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 outlawed Boko Haram sect.
In a judgment delivered 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 had been arraigned in November 2013 along with 14 others before Justice Ibrahim Buba, who found them guilty as charged in September 2014.
Displeased with their conviction and imprisonment, the convicts subsequently 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 on Sunday 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 higher 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 in the course of trial, 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.
Tag: Appeal court
-
Appeal court affirms 25 years jail for Boko Haram convicts
-
Full Appeal Court panel for Hijab ban appeal
The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, yesterday adjourned for its full panel to consider the ban on the wearing of Hijab in public primary and secondary schools in Lagos State.An Ikeja High Court upheld the ban, which it said was not discriminatory.
A three-man panel led by Justice Amina Augie told the applicants, Asiyat AbdulKareem and Maryam Oyeniyi and the Registered Trustees of the Muslim Students’ Society of Nigeria (MSSN) that the matter was sensitive, noting that the three justices were Muslims.
Justice Augie said: “The appeal is very sensitive since it involves the right of the applicants, who are Muslims, to wear the hijab over their school uniform in accordance with Quranic injunction. We are a three-man panel, and more importantly, an all-Muslim panel.”
She added that if the three justices went ahead to hear the appeal, it could raise issue of bias.
Responding to an observation by the applicants’ counsel, Chief Gani Adetola-Kazeem (SAN), Justice Augie said: “Any way the decision goes, we would be under fire. We’re protecting ourselves as much as we are protecting you. It is a very sensitive matter that will most likely still get to the Supreme Court.”
The court held that it is a constitutional case, which a five-man panel should hear.
It directed the applicants to apply to the President of the Court of Appeal for a five-man panel to hear it.
On October 17, 2014, Justice Modupe Onyeabor of an Ikeja High Court dismissed the suit instituted against the Lagos State Government by the two pupils under the aegis of the MSSN, Lagos State Area Unit.
The government banned the use of Hijab because it is not part of the pupils’ approved school uniform.
The pupils filed the suit on May 27, 2013, seeking a declaration that the ban is a violation of their rights to freedom of thought, religion and education.
In her judgment, Justice Onyeabor held that the ban did not violate Sections 38 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution as claimed by the plaintiffs.
The judge said Section 10 of the Constitution made Nigeria a secular state, adding that government must be neutral always.
She said the government has a duty to preserve the secular nature of the affected institutions as argued by former Lagos State Solicitor-General Mr Lawal Pedro (SAN).
Justice Oyeabor said the government could issue dress codes and other guidelines to the pupils because it funds the schools.
According to her, the use of uniforms engenders uniformity and encourages pupils to pursue their mutual academic aspirations without recourse to religious or any other affiliations.
The judge said that the uniformity sought by the government in coming up with the dress code would be destroyed, if the prayers were granted.
-
Bayelsa Assembly to swear-in three opposition members
The Kombowei Benson-led Bayelsa State House of Assembly has bowed to pressure and opted to swear-in three lawmakers elected on the platforms of opposition political parties.
The Speaker, Benson, has been under attacks from different groups for failing to inaugurate the lawmakers four months after they were declared winners of their constituencies.
Benson has refused to administer oaths of office on Watson Belemote of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), representing Brass Constituency 2; Gibson Munalayefa of the Labour Party (LP) for Ogbia constituency 2 and Gabriel Ogbara of African Democratic Congress (ADC) for Ogbia constituency 3.
They were declared winners of their various constituencies four months ago by the Appeal Court sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
The police, elders in the state under the aegis Bayelsa First Initiative (BFI) including the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation had warned Benson of the consequences of not swearing-in the lawmakers.
The Governor of the state, Mr. Seriake Dickson, was also accused of being the unseen hand behind the travails of the lawmakers.
But Dickson denied involvement.
It was gathered Wednesday that Benson announced on the floor of the House that the members-elect would be sworn in Thursday.
He reportedly blamed the delay in their inauguration to faulty processes saying the elected lawmakers did not furnish the House with requisite documents on time.
He said as a law-making body, the House was under obligations to follow laid down procedure in swearing-in members and not to depend on petitions from lawyers.
-
No stay of proceedings in Saraki’s, Dasuki’s, Metuh’s trials – Appeal court
The Court of Appeal in Abuja declared Monday that will not entertain motions for stay of proceedings in the cases involving Senate President, Abubakar Bukola Saraki, ex-National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Sambo Dasuki and Spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh.
