The Nation Newspaper

Tag: appeal

  • Effect of failure to pay requisite fee for transmission of record of appeal

    Effect of failure to pay requisite fee for transmission of record of appeal

    This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Yobe State, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction at Damaturu. The respondent sued the appellant before the Upper Shariar Court, Geidam, over farmland and after hearing the matter, a declaratory judgment was entered in favour of the appellant. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the respondent appealed to the High Court. After hearing the appeal, the court set aside the trial court’s decision and, in its place, conferred the title of the farmland to the respondent.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    The respondent, on their own part, filed their brief of argument and notice of preliminary objection.

    Issues for determination

    The issues submitted for determination in the preliminary objection were:

    1. Whether the Appellants’ Notice and Grounds of Appeal filed on December 6, 2021 without the leave of either the lower Court or this Honourable Court on the ground of facts/objection for the first time on appeal on  December 13, 2021 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Order 8 Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021 as to cost for the due prosecution of the appeal is competent?

    2. Whether  issues   number 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the appellant’s brief are based and distilled from the respective grounds number 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Appellant Notice and Grounds of Appeal?

    The court in considering the merit of the case resolved the following issues:

    (a) Whether the court below was right to have assumed that the appellant did not counter the claim before the trial Court, thereby admitting the claim against him (the Appellant).

    (b) Whether the court below was right to have held that the trial Court judge did not apply the Islamic law principles of an Izar either during the proceeding or before judgment was delivered.

    (c) Whether the court below was right to have assumed that the trial judge misapplied the principle of Hauzi.

    Appelants’ submissions:

    On issue one, the appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court erred in considering the respondent’s testimony as evidence to establish their title to the land. According to the principles of Islamic Law, the plaintiff (Respondent) is not a competent witness in their own case. The appellant’s counsel cited relevant cases to support this argument and claimed that the High Court’s finding violated the appellant’s right to fair hearing. He urged the  court to rule in favour of the appellant, considering the principles of Islamic Law.

    On issue two, the appellant’s counsel contended that under Islamic Law, blood brothers and close relatives of the parties involved in a dispute are not competent witnesses. He argued that the testimonies of certain witnesses were challenged by the appellant during the proceedings, but the court did not consider these arguments. The appellant’s counsel asserted that the High Court’s failure to evaluate and consider these testimonies violated the appellant’s right to a fair hearing. He urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the appellant based on the principles of Islamic Law.

    On issue three, the appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court wrongly assumed that the appellant did not file a counter-claim before the court, which led to the court admitting the respondent’s claim against the appellant. He asserted that the appellant clearly counter-claimed the disputed farmland, denying the respondent’s claim and asserting ownership.The counsel cited a relevant case and contended that the trial court’s findings resulted in a miscarriage of justice and violated the appellant’s right to fair hearing. He urged the court to uphold his arguments on this issue.

    On issue four, the appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court did apply the principle of Izar, a pre-judgment plea that allows parties to present additional witnesses before judgment. He contended that the High Court’s conclusion that Izar was not applied violated the appellant’s right to fair hearing and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The counsel urged the court to recognise this violation and resolve the issue in favour of the appellant.

    On issue five, the appellant’s counsel submitted that the trial court correctly applied the principle of Hauzi. He argued that the respondent’s claim of peaceful possession of the farmland for 60 years was not adequately proven, while the testimonies of defence witnesses supported the appellant’s case. He referred to specific lines in the record of appeal and cited a relevant case to support his argument. The counsel urged the court to allow the appeal, set aside the High Court’s decision, and affirm the trial court’s decision in favour of the appellant.

    In  response to the respondent’s brief, the appellant’s counsel reiterated his arguments regarding the incorrect consideration of the respondent’s statement of claim as testimony, the incompetency of blood brothers and close relatives as witnesses, and the violation of the appellant’s right to fair hearing. He also addressed the issue of “leave of Court” and requested the court to uphold his arguments, resolve the issues in favour of the appellant, and allow the appeal.

    Respondent’s Submissions:

    In the preliminary objection, the respondent argued that the Appellant’s Notice and Grounds of Appeal were incompetent and should be dismissed for not complying with the mandatory provisions of Order 8 Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021. He also contended that certain grounds of appeal required the court’s leave before being filed and argued, and the appellant did not obtain the necessary leave for one of the grounds of appeal.

    Read Also: Junior Pope: Adanma Luke is a victim of circumstance – Uche Ogbodo appeals to Nigerians

    The respondent urged the court to strike out that ground. Additionally, he argued that the issues in the appeal should stem from the reasons encompassing the grounds of appeal and asserted that the respondent had provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of title to the farmland.

