The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Appeal court

  • Appeal court vacancies

    Appeal court vacancies

    WHAT can be responsible for the inexplicable delay by the Federal Government in appointing 14 new high court judges reportedly sent to the Presidency by the National Judicial Council (NJC) since November last year for elevation to the Federal Court of Appeal? This was the kernel of a three-page letter to the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo.

    Dated January 23, 2018, Chief Awomolo’s letter had urged the country’s chief law officer to ensure the urgent approval by President Muhammadu Buhari of the new appointees so they could resume work in the best interest of speedy and efficient administration of justice in the country.

    There are reportedly 76 appeal court judges currently serving out of the original 85 in this cadre appointed in the 16 divisions of the Court of Appeal spread across the six geo-political zones of the country. The vacancies to be filled at this level of the judiciary arose as a result of deaths of some of the justices, retirements or the promotion of some of them to the Supreme Court over the last few years.

    We find it curious that Chief Awomolo had to remind the AGF of the dire implications of shortage of jurists at the Court of Appeal, a situation responsible, for instance, for the congestion of cases in the various divisions of the court. Surely, the AGF ought to have been aware of the negative consequences of not speedily filling the vacancies without any prompting to be alert and alive to his responsibilities.

    Chief Awomolo was only stating the obvious when he pointed out that the shortfall in the requisite number of appeal court judges was responsible for the delay in the adjudication of cases resulting in frustration both for lawyers and their clients. Indeed, the learned silk told the AGF that the situation had reached an unbearable point. In his words, “The process of approval of appointment, with respect, is a mere formality. In view of all these and the continual delay and frustration, we practitioners and our clients urge that you exercise the powers of your office to bring the delay and frustration of Nigerians to the approving authority so that approval of the candidates recommended to be appointed to the court can be given the attention it deserves”.

    It would appear that the shortage of jurists is not limited to the Court of Appeal but is characteristic of other levels of the judiciary, particularly the state high courts as well as the magistracy across the country. This is partly responsible for the huge numbers of inmates awaiting trial who have been languishing in various prisons nationwide, with many of them exceeding the time they would have spent in incarceration had their cases been promptly decided and they had been convicted. Even more pathetic is the manifest injustice suffered by those who may eventually be found innocent after spending interminable years behind bars.

    Quite apart from the antics of mischievous lawyers, the paucity of judicial officers at every level of the judicature is also one of the reasons why cases drag on for prolonged periods, bringing to mind the adage that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. When we lack the requisite number of judicial officers at any level of the judicial hierarchy, the few jurists available are overworked with negative implications for their efficiency and the quality of their judgments.

    We urge the AGF to act with dispatch as regards Chief Awomolo’s plea and ensure that the vacant appeal court slots are urgently filled. It is also high time that the President Buhari administration jettisons its leisurely and unhurried pace, particularly in filling the scores of critical vacancies across diverse sectors that it has left dormant almost three years after its assumption of office.

  • Nganjiwa: How Appeal Court erred, by EFCC

    Nganjiwa: How Appeal Court erred, by EFCC

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has identified 11 errors made by the Court of Appeal in its judgment striking out the charge it filed against Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court.

    In a notice of appeal filed at the Supreme Court by its counsel Mr Wahab Shittu, the EFCC urged the apex court to set aside the Court of Appeal judgment delivered last December 11.

    EFCC, in the 14-count charge, accused the judge of corrupt enrichment and giving false information contrary to Section 82 (a) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State.

    But, the judge urged the Appeal Court to determine whether in view of the constitutionally guaranteed doctrine of independence of the judiciary, the lower court was right to conclude that the executive arm of government, acting through the EFCC, can directly prosecute a sitting judge without  referring the matter to by way of petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo, the Court of Appeal held that whenever a breach of judicial oath occurs, it amounts to misconduct, and only the NJC can investigate such breaches.

    But EFCC said the Court of Appeal erred in its decision, which it said has no constitutional basis.

    It urged the Supreme Court to hold that the NJC’s independence guaranteed under Section 158 (1) of the 1999 Constitution does not preclude the institution criminal proceedings against its members.

    EFCC said the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction by NJC against judicial officers was distinct from the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the state, which it said is guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution.

    On NJC being the sole body to discipline judges, EFCC argued that the NJC was only vested with the exercise of disciplinary powers against judicial officers, but that such powers do not extend to criminal prosecution.