A three-man panel of the appellate court, presided over by Justice Abdul Aboki handed down the declaration at the mention of the appeals by Saraki, Dasuki and Metuh.
Justice Aboki said; at the mention of Metuh’s appeal that: “We have decided that we will not hear motion for stay of proceedings. You should go back to the court to argue your application before the court and pursue your appeal before us.”
Effort by Metuh’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) to persuade the court to reverse itself failed. Ikpeazu prayed to be allowed to convince the court on the merit of the motion for stay of proceedings he had filed for his client. But Justice Aboki refused, insisting that: “We are not going to allow that. Even if you file it, we are going to dismiss it straightaway.”
The PDP spokesman and his firm, Destra Investments Limited, being jointly tried on a seven-count charge before Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, are appealing Justice Abang’s earlier ruling dismissing their no-case submission. They filed separate appeals.
Metuh and Destra are being tried for allegedly laundering $2million and unlawfully accepting N400m from Dasuki.
Monday, Ikpeazu, who had earlier filed processes on behalf Metuh and Destra, withdrew his representation for Destra and was replaced by Tochukwu Onwugbufor (SAN).
Following the change of counsel by one of the appellants, the court directed lead prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir to file separate respondent’s briefs in relation to the two appeals, as against the single one he earlier filed. The court adjourned to May 5.
On the appeal by Saraki, his lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), acting on the court’s position not to entertain motion for stay of proceedings, withdrew a similar motion he had filed, following which, the court struck it out.
Saraki, who is being tried for alleged false declaration of assets before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), is appealing the March 24, 2016 ruling by the tribunal, insisting on its jurisdiction to try the Senate President.
Dasuki’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN) elected to tarry awhile before deciding whether or not to withdraw the motion for stay of proceedings he filed.
He said he will wait to seek what the content of the response by the respondent before making a decision. “If I see the respondent brief, I will be able to make the decision,” Daudu said. The respondent, the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), is represented by Rotimi Jacobs (SAN).
Dasuki is appealing two separate rulings Justices Hussein Baba-Yusuf and Peter Affen of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Maitama, Abuja. Both judges had dismissed Dasuki’s motion, with which he had sought among others, to stop his trial.
Justices Yusuf and Affen, in their rulings on February 8 and March 4, dismissed Dasuki’s motions seeking orders restraining the Federal Government from further prosecuting him on the two charges of diversion of funds meant for procurement of arms.
A similar motion by Dasuki was dismissed on April 19 by Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The Court of Appeal announced Monday that parties will be informed about the next hearing dates in the appeals by Saraki and Dasuki.
-
Appeal Court affirms Lagos monarch’s installation
The Court of Appeal sitting Lagos has dismissed an appeal filed by the Oworonsoki family against the installation of Oba Bashiru Saliu Oloruntoyin as the traditional ruler of Oworonsoki, a suburb of Lagos.
The court affirmed the monarch’s right over the community’s stool in an appeal instituted by Mustapha Durojaiye Ajisegiri, Adiatu Bankole and Sidikat Oworonsoki on behalf of the Oworonsoki family.
The appellants, among other reliefs, sought a declaration that their families be recognised to produce the traditional ruler of the community and that the first defendant, Oba Saliu, “is not entitled to be nominated, selected or appointed as the Oba of Oworonsoki in the Kosofe Local Government Area of Lagos State.”
In the ruling delivered on March 10, 2016, the three-man appeal panel, headed by Justice Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo, dismissed the appeal and described the selection and installation of Oba Saliu as legitimate and in tandem with the existing chieftaincy declaration regulating the appointment and selection of the traditional ruler of the town.
The judges held that the matter relating to the installation of Oba Saliu should not have been instituted again by the appellants by virtue of a judgment delivered by Justice Fatai Adeyinka of the Lagos State Chieftaincy Tribunal on March 3, 1999.
Justice Obaseki-Adejumo said: “Having been settled earlier in suit number ID/741M/98 by Hon. Justice Adeyinka, that the first respondent(Oba Saliu) be appointed and confirmed as the Oba of Oworonsoki, it stands to reason that the issue of Obaship of Oworonsoki cannot be re-litigated upon by the appellants, except (as held by the learned judge) they appeal against the decision in suit number ID/741/98, which is a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
The Judges therefore upheld the ruling of a Lagos High Court headed by Justice S.A. Onigbanjo on November 27, 2013, which confirmed the appointment of Oba Saliu as the monarch of the community.
The court also awarded a N50, 000 cost against the appellants.