    In the main appeal, the respondent submitted that the case had been proven at the trial Court, and the High Court was correct in setting aside the trial court’s judgment and awarding title of the farmland to the respondent. He argued that in an action for declaration of title to land, the plaintiff must present sufficient and credible evidence to establish the mode of acquisition of title. The respondent claimed to have provided direct, unchallenged, and credible evidence to support his claim of title through inheritance.

    He contended that an outsider cannot claim ownership of an inherited property, and equity does not permit it. Furthermore, he argued that a party relying on traditional history as proof of their root of title must adequately plead it and cited relevant cases in support. The respondent also raised an argument regarding the filing of a counter-claim, stating that the appellant did not file a valid counter-claim and thus cannot seek any relief related to the suit.

    Finally, he urged the court to resolve the issues in their favour in the interest of justice.

    Resolution:

    According to the court, it was stated that by Order 8 Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, the appellant was required to deposit not less than N50,000 with the Deputy Chief Registrar upon transmission of the record of appeal. However, the respondent argued that the appellant did not comply with this provision. The appellant’s claim of being an indigent person is not valid as no court order has been issued confirming their indigent status. If the appellant fails to comply with this rule, the respondent can apply for an order to make the required deposit. The court cannot strike out the Notice of Appeal, so it remains competent along with the transmitted records.

    The court noted that the appellant previously filed an application for leave to appeal, which was granted by the High Court on December 3, 2021. The High Court’s order stated that the appeal should be filed within 10 days, as specified in Exhibit B. However, upon examination, it was found that the notice and grounds of appeal filed by the appellant were different from the document referenced in Exhibit B. The appellant failed to follow the High Court’s order and attempted to circumvent the legal process. As a result, the validity of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal is questionable.

    Furthermore, the appellant’s brief of argument contained issues that were unrelated to the grounds of appeal, rendering them incompetent and struck out. However, issues three, four, and five were deemed competent as they corresponded to the respective grounds of appeal.

    Considering the invalidity of the notice and grounds of appeal, the appeal itself was deemed incompetent and dismissed by the court.

    The Court proceeded to address issues three, four, and five on their merits.

    On issue three, the court stated that the High Court’s finding, which stated that there was no valid counter-claim by the appellant, was supported by the record of appeal. According to Islamic Law, a counter-claim must be specific, clear, and complete. In this case, the court concluded that the appellant failed to meet these requirements, and therefore, the High Court’s decision on the issue was upheld in favour of the respondent.

    On issue four, the court was of the position that the High Court correctly observed that the trial court did not apply the principle of Izar, which is a pre-judgment plea allowing parties a final opportunity to present their claims before a judgment is delivered. Under Islamic Law, the absence of Izar renders a judgment null and void. Therefore, court concluded that the High Court’s resolution in favour of the appellant on this issue was affirmed.

    On issue five, the court was of the view that since issue three was resolved in favour of the respondent, this issue becomes irrelevant. The appellant, having no valid counter-claim, could not have been entitled to judgment in the first place. The question of whether the trial judge rightly applied the principle of Hauzi becomes academic. The Court declined to engage in academic exercises.

    Held

    The preliminary objection succeeded in part and the appeal was dismissed. Going further to consider the appeal on its merits, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

    Appearances:

    A. Ismaila, Esq.                                              

    For Appellant(s)

    Y. A. Ali, Esq.                                       

    For Respondent(s)

    Compiled by LawPavilion.

  • Appeal Court reaffirms Otu’s victory

    Appeal Court reaffirms Otu’s victory

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, yesterday reaffirmed the victory of Cross River State Governor Bassey Otu as the winner of the governorship election held on March 18.

    It dismissed the appeal petition filed by the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Senator Sandy Onor, for lack of merit.

    Onor suffered the same fate on September 26 in Calabar.

    The tribunal’s verdict has now been reaffirmed by the Appeal Court.

    Governor Otu in a swift reaction to his latest victory, through his Press Secretary, Emmanuel Ogbeche, expressed happiness and hoped that the Appeal Court verdict would bring to a close, election litigation against his victory, “which is an indication of the people’s mandate overwhelmingly given to me.”

    Read Also: Nigeria loses $500 yearly to cybercrimes, says Senate

    He said: “This ruling should bring an end to litigation on the outcome of the governorship election. For those in the opposition, especially my brother, Prof. Sandy Onor, I once again offer you a hand of friendship. Come and join my administration so that together we can move our state forward and bring about the dividends of democracy.