    On the Court of Appeal’s position that the NJC must first discipline a judge before anti-graft agencies can arrest him, EFCC said the Constitution does not confer immunity from investigation or prosecution on judicial officers.

    Besides, the commission said there was no constitutional provision making the powers of law enforcement agencies dependent on NJC’s powers in the context of criminal offences.

    On the appellate’s court’s decision that NJC must first hand over such judicial officer to the prosecuting authority, EFCC said Section 6, 153, 158 292 (1) and Paragraph 21 (b) of the Third Schedule of the Constitution does not give the interpretation that prosecuting agencies must wait for NJC’s decision before they can prosecute criminal offences.

  • Death: Appeal Court reserves judgment on ex-policeman’s appeal

    Death: Appeal Court reserves judgment on ex-policeman’s appeal

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja yesterday reserved judgment on a criminal appeal filed by an ex-police officer, Julius Obanla to challenging the death penalty passed on him.

    Justice Abubakar Yahaya led two other justices of the court to reserve the judgment after counsel to parties had adopted their addresses.

    Mr Max Ogar, Counsel to the applicant argued that the trial at the lower court was shrouded in error.

    Ogar alleged that the trial judge had depended on circumstantial evidence not pleaded to arrive at the judgment.

    He said: “Without wasting the precious time of this court, there is no need for any appraisal of the testimony of the only prosecution witness, Sergeant James Danbwan, having failed to return to court for cross examination. The truth is that it is as though Danbwan never appeared before the court in the first place.

    “The learned trial judge was absolutely right for holding in his judgment of February14, 2011 that the evidence of PWI cannot be relied upon hence he was not cross examined.

    “The trial judge missed the point by a mile when he held in the same judgment that the court could rely on the statement of the accused applicant which was tendered through him without objection.

    “It is common sensical that having rejected the package from Danbwan, it was absolutely inappropriate to pick and or accept any item from rejected package.”

    He further said that the law was unequivocally clear on the legal status of expunged evidence, adding that once that happened, it no longer formed the part of the records of the court.

    “The trial judge, by his own judgment expunged the testimony of Principal Witness I (Danbwan) from his records by holding that it cannot be relied upon”, Ogar argued.

    He therefore, urged the appellate court to set aside the judgment of the trial court by discharging the accused applicant.

    According to him, the Federal Government has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and should not have secured the death conviction.

    Ogar also went ahead to raise a number of questions which included whether the trial court could rely on confessional statement not properly admitted to convict.

    He further asked whether doubt in the testimony against an accused should be ignored by trial court.

    The Counsel to the appellant further sought the consideration of the court to ascertain whether the respondent herein discharged its obligation of proof beyond reasonable doubt in the trial court.

    Mr Mohammed Labaran, Counsel to the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) said the submissions advanced by Ogar were misplaced.

    He argued that the decision of the trial was based on the accused persons’ confessional statement.

    “Where confessional statement is admitted by the court without any challenge or objection as in this case, it would amount to an after-thought for a defendant to deny the making is such statement.

    “Once admitted, the court can rely upon a confessional statement (Judicial and extra-judicial) to convict an accused even without corroborative evidence provided such confession is direct, positive and unequivocal as to the guilt of the accused”, he argued.

    He therefore urged the court to affirm the sentence and conviction of the accused applicant, adding that the trial court showed rare industry in arriving at the decision.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the applicant was arraigned at the FCT High Court on May 23, 2002 on allegation of culpable homicide punishable with death.

    The accused, a 35-years-old policeman of old No. 180, FHA, Kubwa, Abuja within FCT did shoot and kill Shagari Haruna with his official rifle No. 47 No-KO-358303.

    According to the Prosecution, the ex-police man committed an offence contrary to Section 220 of the Penal Code and Punishable under Section 221 of the same law.

    In the proof of evidence filed by the prosecution,  CSP Musa. M.Omika, Sgt. Sali Ndotti and Mohammed Sulyman were listed as the supposed witnesses

    However, when the trial commenced on February 27, 2006, the prosecution was only able to call Danbwan as it witness.

  • General urges Appeal Court to stay court martial’s verdict

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has been asked to restrain the Army from executing the July 2017 judgement of the Special Court Martial, which recommended the demotion of Maj.-Gen. Ibrahim Sani to Brig. Gen.

    The request is contained in a motion on notice filed by Gen. Sani, in which he is praying the court to order parties in the case to maintain the status quo, pending the determination of the motion he filed on December 6, 2017.

