The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Appeal court

  • Hijab: Court strikes out Osun CAN’s application

    Hijab: Court strikes out Osun CAN’s application

    An Osun State High Court, sitting in Osogbo has struck out the application for stay of execution order sought by the state chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria (OS-CAN) on the court judgement allowing female Muslim students to wear hijab in public schools.

    When the case came up on Tuesday, the lead counsel to OS-CAN, Ayo Laogun, told the court that the case had gone to the Appeal Court with a reference number CA/AK/148/2016.

    He applied to withdraw the application for stay of execution, saying “in view of Order 4 Rules 10 & 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011, the lower court cannot take the application.”

    Counsel to the 1st to 5th respondents (Governor Rauf Aregbesola, Ministry of Education and three others), Jide Obisakin, did not oppose the withdrawal application.

    The presiding judge, Justice Jide Falola, therefore, struck out the application.

    Meanwhile, lead counsel to the Muslim community, Kazeem Odedeji, who came after the court sitting, explained that the agreement was to meet at 11.am.

    He wondered why the case was taken at 9.am.

    He, however, expressed his satisfaction with the withdrawal of the motion for execution.

    He said: “The Motion for stay was withdrawn and struck out. We are satisfied because the implication is that there is no motion for stay again in any court and nothing anybody can hinge upon against the full implementation of the judgment. It then behooves all parties to fully obey the judgment.

  • Hearing on Saraki, Dasuki’s appeals fixed for October

    Hearing on Saraki, Dasuki’s appeals fixed for October

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on Monday  rescheduled hearing on the appeals filed by Senate President, Bukola Saraki and former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, to October.

    The court announced its decision after the appeals were mentioned on Monday.

    When Saraki’s appeal was called, his lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), told the court he was not ready for it to be heard.

    He suggested that hearing on the matter be shifted to the end of the court’s vacation later in the year.

    The respondent’s lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), expressed discomfort at Agabi’s request.

    He said Monday was the third time Saraki’s lawyer will ask for adjournment on the matter.

    He wondered why the Senate president’s lawyer was reluctant to argue the appeal he filed earlier this year.

    Jacobs, however, agreed to an adjournment when the five-man panel of the court led by Justice Abdu Aboki indicated its intention to hear the appeal after the court’s vacation.

    Upon an agreement between Agabi and Jacobs, the court adjourned the matter to October 6.

    Saraki is challenging the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to try him on the false asset declaration charges filed against him by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    The court also rescheduled hearing on Dasuki’s appeal after his lawyer, Adedayo Adedeji, was allowed to regularise his brief of argument.

    It struck out the respondent’s brief filed by the AGF on the grounds that it wrongly filed and directed it should be refiled during the court’s vacation.

     

  • Judicial commission to Obiano: scrap Customary Appeal Court

    The Anambra State Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has called for the scrapping of the customary court of appeal.

    The reason the commission gave was lack of cases in those courts.

    The JSC wants the Chief Judge of the state, Justice Peter Umeadi to mandate Governor Willie Obiano to send an Executive Bill to the state House of Assembly for the closure.

    Also, to prevail on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to transfer the judges of the Customary Court of Appeal therein to remain and serve out their terms in the High Courts  in the state.

    The decisions by the JSC were contained in its communiqué made available to reporters in Awka, the state capital, during its press conference addressed by the executive secretary of the body, Christian Nnabuihe.

    Nnabuihe was flanked during the conference by the Chief Registrar of the state High Court, Doris Nkechinyere Ezeani and the Chief Registrar of the Customary Court of Appeal in the state, Ken Nwoye.

    The communiqué read, in part,  “Whereas  the fact that as at June 2016 the number of cases before the Customary Court of Appeal stand at [three], more so when those cases are almost ready for judgment, with possibility that there would be no further work to be done at the customary court of appeal, Anambra state thereafter…”

    “The commission here resolved to communicate to His Excellency, Chief Willie M. Obiano, Governor of Anambra State, to cause an Executive Bill, to be presented to the House of Assembly of Anambra State to authorise the closure of the Customary Court of Appeal Anambra State and thereafter prevail on the National Judicial Council to transfer the Hon. Judge therein to remain and serve out their terms in the High Court of Justice of Anambra State.”