    “My administration is fully reenergised to deliver on the people’s first mandate, which is on track to reposition our state for effective and responsive governance. I solicit the support and patience of all ‘Cross Riverians’ as we navigate the challenging times towards the Cross River of our dream.”

    Otu was declared winner of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), having polled 258,619 votes, winning in 15 of the 18 local governments to defeat his closest rival, Onor, who garnered 179,636 votes.

  • JUST IN: Appeal Court reserves judgment in Kano governorship dispute

    JUST IN: Appeal Court reserves judgment in Kano governorship dispute

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja withheld its decision in the appeal filed by Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf challenging his removal by the Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal.

    The tribunal, which delivered judgment via Zoom, had declared All Progressives Congress (APC) opponent, Nasiru Gawuna, as winner of the election.

    The tribunal determined that 165,663 of Yusuf’s votes were illegitimate because the ballot papers were not signed or stamped by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)

    Read Also: BREAKING: Appeal Court sacks APC’s Kwankwaso, affirms NNPP candidate as Kano rep

    Yusuf rejected the verdict and headed to the appeal court.

    On Monday, the appeal court reserved judgement in the case.

    Details shortly…

  • Appeal to youths

    Sir: Most Nigerian Youths haven’t discovered their place in their country. Running after politicians, chanting and going on errands isn’t an assured future for self and country. Just as Hayakawa will always say, “It is the individual who knows how little they know about themselves who stands the most reasonable chance of finding out something about themselves before they die.”

    Many youths have sacrificed their lives so cheap for those who feel the youths can be used to achieve their purpose by giving little token. We’ve been used and we’ve been dumped now they’re calling us all again in different auspicious groups ahead of 2019 Elections.

    I want every youth to address the following questions?

    Where are the youths in government? What happened to those we risked our lives under harsh weather conditions just to see they emerge? Have they forgotten all their promises?  Do they still acknowledge our efforts and contribution?

    Do you know that less than 20% of youths participate in electoral process? I recently engaged some youths in conversation and I realized that many of us are not ready to even vote next year. We have our PVC but it’s just another object. Most youths have the mentality that “our votes won’t count”. Yet, when we don’t vote, we give room for bad governance in our country.

    We complain of bad governance yet we have a tool just as a gun in the hands of a hunter to terminate the life of any animal so also we can terminate the selfish ambition of some of our leaders.

    Curt Coffman once said “A great manager is someone who says, you come to work with me, and I’ll help you be as successful as possible; I’ll help you grow. I’ll help you make sure you’re in the right role; I’ll provide the relationship for you to understand and know yourself. And I want you to be more successful than me.” This is the spirit of true leadership.

    John Maxwell will say “The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to change. The leader adjusts the sails.”

    We need leaders that’ll look beyond their personal interest and see to the general good of the people. Leaders that’ll become a solution and not a burden to us.

     

    • Obiora Okeke,

    Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike.

  • Nganjiwa: EFCC files appeal at Supreme Court

    Nganjiwa: EFCC files appeal at Supreme Court

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked the Supreme Court to reverse a Court of Appeal decision which quashed a corruption charge against Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa.

    It prayed the apex court to declare that the appellate court erred in law when it struck out the EFCC’s 14-count charge of corrupt enrichment against Nganjiwa.

    It urged the Supreme Court to, among others, declare that the appellate court’s decision was ultra vires because it conferred procedural immunity on the judge contrary to the 1999 Constitution as amended.

    The notice of appeal, which was filed by appellant’s counsel Messrs Jibrin Samuel Okutepa SAN, Wahab Shittu, Jiti Ogunye and Rotimi Oyedepo, was acknowledged yesterday by the apex court.

    Nganjiwa, judge of the Federal High Court, Bayelsa Division was arraigned before Justice Adedayo Akintoye of the Lagos High Court in Igbosere last june 23.

    The EFCC said he received a total of $260,000 and N8.5million to unlawfully enrich himself as a public official.

    Nganjiwa pleaded not guilty.

    The judge, through a preliminary objection argued by his counsel Robert Clarke SAN, challenged Justice Akintoye’s jurisdiction to entertain the charge.

    Last December 11, a three-man panel of the appellate court’s Lagos division presided over by Justice Adejumo Obaseki upheld Clarke’s contention that by virtue of Section 158 of the 1999 Constitution, only the National Judicial Council had the power to deal with the kind of allegations brought by the EFCC against his client, a serving judge.

    The appellate court agreed with Clarke that a judge could not be prosecuted until such judge had either been dismissed or compulsorily retired by the National Judicial Council.

