand remittance of withholding tax and value-added tax.

    The plaintiff wants declaration that the purported “self-assessment” exercise instituted by the AGF via its letter of last May 10 is unknown to law, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

    MTN is further praying the court to for an order vacating the AGF’s demand letter.

    It is claiming N3billion as general and exemplary damages as well as legal costs from the Federal Government.

    Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke adjourned until May 7 for ruling.

     

  • Move to IPPIS or face the consequences, AGF warns MDAs

    The Accountant General of the Federation (AGF), Mr. Ahmed Idris, has advised Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs)  of Government to comply with the directive to move their payrolls to the Integrated Personnel Payroll Information System (IPPIS), or be ready for the consequences of their action.

    AGF Idris Ahmed warned that the Treasury will leave no stone unturned in ensuring that President Muhammadu Buhari’s directive is fully complied with.

    A statement from the Office of the AGF issued yesterday and signed by Oise D. Johnson, Head, Press and Public Relations (OAGF), said the AGF gave this advice, while receiving the Acting Inspector General of Police Mr. Abubakar Adamu who was at the Treasury House on a courtesy visit.

    Idris Ahmed was said to have commended the Nigeria Police for showing example by complying with the directive of President Buhari, and was quoted to have said that “the Nigeria police have been fully integrated into the IPPIS platform and their successful enrolment has paved the way for the enrolment of the Nigerian  military which has further demonstrated the robustness of the platform and our avowed commitment to a transparent, accountable and efficient management of the nation’s funds in line with the global best practice”

    Furthermore, the Accountant –General of the Federation underscored the enormous roles the Nigeria police play in maintaining peace and security in the country, saying there is need for the police to be supported with adequate funding. He promised the continued support of the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation  in ensuring that all approvals due to the Nigeria police are timely released to enable them effectively deliver on  their  mandate to the Nigeria people .

    Earlier in his remarks, Mr. Adamu extolled the cordial relationship existing between the Nigeria police and the OAGF, describing it as “a very strategic partnership  in the business of policing the nation”.

    He commended Mr.Idris for his exemplary leadership which has culminated in the effective implementation of the various financial reforms which have helped  the police in meeting most her financial challenges.

    Mr. Adamu called for more collaboration between the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and the Nigeria police.

  • Osinbajo inaugurates committee on policies, projects audit

    Vice President Yemi Osinbajo on Friday inaugurated the Policies, Programmes and Projects committee recently set up by President Muhammadu Buhari.

    President Buhari set up the 15-member committee, chaired by the vice president, to take stock of the administration’s efforts so far and to make concrete preparations for the second term in office, which begins on May 29 this year.

    The terms of reference of the committee include “to audit and determine the status of implementation of policies programmes and projects either inherited or commenced by the out-going administration;” and “to identify and highlight a residue of works and challenges that may militate against their successful implementation.”

    The committee will also “prepare and produce a detailed working document that will guide the incoming cabinet members on the direction of government regarding policies, programmes and projects;” and “co-opt organisations or persons relevant towards the successful execution of the exercise and make recommendations as may be considered necessary.”

    Other members of the committee are Chief of Staff to the President, Head of Civil Service of the Federation, Minister of Budget and National Planning and the Minister of Finance.

    The Minister of Power, Works and Housing, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development are also members of the committee.

    Also in the committee are the Minister of Water Resources, the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the National Security Adviser and the Permanent Secretary, Cabinet Affairs Office and the Deputy Chief of Staff to the President.

    READ ALSO: Osinbajo inaugurates sanctions committee

    Inaugurating the committee, Vice President Osinbajo said the committee would, “in the next few weeks, determine the current status of and performance on federal government projects and programmes, relying not just on submissions made by the various ministries, department and agencies but also on objective assessment of experts already engaged on similar assessments and will be co-opted to assist in this mission.

    “They will also be required to produce a detailed implementation plan based on the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan, ERGP and on several documents, including the Next Level Document.”

    Prof. Osinbajo said the plan was aimed at ensuring the preparation of a working document that would guide in the implementation of federal government projects and programmes, and especially serve as an important guide for ministers in the new cabinet.

    “It is important to note that the review of ongoing projects is already an entrenched activity of this government.