  • Appeal Court denies foul play in case by ex-Rivers council chair, Amachree

    The Court of Appeal has denied an allegation of foul play in its decision to change the panel of Justices of the Part Harcourt division of the court  hearing the appeal filed by a former Chairman of Asari-Toru Local Government of Rivers State, Ojukaye Flag Amachree, accused of murder.

    The court’s Media Officer, Sa’adatu Musa said, in a statement yesterday, faulted claims in a recent publication by a Rivers State-based group, as Integrity Friends for Truth and Peace Initiative (IFTPI), to the effect that changing the panel to hear the bail application by Amachree amounted to abuse of judicial powers.

    She said the decision of the court’s President, Zainab Bulkachuwa to consttitute a fresh panel to hear the application was informed by a request to that effect by Amachree’s lawyer, Ken O. Atsuwete.

    Mrs Musa said: “On 13th June, 2016, a letter was received by the office of the Hon. President from one Ken O. Atsuwete, Esq. a Solicitor in the Law Office of K. O. Atsuwete & Co. located at No. 42, Isiokpo Street, D/Line, Port-Harcourt, Rivers and representing the Appellant in the case of Ojukaye Flag Amachree v. The State (CA/PH/16CR/2016).

    “In the said letter, the Solicitor requested His Lordship for an assignment of his Client’s bail application to a fresh appeal Panel. In order to safeguard the integrity of the local Panelist and in exercise of his constitutional powers, his Lordship constituted a new Panel to determine the bail application.

  • Appeal Court okays ex-NSPM boss Okoyomon’s extradition to UK

    Appeal Court okays ex-NSPM boss Okoyomon’s extradition to UK

    There is no respite yet for detained former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company (NSPM), Emmanuel Okoyomon as the Court of Appeal, Abuja has dismissed the appeal he filed against May 4, 2015 judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja granting the Federal Government’s request to extradite him to the United Kingdom (UK).

    Okoyomon is to be extradited to face trial in the UK where he has been accused of complicity in the bribery allegation, involving officials of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN NSPM and Securency International Pty of Australia between 2006 and 2008. Okoyomon is currently being held at the Kuje prison in Abuja.

    A three-man panel of the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment on June 6 this year, dismissed the appeal filed for Okoyomon by his lawyer, Alex Iziyon (SAN), and upheld the decision by the trial court, which confirmed the position argued by lawyer to the state, Pius Ukeyima Akutah.

    The appellate court, which resolved three out of the four questions determined against him,  held that, as against Okoyonmon’s contention, Nigeria has an obligation under the London Scheme for Extradition, within the Commonwealth, to extradite a person sought in respect of an extradition offence to another Commonwealth country.

    “This provision is substantially supported by the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Extradition Act 2004. The lower court was right to have acted the way it did so as to avoid a situation whereby Nigeria could breach its obligations to threshold Commonwealth country, the UK.

    “The provisions of the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth have been substantially enacted into law in Nigeria.

    “The learned trial judge, in my humble view, rightly held that the respondent (the Attorney General of the Federation) made out a case why the application should be granted, while the appellant failed, by his defence, to convince the court why the application should be refused.

    “The resolution of issue No.3 in favour of the appellant the appellant would not affect the final outcome of this appeal. This is so because the appellant has not shown how the failure to hear him on the point raised suo motu ( on his own) by the trial judge, on whether or not he is a British citizen, has occasioned any miscarriage of justice.

    “The law is that to warrant an appeal court’s reversal of a lower court’s decision, the appellant must show that the failure to hear him on the point raised and resolved suo motu occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

    “In this case, whether or not the appellant is a Britich citizen did not affect the merits of this application for an order for his extradition, which the trial court rightly found to be meritorious based on the facts supplied by the applicant (respondent in the appeal).