    Gen Sani was tried on a nine-count charge before the Special Court Martial, with Colonel S. I. Musa as the Judge Advocate. He was convicted on July 20, 2017.

    He said, in a supporting affidavit, that the motion for stay was informed by the Army’s delay in releasing the court martial’s record of proceedings to enable him file a formal appeal.

    Gen Sani said he had previously filed an application for leave to enable him appeal against the judgment upon its confirmation by the Army Council. He said he withdrew it because of the Army’s alleged refusal to make the record of proceedings available to him on time.

    He said despite being aware that he was taking steps to challenge the judgement, the respondent was seeking to transfer him to Borno State in order to frustrate his effort.

    The Army, in its counter-affidavit, urged the court to refuse the motion because there was nothing left to stay since the judgment had been confirmed by the Army Council and the decision communicated to the applicant.

    The motion could not be heard yesterday because the new lawyer engaged by the applicant, Mahmud Magaji (SAN), sought a short time to enable him familiarise himself with the case.

    The Justice Abubakar Yahaya-led three man panel adjourned to March 15.

  • Appeal Court clears way for Anambra senatorial re-run election

    Appeal Court clears way for Anambra senatorial re-run election

    The Court of Appeal on Thursday in Abuja dismissed a motion seeking to restrain Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from conducting the re-run election into the Anambra Central Senatorial District.

    Delivering the judgment, Justice Abubakar Yahaya held that the earlier order made on Nov. 20, 2017 directing INEC to conduct election for the senatorial seat within 90 days could not be reversed.

    The judge said such action was not recognised by the court’s practice direction, adding that the panel would not succumb to an invitation to make mockery of the judiciary.

    “The court hereby refuses to grant the request for the postponement of the election already scheduled for Saturday,” the judge held.

    Yahaya also said that the court could not compel INEC to make any undertaken to postpone the election over an application that was not ripe for hearing.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, we have not restrained INEC from conducting the election as ordered by this court on Nov. 20, 2017’’, Yahaya said.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Sen. Ani Okonkwo, an aggrieved aspirant of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had approached the appellate court with the application.

    Okonkwo had through his counsel, Chief Solomon Umoh (SAN), sought for leave to appeal against the Nov. 20, 2017 decision of the court of appeal, which ordered INEC to conduct a re-run election in that senatorial district within 90 days.

    Okonkwo had claimed that he was interested in challenging the decision of the appellate court last year as a senatorial aspirant.

    He, however, averred that the application could not be entertained because most parties joined in the application were not served with the court processes.

    In order to meander this legal tight corner, Okonkwo then applied for an adjournment to enable him effect service on all the parties.

    Worried that he could lose out since the election had been slated for Jan.13, the applicant filed a motion seeking the court to bar INEC from holding the election pending the determination of his appeal.

    He also urged the court to compel INEC’s counsel, Mr Tanimu Inuwa, to make an undertaken in the open court that INEC would not go ahead with the election having been aware of his pending application.

    The counsel for INEC immediately objected to the request on the ground that huge public fund had been expended on preparation for the poll.

    Inuwa also said he did not have the powers to make any undertaken to postpone the poll because of the subsisting appeal court judgment of Nov. 20.

    He submitted that decision compelling his client to hold the election within 90 which was billed to expire on Jan.13.

  • IPMAN celebrates Okoronkwo’s victory at Appeal Court

    IPMAN celebrates Okoronkwo’s victory at Appeal Court

    Members of the Indepen-dent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria IPMAN have expressed joy over the Appeal Court judgment in Abuja that declared Elder Chinedu Okoronkwo as the National President of the association.

    IPMAN’s national Secretary, Alhaji Danladi Pasali, stated this after the National Executive Meeting (NEC) of the Association in Abuja.

    Pasali said the judgment and restoration of Okonkwo as the as IPMAN president would address the issues of misconduct and mismanagement that have been rocking the Association.

    Pasali said Okoronkwo remains the substantive National President of IPMAN based on the Appeal Court judgment.

    He said the Court of Appeal, Abuja reaffirmed the High court judgment of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1479/2016 delivered on 28th day of May, 2014, which upheld the election of IPMAN National Executive committee of 10th May, 2014.

    According to him, the interest of all members of the association will be a top priority of the President. He said the judgment is a welcome development to IPMAN members nationwide and the oil and gas industry. “The judgment once again confirmed Okoronkwo as substantive National President of IPMAN,” he said.

    Pasali said IPMAN members nationwide welcomed the Appeal Court judgment as it will enable the Association maintain the serenity and orderliness members used to enjoy in the distribution and dispensing of petroleum products to Nigerians across the country.