    “In fact, status reports were presented to the Federal Executive Council by all ministers between January and May last year and those reports only need updating for the purpose of this committee’s work.

    “Also government plans are always guided by the manifesto of the All Progressives Congress, the basis of the promises which we made to Nigerians, and also by the ERGP, where we strive to reflect not just our annual budgets but policies and programme and implementation plans of the government.

    “Of course, this would be supplemented by the updates made by the party manifesto by way of the next level government.”

    The vice president said the policy, programmes and projects audit committee would also ensure that there would be objective report, critical analysis and realistic projections that would constitute clear guidelines for each cabinet minister.

    “We will focus on ensuring that we have for the incoming cabinet a clear presentation, ministry by ministry, what government needs to do, the challenges to be envisaged and the implementation plan.”

    He said the members of the committee would be required to work with teams of their own choice.

    Absent at the inauguration on Friday, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister Justice, Abubakar Malami, sent in his apologies.

    The Head of Service of the Federation, the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Minister of Transportation were represented by Magdalene Ajani, Edward Adamu and John Eboigbe, respectively.

  • FG, AGF to Supreme Court: we have not removed Onnoghen

    The Federal Government and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) have faulted claim by the Cross River State Government that suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen has been illegally removed from office.

    The FG and AGF argued that, as against Cross River’s claim, Onnghen has not been removed from office, he was simply suspended to enable him stand trial for the charge of breach of code of conduct, before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    Solicitor General of the Federation (SGF), Dayo Apata spoke for the FG and the AGF at the hearing of a suit by Cross Rivers State, in which it challenged Onnoghen’s suspension and asked that the decision be set aside.

    Apata contended that “there is a clear distinction between suspension and removal.” He noted that there was no evidence before the court to show that the CJN was removed or dismissed from office.

    The Solicitor General was reacting to argument by lawyer to the plaintiff, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), to the effect that Onnoghen’s removal from office, by the Executive, was a violation of the Constitution, attach on the Judiciary and a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.

    Apata argued the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection and counter affidavit, filed in response to the plantiff’s originating summons.

    He urged the court to uphold his objection and dismiss this suit, marked: SC/45/2019, for lack of locus standi, on the grounds that the subject matter does not qualify as a dispute between

    Apata said: “Our submission is that there is no dispute between Cross River State and the Federal Government of Nigeria on the subject matter of this case or the charge pending before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    “In the absence of any dispute, the original jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked by the plaintiff. The office in question is the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, not the Chief Judge of Cross River State,” Apata said.

    On the competence of the suit, Apata faulted Nwosu’s argument that it was intended to protect the Constitution and current its violation by the Executive in the manner Onnoghen was removed from office.

    Apata argued that as against the plaintiff’s position, the suit seeks to obstruct the efforts of the defendants to protect the interest of justice as provided in Section 174 of the Constitution, where the AGF is enjoined to ensure that every prosecution should be done in the interest of justice

    “The interest of justice is being done with the decision by the Federal Government to prosecute the CJN before the CCT. By this suit, the plaintiff is seeking to frustrate that effort, so the case of Fawehinmi and Akilun cited by the plaintiff’s lawyer, does not support their case,” Apata said.

    He also faulted Nwosu’s reference to the oath he took, on being conferred with the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, to protect the Constitution and defend the interest of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    Apata argued that Nwosu was not the plaintiff, but a lawyer to the plaintiff. He said noted that if Nwosu was interested in keeping faith with the oath he swore to, he should have instituted the suit himself.

    He added: “The lawyer is not the plaintiff here, but the Cross River State Government. And since the subject is not a dispute between the Cross River State and Federal Republic of Nigeria, the objection should be sustained.”

    Apata urged the court to resist the attempt by the plaintiff to make it determine a criminal proceedings that is still pending at the Court of Appeal, which has not been determined.

    He said, as at yesterday (Wednesday), the Court of Appeal reserved judgments on appeals on the same subject matter as this case. This is a case of abuse of court process and forum shopping.

    When asked if the parties at the Court of Appeal were the same as those in the case before the Supreme Court, Apata said no, but that the subject matter is the same.

    In his argument, Nwosu urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ objection and grant all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.

    Nwosu argued that, by their objection, the defendants sought to treat the office of the CJN as personal to Onnoghen. He said it is an office created by the Constitution, with responsibilities.