    “Since the threshold issues in this appeal have been resolved against the appellant, this appeal ought to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed,” Justice Moore Ademein said in the lead judgment.

    Other members of the panel, Justice Abdu Aboki and Justice Mohammed Mustapha agreed with Justice Adumein’s reasoning in the lead judgment

  • My Pikin: Appeal Court affirms convicts’ seven-year jail term

    My Pikin: Appeal Court affirms convicts’ seven-year jail term

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos yesterday upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court, which sentenced two Barewa Pharmaceutical Company Limited workers to seven years’ imprisonment each for selling a killer teething syrup, ‘My Pikin.’

    In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice C. E. Iyozoba, the court held that the complaint of the appellants, Adeyemo Abiodun and Ebele Eromosele, was without merit and fined them N1 million.

    The Justice added: “Throughout the gamut of the trial, the appellants never denied that they were the manufacturers of the contaminated drug ‘My Pikin’ teething syrup.”

    The court in 2013 delivered a similar judgment on the appeal, but the Supreme Court faulted the verdict, because it was determined on an abandoned notice and grounds of appeal.

    In a verdict delivered by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, the apex court ordered the appeal court to rehear the appeals on the “valid notice/grounds of appeal” filed on July 3, 2013.

    In yesterday’s judgement, Justice Iyozoba affirmed the convictions and held that samples of the contaminated drug were tested in a laboratory, noting that the process of testing was “clear and smooth”.

    The court added that there was no need for additional scientific evidence as requested by the appellants.

    “The drug in question is manufactured by only the appellants. No other pharmaceutical company produces the drug. So, any of the product in Nigeria is manufactured by the appellants.

    “There was no contradictory evidence as both the appellants and respondent confirmed that the contaminated drug was manufactured by the appellants”, the court held.

    Others on the panel are Justice Y. Nimpar and Justice J. Y. Tukur.

    But, the court held that the high court was wrong when it convicted the appellants for conspiracy.

    It added that the prosecution did not establish any evidence showing that the appellants conspired to manufacture and distribute the contaminated drug.

    It set aside their conviction for conspiracy, adding that this would have no effect on the seven-year jail term, which will run concurrently.

     

     

    The court also set aside the order of the High Court winding up the company and the order of forfeiture of assets to the Federal Government.

    The court held that Section 118(b) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act did not empower the trial judge to wind-up the company and order forfeiture of its assets.

    It added that what the trial judge ought to have done was to order forfeiture of the contaminated drugs and not the company’s assets.

    Justice Okechukwu Okeke of the Federal High Court, Lagos sentenced Abiodun and Eromosele on May 17, 2013 for selling the syrup known as “My Pikin’’.

    The convicts were prosecuted by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control, NAFDAC.

    Justice Okeke found them guilty of conspiracy and sale of adulterated teething mixture which caused the death of more than 80 children.

    The court ordered that the company should be wound up and its assets forfeited to the government.

  • Appeal Court delivers judgment in Metuh’s case Wednesday

    Appeal Court delivers judgment in Metuh’s case Wednesday

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja will Wednesday deliver judgments in the appeal by spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh.

    The Nation learnt Tuesday that parties in the case have been issued hearing notices to that effect.

    A three-man panel, head by Justice Abdul Aboki had on May 5 told parties that they would be informed of the date for judgment.

    Metuh and his company, Destra Investment Limited are appealing the ruling by Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Justice Abang had, in the ruling, refused their no-case submission and ordered them to enter defence in their trial for money laundering and unlawful receipt of funds from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA).

    Metuh and his company are being tried on a seven-count charge. At the completion of the prosecution’s case earlier this year, having called eight witnesses, the court called on the defence to open its case.

    Rather than conducting their defence, Metuh and Destra elected to make a no-case submission, which Justice Abang rejects in a ruling.