-
My Pikin case: Supreme Court faults Appeal Court
*Orders fresh hearing of appealsThe Supreme Court has faulted the December 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos, which upheld the conviction of the manufacturer of My Pikin baby teething mixture and two employees.The manufacturer, Barewa Pharmaceutical Company, its Production Manager, Adeyemo Abiodun and Quality Assurance Manager, Egbele Eromosele were in 2008 charged with production of the dangerous syrup which purportedly resulted in some deaths.Justice Okechukwu Okeke, of the Federal High Court, Lagos on May 17, 2012, convicted the three and sentenced to seven years each for conspiracy to sell the dangerous drug.He handed them another seven years for actually selling the syrup, but ordered that the sentences should run concurrently.The judge, who retired a day after the judgment, ordered the company to be compulsorily wound up and its assets forfeited.The charge was initiated by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC).The Court of Appeal, Lagos in its judgment in 2013 upheld the decision of the Federal High Court, but only set aside the aspect concerning the winding-up of the company.In its unanimous judgments in three appeals filed by the company and two of its employees, the apex court faulted the Court of Appeal, Lagos on the ground that it determined the convicts’ appeals on an abandoned notice and grounds of appeal.Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, who wrote the lead judgments in the three appeals, ordered that the appeals be remitted to the Court of Appeal, Lagos for it to hear the appeals on the “valid notice/grounds of appeal” filed on July 3, 2013. -
INEC decries cost of re-run elections
Prof. Mahmoud Yukubu, the Chairman of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), on Wednesday decried the cost of conducting re-run elections in the country.
Yukubu made this known at a National Conference for Justices of the Court of Appeal and Election Petition Tribunal Judges with the theme “2015 Election Petition Tribunals and Appeals” in Abuja.
He said it was more challenging to manage re-run elections arising from candidates’ disqualification.
According to him, while it is appreciated that the courts treat each case on its merits, certain trends point to conflicting judgments on similar cases by different Judicial Division of the Court of Appeal.
He said there were instances where elections were nullified and INEC was ordered to conduct a re-run simply for the sake of conducting elections in a specific polling unit.
Yakubu said after wasting time and resources, the outcome of such election did not make any material difference to the original result declared by INEC which made substantial compliance with the Electoral Act.
He cited the case of Lafia/Obi Federal Constituency in Nasarawa State, where Appeal Court ordered INEC to conduct a re-run in Angwan Doka Polling Unit 004 with just over 1,000 registered voters.
He said the candidate declared winner by INEC in the 2015 General election pooled over 74, 000 votes while the runner-up had a little over 70,000 votes.
Mahmoud said the number of registered voters in the polling unit could not have altered the result in any way and even the voters were aware of the reality.
“When INEC conducted a re-run election in that polling unit only 25 voters turned up to cast their votes and the election which has no utilitarian value cost the nation N3.2 million,” he said.
He said that 680 election cases were filed against INEC after the 2015 General elections and 580 out of these cases were dismissed by the tribunals and Court of Appeal.
Yukubu said that the commission had no judicial powers over the outcome of the elections it had conducted.
According to him, each time an appeal court determines a case, the commission is always ordered to undertake one form of consequential action.
In her speech, the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, said that the court received 749 appeals emanating from the decisions of the various election petition tribunals.
Bulkachuwa said in spite of the challenges of time, the justices of the court had managed to dispose the appeals within the stipulated period as required by law.
-
Appeal Court adjourns Cheveron’s appeal against Britannia-U
The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos will on November 22 hear an appeal on whether the Federal High Court can assume jurisdiction in a suit by Britannia-U Nigeria Limited against Chevron Nigerian Limited.
Britannia-U is praying the lower court to restrain Chevron from divesting its interests in Oil Mining Leases (OML) 52, 53 and 55 to Seplat Petroleum Development Company Limited.
The appellate court refused to entertain the appellants’ (Chevron and BNP Paribas SecuritiesCorp’s) motion for stay of proceedings. It said it would abide the outcome ofthe main appeal.
The court, however, granted the appellants’ motion for extension of time to compile and transmit additional records of appeal and motion for leave to appeal on grounds other than law, as well as leave to amend their Notice of Appeal.
The appellants were given seven days to file their amended Notice of Appeal. Brittania-U’s counsel withdrew an application seeking todismiss the appeal for want of diligent prosecution.
Britannia-U had through its lawyers, Mr.Ricky Tarfa (SAN) and Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), sued Chevron in 2013 along withfour others, namely Chevron USA Inc, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Mr. HermantPetel and Seplat Petroleum.