    He added: “The seat of the CJN is an institution specifically established by the Constitution of Nigeria, which also makes it tenured, to the effect that the occupant should stay there until his/her retirement age.

    “And the only way he/she can be removed before his/her retirement age, has also been stated in the Constitution. This dictates that even if there is any transgression, this procedure must be followed.”

    Nwosu inisted that the Supreme Court was the proper forum for the case to be decided. He said, since the case was brought by a state, the Constitution says, where there is a dispute between a state and the Federal Government on any constitutional issue/question, the Supreme Court shall be the proper venue.

    He added: “The plaintiff is saying, we have seen that you are breaching the constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers, which is the foundation on which we agreed to be part of this federation, so we can come here.

    “Once a dispute has been established between a state government and the FG, over a breach of the Constitution, this is the appropriate forum. This suit is brought because the Cross River State Government thinks that the Constitution has been violated,” Nwosu said.

    He faulted Apata’s argument that similar cases, filed by Onnoghen were currently pending before the Court of Appeal and on which judgments have been reserved.

    Nwosu distinguished both cases and argued that the one before the Supreme Court was not personal to Onnoghen, but meant to cure a violation to the Constitution and the prevent such violation in future.

    He added: “My Lord, there is a siege on the court. They have broken into your (judges’) houses at night, now they have come for your necks.

    “We do not know who will be next. If we do not act now, you may not be sitting here in the next few weeks.

    *You shall be remembered for what you have done. This is an opportunity for you now to stop this violation of the Constitution.”

    Nwosu cited Legal Practitioners Privileges Act, where every Senior Advocate pledges to uphold the provisions of the Constitution, and argued that it will be a gross dereliction of his oath to watch the CJN removed from office in a manner alien to the procedure created by the Constitution.

    After listening to the lawyers, a seven-man panel of the court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour adjourned to May 17 thus year for judgment.

    The Cross River State Government, in its originating summons, queried the propriety of Onnoghen’s trial before the CCT and urged the Supreme Court to declare it illegal on the grounds that it was only the National Judicial Council (NJC) that could exercise disciplinary powers over a serving judge.

    want the court to among others, declare that, by the provisions of sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Constitution, there a clear recognition of the doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances in relation to the operations of the three arms of government.

    The Cross River State wants the court to declare that, by virtue of the provisions of sections 153(1), 158(1(, Paragraph 21(b) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to Constitution, it is the NJC that is exclusively empowered to recommend to the President or Governor the appointment/removal of any judicial officer.

    It also seeks a declaration that the CCT, not being the NJC, is not vested with the jurisdiction over any judicial officer for an alleged official misconduct on the part of a judicial officer, without a formal complaint of such official misconduct being first made to and investigated by the NJC.

    The plaintiff equally wants the Supreme Court to declare that the filing of the charge, before the CCT, against Onoghen, being a judicial officer, without any formal complaint having been made against him to the NJC, robbed the CCT of jurisdiction to try the charge and all the proceedings relating thereto, amount to a nullity.

    It therefore urged the court to grant an order of injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents from further initiating or proceedings with any similar charge or charges against Onnoghen or any judicial officer of the superior court created by the Constitution, until a formal report of misconduct is first, made to and investigated by the NJC.

    In a supporting affidavit sworn to by an official of of the Cross River State Ministry of Justice, Ibi Mboto, the plaintiff stated that Onnghen is an indigene of the state and the highest judicial officer from the state.

    It argued that Onnoghen’s suspension and trial before the CCT, without first, being subjected to the NJC’s process, as didctated by the Constitution, was unlawful and unconstitutional.

  • Fed Govt, AGF ask Supreme Court to stay off Onnoghen’s case

    •Cross River seeks court’s intervention

    THE Federal Government and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) have asked the Supreme Court to decline jurisdiction over a suit seeking its intervention in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    The FG and the AGF contended that Onnoghen’ trial was personal to him and could only involve the  Supreme Court, where an appeal arises from the Court of Appeal on a decision reached either during or after the trial at the CCT.

    Their position is contained in a notice of objection they filed against a suit instituted at the Supreme Court by Cross River State.