    “Now that Okoronkwo is on IPMAN driver’s seat, members will get their allocation accordingly. The NEC had reached agreement with DAPPMA for better synergy in meeting product availability in the country since DAPPMA has better strength in storage.

    “IPMAN members own and control 80 per cent of fuel outlets in Nigeria and are better positioned to efficiently distribute and dispense fuel to Nigerians in urban and hinterland.

    Pasali said the Appeal Court Abuja judgment delivered on 7th December, 2017, confirmed the National Executive Committee members as Elder Chinedu Okoronkwo, National President; Alhaji Abubakar Maigani Shettima, Vice President; Aihaji Danladi Pasali, National Secretary; Bola Adeleke, National Treasurer; Chief Leo Nkameme, National Organising Secretary; Alhaji Yakubu Ali Dimka, National Auditor; Chief J.D. Ubani (JP).

    National Financial Secretary;  Dr  Hammed Adekunle Fashil, Assistant National Secretary; Alhaji Umar Baba Kano, National Legal Adviser; Chief Ezekwesili Maduagwuna, Chief Whip; and Alhaji Yakubu Suleman, National PRO.

  • Appeal Court upholds High Court’s verdict on Ondo monarch’s sack

    A Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, Ondo State capital, has ordered the Akinnuwa of Igbindo in Ondo West Local Government Area, Oba John Ogundoju, to vacate his seat.

    The embattled monarch was also asked to stop parading himself as the ruler of the community.

    An Ondo High Court, in 2015, sacked Oba Ogundoju, barely two weeks after the kingmakers presented him to the town and was given the staff of office by the government.

    Dissatisfied with his selection, some aggrieved princes from Ogbowo Okun Ruling House, led by Adetutu Ifashole and Okunade Makinde Fashole, sued Ogundoju and four others.

    The other defendants include Adeodi Adebayo and Taye Akinkugbe, as well as the Chairman of the ruling house, Adeseeke Stephen and the Secretary, Joseph Olamodimu.

    The plaintiffs sought the court’s declaration that by “the age-long custom and tradition of the ascension to the stool of Akinnuwa of Igbindo, it is the only male line of the applicable ruling house – and in this case the Ogbowo Okun ruling house – that is eligible to fill the stool anytime it is vacant”.

    Also, the plaintiffs averred that based on a White Paper on the Olayiwola Chieftaincy Review Commission of 1982, it was the turn of Ogbowo Okun ruling house to produce the next monarch.

    The plaintiffs prayed for an order of “injunction restraining the Ogundoju, the second and third defendants, from imposing Ogundoju on Ogbowo Ruling House as the Akinnuwa of Igbindo”.

    Justice Adegbehingbe held that since only sons from the male lineage could be made monarch, “Ogundoju is not eligible to contest and ascend the vacant stool of the Akinnuwa of Igbindo from the Ogbowo Ruling House, whose turn it is to fill the vacant stool, having hailed from the female line of the ruling house”.

    Besides granting the order preventing Ogundoju from parading himself as Akinnuwa, the court asked the ruling house to start a fresh selection for a new monarch.

    Oba Ogundoju, through his lawyer Kunle Adetowubo, filed an appeal challenging the judgment of Justice Bode Adegbehingbe at the High Court.

    In a three-hour judgment, Justice Mohammed Danjuma, on behalf of the panel, upheld the earlier judgment.

    He said: “On the basis of the facts and evidence adduced by parties in the case and the authorities cited, it is my finding that the decision of the learned trial court on this issue was in order. It is resolved against the appellants and in favour of respondents…”

  • Kogi East: Why we voided Aidoko’s victory, by Appeal Court

    Kogi East: Why we voided Aidoko’s victory, by Appeal Court

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has given reasons why it set aside its December 14, 2016 judgment recognising Atai Aidoko as winner of the last senatorial election in Kogi East Senatorial District.

    The court on Monday gave its judgment, on which basis the media reported that the Kogi East Senatorial seat had been rendered vacant.

    In a copy of the judgment sighted by our correspondent yesterday, the Court of Appeal said its judgment of December 14, 2016, on which basis Aidoko assumed the Kogi East Senatorial seat was no longer valid because the Supreme Court has ordered that the case be tried afresh by the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.

    Justice Abdu Abuki, who read the lead judgment of a three-man panel, said: “The earlier judgment of this court, which went, on appeal, to the Supreme Court was no longer valid, in view of the fact that all the courts bellow are bound to follow the decision and order(s) of the Supreme Court.”