    Justice Abang was of the view that the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the defendants to warrant the court to call on them to enter defence.

    Metuh’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) and lawyer to his company, Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN), had while adopting their briefs on May 5, faulted Justice Abang’s reasoning in rejecting their clients’ no-case submissions.

    They urged the court to set aside Justice Abang’s decision, uphold their clients’ no-case submission and quash the charges against them.

    Responding, prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir urged the court to dismiss the Appeal for lacking in merit and for being defective.

    Tahir noted that the appeal being an interlocutory one, the appellants were required under the law, to first obtain the leave of the trial court.

    He argued that, having not fulfilled the condition precedent, the appellants could not claim to have a valid appeal before the court.

     

  • Appeal Court to hear Saraki’s fresh appeal on May 31

    Appeal Court to hear Saraki’s fresh appeal on May 31

    •Trial resumes today at CCT

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja has fixed May 31 for the hearing of a fresh appeal by Senate President Bukola Saraki challenging the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to try him on charges of false asset declaration.

    A five-man panel of the court, led by Justice Abdul Aboki, chose the date yesterday to accommodate a request by Saraki’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) for a 14-day adjournment to enable him study the response filed on behalf of the respondents, the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF).

    When the case was called yesterday, Agabi told the court that he was just served with the respondents’ cross appellant’s reply brief and would require time to look at it.

    Respondents’ lawyer Henry Ejiga, who apologised for the absence of his principal, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), did not object to Agabi’s application for a 14-day adjournment, following which the court adjourned to May 31 for the hearing of both the appeal and cross-appeal.

    Saraki is, in his appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT to try him based on a charge initiated by the office of the AGF. It is his contention that it is only the CCB that is empowered to prosecute cases before the CCT.

    CCB and AGF crossed appeal and argued that the motion, on which the CCT ruled, which formed the basis of the appeal by Saraki was an abuse of court process.

    They contend among others, that the issue of jurisdiction, having been resolved by the Supreme Court in an earlier appeal by Saraki, ought not to be raised again.

    It argued that the apex court, having held in a judgement of February 6, that the CCT was with the jurisdiction to try Saraki, the CCT ought not to entertain another motion filed by Kanu Agabi (SAN) for Saraki, challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

    Saraki’s trial before the CCT resumes today with his team of lawyers expected to resume their cross-examination of the first prosecution witness, Michael Wetkas.

  • Appeal Court to hear Saraki’s fresh appeal May 31

    Appeal Court to hear Saraki’s fresh appeal May 31

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja has fixed May 31 for the hearing of a fresh appeal by Senate President, Bukola Saraki, challenging the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to try him on charges of false asset declaration.

    A five-man panel of the court, led by Justice Abdul Aboki, chose the date Monday  to accommodate a request by Saraki’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) for a 14-day adjournment to enable him study the response filed on behalf of the respondents, the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    When the case was called Monday, Agabi told the court that he was just served with the respondents’ cross appellant’s reply brief and would require time to look at it.

    Respondents’ lawyer, Henry Ejiga, who apologised for the absence of his principal, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) did not object to Agabi’s application for a 14-day adjournment, following which the court adjourned to May 31 for the hearing of both the appeal and cross-appeal.

    Saraki is, in his appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT to try him based on a charge initiated by the office of the AGF. It is his contention that it is only the CCB that is empowered to prosecute cases before the CCT.

    CCB and AGF crossed appeal and argued that the motion, on which the CCT ruled, which formed the basis of the appeal by Saraki was an abuse of court process.

    They contend among others, that the issue of jurisdiction, having been resolved by the Supreme Court in an earlier appeal by Saraki, ought not to be raised again.

    It argued that the apex court, having held in a judgement of February 6, that the CCT was with the jurisdiction to try Saraki, the CCT ought not to entertain another motion filed by Kanu Agabi (SAN) for Saraki, challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

    Meanwhile, Saraki’s trial before the CCT resumes today with his team of lawyers expected to resume their cross-examination of the first prosecution witness, Michael Wetkas.