    The state government, in their originating summons, queried the propriety of Onnoghen’s trial before the CCT and urged the Supreme Court to declare it illegal on the grounds that it was only the National Judicial Council (NJC) that could exercise disciplinary powers over a serving judge.

    In their objection, the FG and AGF (listed as defendants in the suit), argued that the subject of the case did not qualify as a dispute between the Cross River State and the Federal Government, as envisaged under Section 232(1) of the Constitution.

    They added: “The subject matter of this suit is personal to Hon. Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel and does not, in any way, affects the Cross River State Government as to confer it with the locus to institute this suit.

    “The reliefs and claims made herein by the plaintiff are not for the benefit of Cross River State, but personal to Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel.

    “The alleged cause of action in the subject matter of this suit is not one that creates the existence or extent of a legal right between the Cross River State Government, in its capacity as a state and the defendants in this suit as stated under Section 232(1) of the Constitution.

    “The Honourable Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel, being an indigene of Cross River State and the highest judicial officer from the state does not confer on the plaintiff the locus to institute this suit.

    “The fact that the suit partly relates to the interpretation of the Constitution does not confer on the plaintiff the locus to invoke the original jurisdiction of this honourable court.”

    The plaintiff, in their originating summons, want the court to among others, declare that, by the provisions of sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Constitution, there a clear recognition of the doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances in relation to the operations of the three arms of government.

    The Cross River State wants the court to declare that, by virtue of the provisions of sections 153(1), 158(1(, Paragraph 21(b) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to Constitution, it is the NJC that is exclusively empowered to recommend to the President or Governor the appointment/removal of any judicial officer.

    It also seeks a declaration that the CCT, not being the NJC, is not vested with the jurisdiction over any judicial officer for an alleged official misconduct on the part of a judicial officer, without a formal complaint of such official misconduct being first made to and investigated by the NJC.

    The plaintiff equally wants the Supreme Court to declare that the filing of the charge, before the CCT, against Onnoghen, being a judicial officer, without any formal complaint having been made against him to the NJC, robbed the CCT of jurisdiction to try the charge and all the proceedings relating thereto, amount to a nullity.

    It, therefore, urged the court to grant an order of injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents from further initiating or proceedings with any similar charge or charges against Onnoghen or any judicial officer of the superior court created by the Constitution, until a formal report of misconduct is first, made to and investigated by the NJC.

    At the Supreme Court yesterday, lawyer to the defendants, Dayo Apata (who is the Solicitor General of the Federation), told the court that his clients have just filed some processes, including a memorandum of appearance, notice of preliminary objection and a counter affidavit to the originating summons.

    Apata said he was able to serve the processes on the plaintiff’s lawyer shortly before the court began sitting yesterday.

    Lawyer to the plaintiff, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), acknowledged the service of the defendants’ processes on him.

    Nwosu said, in view of the importance of the case, he would urge the court to grant a short adjournment to enable him respond to the defendant’s processes.

    Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, who presided over a seven-man panel of the court, adjourned to February 28 for the hearing of the defendants’ objection along with the substantive suit.

  • Breaking: Court restates order stopping CCT from forcing CJN to vacate office

    The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) in Abuja on Monday restated its earlier order restraining the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and some others from forcing the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen to vacate office in view of the allegation of non-disclosure of assets made against him.

    Also to be bound by the order are other defendants in a suit by Peter Abang. They are The Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Senate President.

    Justice Sanusi Kado had, in an ex-parte ruling on January 14 this year made similar order and equally halted the scheduled trial of the CJN before the CCT on charges of non-declaration of assets.

    The judge restrained all the defendants in the suit from attempting to force the CJN out office pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction.

    Read Also: Court urged to stop use of military for election duties

    Justice Kado said the orders were necessary to avert a threat and constitutional breaches regarding the position of the CJN as the number one judicial officer of the country.

    When the case was called on Monday, plaintiff’s lawyer, James Igwe (SAN) told the court that some of the defendants have been served, including the CCT Chairman, who was said to have directed his Secretary to accept service on his behalf.

    Igwe, however, applied for the court’s permission to serve the CCT Chairman through substituted means, which the judge granted and adjourned to January 30 for report of service.

     

    Details later.