    The Appeal Court came down hard on Aidok, accusing him of working to frustrate the judgment of the Supreme Court, which ordered an expeditious re-trial of the case by retired Air Marshal Issac Alfa, Aidoko’s opponent in the pre-election matter.

    The appellate court awarded N1million cost against Aidoko, in favour of Alfa, for wasting the court’s time.

    Trouble started between Aidoko and Alfa shortly after their party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) concluded its primary for the senatorial seat.

    On December 19, 2014, Alfa filed a suit before the Federal High Court in Abuja, accusing his party of substituting his name, as winner of the primary, with that of Aidoko.

    The Federal High Court, in a judgment on April 18, 2016 held in favour of Alfa, to the effect that he was the authentic candidate of the PDP for Kogi East Senatorial seat.

    Based on the Federal High Court judgment, Alfa contested as the PDP candidate and won, while Aidoko appealed the judgment at the Court of Appeal, Abuja with a notice of appeal dated April 20, 2016.

    On December 14, 2016, after Alfa had assumed office as the Senator representing Kogi East, the Court of Appeal gave its judgment in the appeal by Aidoko, marked: CA/A/260/2016.

    The appellate court set aside the April 18, 2016 judgment of the Federal High Court on the ground that it wrongly assumed jurisdiction, because the suit was wrongly commenced.

    The Court of Appeal said among others, that pleading ought to have been filed at the Court bellow and that the suit was not the type to be commenced by originating summons.

    It did not direct that the case remitted to the lower court for re-trial, but instead, ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue fresh certificate of return to Aidoko.

    Alfa approached the Supreme Court, in appeal marked: SC/1088/2016.

    The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the appeal by Alfa on June 16, 2017 and ordered among others, that the case be heard afresh by the Federal High Court.

    The apex court agreed with the aspect of the Court of Appeal that facts in the case were contentious, requiring that parties file pleadings and call oral evidence.

    Based on the Supreme Court judgment, Alfa refiled his case before the Federal High Court via a statement of claim on August 23, 2017.

    While hearing was about to commence afresh before the Federal High Court, Aidoko filed an application, requesting that three questions, which he raised on his own, be referred to the Court of Appeal for determination.

    Although Alfa objected to the application and the trial judge, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba found the application to be unnecessary, he allowed it and referred the questions to the Appeal Court as requested by Aidoko.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeal on December 18 was on the questions referred to it by Aidoko.

    Justice Aboki, in the lead judgment, found that the three questions by Aidoko did not satisfy the conditions which must exist before the Appeal Court could give its answer under Section 295(2) of the Constitution.

    He said: “I have carefully gone through the three questions referred to this court for interpretation, the first question, in my view relates to the effect of the finding of this court which has not been set aside by the superior court (Supreme Court), whether it is binding on the parties and the courts.

    “The second question relates to rule of practice of the courts, relating to the doctrine of stare decisis and the third question relates to whether the Federal High Court has any jurisdiction to entertain and grant the reliefs sought before it.

    “It is trite law that reference, on a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution, to this court is not simply done as a matter of course, for mere asking sake.

    “The question must be as to the interpretation of the Constitution or application of the Constitution. In the instant case, it cannot be said that all the three questions relate to the interpretation of the Constitution.

    “In the instant case, the reference questions, having been found not to have arisen from the proceedings of the Federal High Court, the further question as to whether it involves a substantial question of law does not arise.

    “The earlier judgment of this court, which went on appeal to the Supreme Court was no longer valid in view of the fact that all courts bellow are bound to follow the decision and order(s) of the Supreme Court.

    “In the instant case, the failure of the applicant (Aidoko) to establish all the three vital necessary pre-conditions for a proper determination of reference questions is fatal to the application. This application lacks merit, it fails and it is accordingly dismissed,” Justice Aboki said.

    Justices Peter Olabisi Ige and Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, who were on the panel agreed with Justice Aboki.

    Particularly, Justice Ige noted that Aidoko’s application to the Court of Appeal was an attempt to frustrate the execution of the Supreme Court order that the case be re-heard by the Federal High Court.

    He said: “In an apparent bid to stall and delay the hearing of the suit herein, as mandated by the Supreme Court, the applicant herein, brazenly brought a most reckless and bizarre application before the lower court, asking the lower court to refer, what the applicant, in his imagination, perceived to be constitutional questions to this court.