The Federal High Court had adjourned the suit sine die (till further notice) due to several appeals, one of which was decided by the Supreme Court on January 29.
Brittania-U’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunctionagainst the defendants is still pending at the Federal High Court.
Chevron had offered for sale OMLs 52, 53 and 55 and invited bids from interested firms. The assets’ sale became controversial after Chevron allegedly failed to make a public announcement of a winner, a reserve bidder and unsuccessful bids.
It then allegedly turned its back on the highest bidder, Brittania-U, and began to deal with Seplat behind the scene.
Brittania-U went to court to contest Chevron’s action of not declaring it winner after it posted a $1.67 billion bid for the three assets,an amount later revised to $1.015 billion after both companies’ officials met in Houston, United States.
Seplat was said to have posted a bid of $630 million for the same assets.
-
N50 stamp duty: 22 banks take NIPOST to Appeal Court
A special panel constituted by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, will on April 7 hear an appeal filed by 22 commercial banks over an order compelling them to deduct N50 as stamp duty from every transaction worth N1,000 made by their customers.
The suit challenges a judgment of the Federal High Court delivered by Justice C. J. Aneke, which ordered them to remit to the Nigerian Postal Services (NIPOST) through KASMAL International Services Ltd, the sum of N50 as stamp duty on every transaction from N1, 000 and above.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) South West leader, Senator Buruji Kashamu, is the Chairman and Chief Executive, KASMAL.
The five-man panel presided over by Justice Ibrahim Saulawa adjourned the appeal for hearing and for notices to be issued to all parties in the matter.
At the lower court, KASMAL International Services had in a 32-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Kashamu, urged the court to, among others, order the banks to give effect to the Agency Agreement between it and NIPOST (23rd defendant) as well as the Cooperate Agreement between it and the School of Banking Honours (24th defendant) respectively.
The banks include: Access Bank Plc, Citibank Nigeria Limited, Diamond Bank Plc, Ecobank Plc, Enterprise Bank Plc, Fidelity Bank, First Bank Nigeria Plc, First Monument Bank Plc and First Inland Bank Plc.
Others are: Heritage Banking Company Ltd, Mainstreet Bank Ltd, Skye Bank Plc, Stanbic IBTC Bank Ltd, Standard Chartered Bank Plc, Sterling Bank Plc, Union Bank Plc, United Bank of Nigeria Plc, Unity Bank Plc, WEMA Bank Plc, Unity Bank Plc and Zenith Bank Plc.
-
Appeal Court adjourns Cheveron’s appeal against Britannia-U
The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos will on November 22 hear an appeal on whether the Federal High Court can assume jurisdiction in a suit by Britannia-U Nigeria Limited against Chevron Nigerian Limited.
Britannia-U is praying the lower court to restrain Chevron from divesting its interests in Oil Mining Leases (OML) 52, 53 and 55 to Seplat Petroleum Development Company Limited.
The appellate court refused to entertain the appellants’ (Chevron and BNP Paribas SecuritiesCorp’s) motion for stay of proceedings. It said it would abide the outcome ofthe main appeal.
The court, however, granted the appellants’ motion for extension of time to compile and transmit additional records of appeal and motion for leave to appeal on grounds other than law, as well as leave to amend their Notice of Appeal.
The appellants were given seven days to file their amended Notice of Appeal. Brittania-U’s counsel withdrew an application seeking todismiss the appeal for want of diligent prosecution.
Britannia-U had through its lawyers, Mr.Ricky Tarfa (SAN) and Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), sued Chevron in 2013 along withfour others, namely Chevron USA Inc, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Mr. HermantPetel and Seplat Petroleum.
The Federal High Court had adjourned the suit sine die (till further notice) due to several appeals, one of which was decided by the Supreme Court on January 29.
Brittania-U’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunctionagainst the defendants are still pending at the Federal High Court.
Chevron had offered for sale OMLs 52, 53 and 55 and invited bids from interested firms. The assets’ sale became controversial after Chevron allegedly failed to make a public announcement of a winner, a reserve bidder and unsuccessful bids.
It then allegedly turned its back on the highest bidder, Brittania-U, and began to deal with Seplat behind the scene.
Brittania-U went to court to contest Chevron’s action of not declaring it winner after it posted a $1.67 billion bid for the three assets,an amount later revised to $1.015 billion after both companies’ officials met in Houston, United States.
Seplat was said to have posted a bid of $630 million for the same assets.