    On May 11 when proceedings were last held, Wetkas said his investigation team relied on information provided by the Presidential Implementation Committee on the Alienation of Federal Government Properties in reaching the conclusion that Saraki made anticipated asset declaration.

    Wetkas said the presidential committee informed his team that it did not have on its record, 15 A and B, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, as declared by Saraki in his 2003 asset declaration form.

    He said contrary to Saraki’s claim, the committee identified the property it sold as No.15, and Block 15, Flat 1 to 4, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.

    Wetkas noted that, Saraki, on assuming office as Kwara State governor in 2003, declared that he acquired  15A and B, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos in 2000, whereas, the presidential committee wrote to his investigative team that it sold 15, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos to Saraki through his company, Tiny Tee Limited, in 2006.

    “The only authority that we could refer to was the presidential committee or the Lagos State Land Registry or the Presidential Implementation Committee. The other letters referred to by them (Saraki’s lawyers) were by private individuals.

    “We relied on the document from the Presidential Implementation Committee which said they only had 15, Mcdonald Road and Block 15, Flat 1 to 4, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, which was occupied by another lessee.

    “We relied on the numbering of the properties by the presidential implementation committee and they stated that 15, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi was sold to Tiny-Tee.  That was the strength of our conclusion,” the witness said.

    Wetkas said he did not physically inspect the property at 15, 15A and B, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, but ylthat other members of his investigative team did, and that they are in a better position to tell th tribunal what they found.

    On why he did not personally visit Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Wetkas said he needed not to because the letter from the Presidential Implementation Committee to his team had clarified issues on the existence o otherwise o th property.

    “There was no need for me to ask the implementation committee to take me to the properties. The letter clarified that there were only two properties as 15 and Block 15, Flats 1 to 4,” the witness said.

    Wetkas confirmed that the asset at 15, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, was at various times offered to a company, Energy Marine Resources and occupant of the house, Mr. Virtus Nwosu.

    The witness also confirmed that it was eventually sold to Saraki’s company.

     

  • Appeal Court affirms 25 years jail for Boko Haram convicts

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, has affirmed the September 30, 2015, judgment of the Federal High Court in Lagos which convicted three men of participating in terrorism and belonging to the Boko Haram sect.

    In a judgment by Justice Y.B. Nimpar, the appellate court upheld the decision of the lower court, which sentenced Ali Mohammed, Adamu Karumi and Ibrahim Usman, to 25 years’ imprisonment each.

    They were arraigned in November 2013 with 14 others before Justice Ibrahim Buba, who found them guilty in September 2014.

    Displeased with their conviction and imprisonment, the convicts approached the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn the judgment.

    But the Lagos State Ministry of Justice, which charged them to court and secured their convictions, said in a statement yesterday by its Public Relations Officer, Mrs. Bola Akingbade, that the appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit.

    According to the ministry, the convicts had contended that they were charged and convicted under an inapplicable law.

    They had also contended that the 25 years’ imprisonment imposed on them was excessive and urged the appeal court to reverse their conviction.

    But the appellate court refused their prayers.

    Mohammed, Karumi and Usman were arraigned on eight counts in November 2013 before Justice Buba along with 14 other suspected Boko Haram members.

    Those charged with them were Bala Haruna, Idris Ali, Mohammed Murtala and Kadiri Mohammed and Mustapha Daura.

    Others were Abba Duguri, Sanni Adamu, Danjuma Yahaya and Musa Audu and Mati Daura, Farouk Haruna, Abdullahi Azeez, Ibrahim Bukar and Zula Diani.

    But the then Lagos State Attorney-General, Mr. Ade Ipaye, entered a nolle prosequi, discontinuing criminal charges against 13 of the suspects, leaving only  Mohammed,  Karumi,  Usman and Haruna.