    “To my mind, the applicant has exhibited great disdain and contempt for the Supreme Court’s decision aforesaid.

    “All he is out to do is to circumvent and render the judgment ineffective and frustrate the hearing de novo (afresh) ordered by the Supreme Court.

    “The lower court has ably stated the decision of the Supreme Court. This court as well as the parties are duty-bound to obey and ensure the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decision aforesaid.

    “This court will not be a party to the intransigence of the applicant to truncate the decision of the Supreme Court.,” Justice Ige said.

  • Appeal Court upholds High Court’s verdict on Akungba-Akoko stool

    Appeal Court upholds High Court’s verdict on Akungba-Akoko stool

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, the Ondo State capital, yesterday upheld the judgment of the High Court, which earlier declared Prince Oseni Adu as the Alale-elect of Akungba-Akoko.

    Also, the Agure/Mokun Family lineage of the ruling house is entitled to the throne.

    The Appeal Court, in a unanimous judgement led by Justice Mohammadu Danjuma, declared that the selection of Prince Adu as Alale-elect by the kingmaker remained valid.

    He said the process of installation of the new monarch should begin.

    The Julius Olanupon and Rasheed Ajimoh family lineage of Ole Ruling House appealed the High Court judgment delivered on December 20, 2013 by Justice B. F. Adeyeye, seeking the upturning of the High Court verdict.

    The Alale stool became vacant following the death of Oba Adekanye Omosowon in December, 2003.

    For many years, Princess Toyin Omosowon served as the community’s Regent.

    Efforts to install the new Alale resulted in a legal battle between the two royal families of Agure Mokun and Ajimoh lineage of Ole Ruling House.

    Not satisfied with the judgment, Ajimoh branch of Ole Ruling House approached the Appellate Court to upturn the verdict.

    It claimed that Agure Mokun family was not entitled to the stool.

    While awaiting the verdict of the Appellate Court at the twilight of the former Governor Olusegun Mimiko’s administration early this year, Prince Sunday Ajimoh was installed the new Alale of Akungba Akoko, though he was never a party to the legal battle.

    The Ondo State government recently suspended the coronation of the new Alale, Oba Sunday Isaac Ajimoh, indefinitely.

    In a letter to the monarch, the state government noted that the coronation, slated for July, 29, would breach the prevailing peace in the town, which hosts to the state-owned Adekunle Ajasin University (AAU).

    In the letter, dated July, 19 and signed by the Director of Chieftaincy Affairs in the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Adeyemi Adeyemo, the government directed security agencies to enforce the suspension of the coronation.

     

  • Appeal Court affirms Olafeso as Southwest PDP’s chief

    Appeal Court affirms Olafeso as Southwest PDP’s chief

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Ado-Ekiti, the Ekiti State capital, yesterday granted an interim order staying execution of all orders granted by the Federal High Court, Ado-Ekiti, restraining the Dr. Eddy Olafeso-led Southwest Zonal Executive from functioning.

    The three-man panel, led by Justice Ahmad Belgore, stopped proceedings at the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Taiwo Taiwo, pending the determination of the appeal.

    In granting the application for stay of execution on Justice Taiwo’s orders, the appellate court took cognisance of the pending application to commit Olafeso and his exco members to prison for alleged contempt, for hearing at the Ado-Ekiti Federal High Court on December 6.

    The court frowned on a letter, dated November 30, addressed to the presiding judge for the Ado-Ekiti Division, Justice Belgore, by a factional zonal chairman, Chief Makanjuola Ogundipe, seeking the postponement of the hearing of the motion for a stay of execution filed by Olafeso.

    While Olafeso belongs to the Senator Ahmed Makarfi’s National Caretaker Committee, Ogundipe belongs to the sacked Senator Ali Modu Sheriff-led faction.

    The Supreme Court, on July 12, affirmed Makarfi-led exco as the authentic leadership of the party and removed Sheriff from office as PDP’s National Chairman.

    Justice Belgore held: “All the orders and rulings of the lower court delivered on October 17, October 23, November 8 and November 27, 2017 have been stayed in the interim, meaning that those orders and rulings are of no value as from now and cannot be used anywhere, having been rendered null and void and that all the proceedings at the Federal High Court have been stayed pending the interlocutory appeal that is before the Appeal Court.”

    The court adjourned further hearing on the appeal till January 15.

    Ogundipe said the Supreme Court judgment did not invalidate his executive, adding that the verdict only affected the national body, led by Sheriff.