  • Updated: CJN’s trial: court restates order stopping CCT, AGF, others

    A Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday restated its order restraining the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) and some others from proceeding with the planned arraignment of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Justice Evelyn Maha restated the order on Thursday at the resumed hearing of the suits brought by two groups, who are challenging the propriety of the charge brought against the CJN before the CCT by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

    The first suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/27/2019 was filed by the Incorporated ‎Trustees of the Centre for Justice and Peace Initiative (CJPI), while the second, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/28/2019 was by the Incorporated ‎Trustees of the International Association of Students Economists and Management (IASEM).

    Listed as defendants, in the first suit, are the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), CCT Chairman, the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and President of the Senate.

    The second suit has, as defendants, the AGF, the CCT Chair, the CCT, the CCB, the Chairman of CCB, and the IGP.
    When the first case was called on Thursday, plaintiff’s lawyer, Rafiu Lawal-Rabana (SAN) said the court had, at the last proceedings on January 14, 2019, adjourned to January 17 for hearing of the plaintiff’s motion on notice.

    Read Also: Why CJN must face trial, by APC

    Lawal-Rabana said all the defendants have been served with the processes filed by the plaintiff and the enrolled order of the court’s ex-parte ruling of January 14, 2019. He said it was only the Senate President that has not been served.

    Lawal-Rabana sought a short adjournment to enable the plaintiff serve the Senate President as required.

    Lawyer to the 4th defendant, National Judicial Council (NJC), Garba Tetengi (SAN) said his client was served.

    Tetengi, who represented the only defendant that turned up in court on Thursday, said he would not object to the request for a short adjournment.

    Ruling, Justice Maha ordered proper service of the court processes on the defendants.

    The judge restated the January 14 order on parties to maintain status quo and adjourned to January 28 for hearing.

    Justice Maha equally adjourned the second case to January 28.

     

     

  • Dasuki accuses AGF of encouraging disobedience of court orders

    Detained former National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Sambo Dasuki has accused the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami of encouraging  Federal Governemnt’s alleged disobedience of  court orders.

    Dasuki, in a fresh application he filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja, alleged that Malami was encouraging the Federal Government to continue to detain him despite subsisting court orders for his release.

    He urged the court to invite the views of named senior lawyers on the implication of his continued detention in the face of valid court orders directing his release.

    Dasuki named former President’s of the Nigerian Bar  Association (NBA), Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Olisa Agabkoba (SAN), the incumbent NBA President, Paul Usoro (SAN), rights activist, Femi Falana (SAN), Konyinsola Ajayi (SAN) and Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) as those, whose views the court should invite.

    The ex-NSA alleged that Malami has found nothing wrong in the alleged continued violation of the court orders by his continued detention.

    He added: “There is an imminent threat of absolute subversion of the rule of law, the Constitution, authority of the bench, and practice of law in Nigeria”

    “This honourable court has inherent powers to invite and or request contributions from the enumerated amici curiae, on their views with respect to the issues raised for consideration in this application.”

    Dasuki said he suggested the invitation of the senior lawyers because his continued detention, in alleged violation of court orders,  “has far-reaching implications on criminal proceedings, viability of the  Constitution and authority of the bench in the country.

    “I know as a fact that the above enumerated amici curiae have been listed because they are major legal giants and stakeholders in the legal profession in the country.”

    His lawyer, Adeola Adedipe, said the fresh application filed on January 8 this year intended to further firm Dasuki’s position that the state could not proceed with his trial while refusing to obey orders made in his favour.

    The fresh application stalled yesterday, the planned hearing of an earlier application filed by Dasuki.

    The ex-NSA is, in the earlier application of December 11, 2018 seeking an order for indefinite adjournment of his trial  pending FG’s compliance with the judgment given by Justice Ijeoma L. Ojukwu (also of the Federal High Court, Abuja) on July 2, 2018.

    The trial judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed had on December 11, 2018, adjourned till Wednesday for the hearing of the application.

    Yesterday, Adedipe to the court that his client’s fresh application was informed by  the “far-reaching” implications of Dasuki’s  continued detention on the authority of the Nigerian bench among others.

    Responding, prosecuting lawyer, Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN), said the fresh application filed on Tuesday was intended “to arrest the hearing of the December 11, 2018 application.”

    Okpeseyi said since he was served on Wednesday, he need some days to respond to it.

    Justice Mohammed subsequently adjourned to January 29 for hearing of pending applications.