    But in yesterday’s notice of appeal, the EFCC formulated 10 grounds of appeal challenging that entire judgment which upheld the preliminary objection.

    It prayed the court to declare that “the Court of Appeal was in error by introducing a procedural immunity clause for judges with substantive immunity protection contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.

    “The National Judicial Council lacks the powers of law enforcement agencies.

    “The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the prosecuting law enforcement agency in this case, has a wide range of powers to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.

    The commission further submitted that “The National Judicial Council (NJC) is only vested with the exercise of disciplinary powers against Judicial officers without such powers extending to criminal prosecution.”

    The EFCC is seeking to move the court to hold that “offences under the Criminal Law as acknowledged in the judgement of the Court of Appeal can only be investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement agencies without prejudice to the exercise of disciplinary powers by the NJC without any of the exercise of such powers being dependent on the other.

    According to it, “Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) does not confer immunity from investigation and prosecution on judicial officers.

    “There is no provision of the Constitution making the exercise of powers of law enforcement agencies on investigation and prosecution dependent on the exercise of powers by the NJC in the context of criminal offences allegedly committed by judicial officers in the discharge or outside the discharge of duties by judicial officers.”

    No date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

  • Appeal court affirms Okoronkwo IPMAN’s president

    Appeal court affirms Okoronkwo IPMAN’s president

    Members of the Independent 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’s yesterday 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 plaqued the Association, saying the Court of Appeal, Abuja reaffirmed the High court judgment of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in 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.

    Pasali said the interest of all members of the association will be a top priority of the President, adding that the judgment was a welcome development to IPMAN members nationwide, as well as the oil and gas industry. “The judgment once again confirmed Okoronkwo as substantive National President of IPMAN,” he restated.

    Pasali said IPMAN members nationwide welcomed the Appeal Court judgment as it would 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 judgment of the Appeal Court Abuja 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 Organisational 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.

  • Appellant can’t use other court’s decision as appeal ground

    Appellant can’t use other court’s decision as appeal ground

    Lead Judgment Delivered by Ayobode Olujimi Lokulo-sodipe, J. c. a.

     

    Concise facts

    This is an appeal against the judgment delivered on 25/4/2016 by the Federal High Court holden in the Owerri Judicial Division.

    The Appellant (then Plaintiff) by way of Originating Summons, commenced the case leading to this appeal against the Respondents (then defendant). Appellant’s grouse was based on the conduct and outcome of the primary elections conducted by the People Democratic Party (PDP)(1st Respondent) for the selection and nomination of a candidate to represent the party in the 2015 National Assembly election for the (Orlu) Senatorial District, Imo State.

    By a motion filed on 21/4/2015, the Respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit. On 25/4/2016, the trial Court duly delivered its judgment wherein it upheld the preliminary objection of the 1st and 2nd Defendants therein (now 1st and 2nd Respondents) challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the substantive matter and struck out the Appellant’s suit in limine.

    This decision greatly aggrieved the Appellant and he subsequently lodged this Appeal.

    The Respondents raised a Preliminary Objection in a process titled: “Notice by 1st and 2nd Respondents of Intention to rely on Preliminary Objection brought pursuant to Order 10, Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court” wherein it gave the Appellant notice that they shall raise a Preliminary Objection. to the hearing of this appeal and shall seek for the order to dismiss or strike out the appeal in its entirety.

     

    Issue(s) for determination

    The Appellant formulated three issues for the determination of the appeal viz:

    Issue 1: Whether the learned trial judge of the Court below was right when he held that the order for the nullification of primary election is not within the purview and contemplation of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, (sic) 2010 as amended. (GROUNDS 1 and 2).

    Issue 2: Was the learned trial judge right in not nullifying the Imo West Senatorial District primary election of the 1st Respondent conducted on 7/12/2014 and declaring the Appellant the candidate of the 1st Respondent for the Imo West Senatorial District Election held in April, 2015. (GROUND 3).

    Issue 3: Whether the learned trial judge was right when he failed to consider the substantive suit after the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ preliminary objection was upheld and does this failure not amount to denial of Appellant’s right to fair hearing. (GROUND 4).

    N:B The Court said “in line with the settled position of the law in respect of Preliminary Objection to an appeal, the Court is duty bound to first resolve the Respondents’ Preliminary Objection as upholding same could result in the non-entertainment of the appeal on the merit.” The case ofGARBA (RTD) V. MOHAMMED (2016) LPELR – 40612 (SC) was called in reference and on this note, the Court dealt with Respondents’ Preliminary Objection first.

     

    Respondent’s argument

     

    The grounds for the objection as set out in the Preliminary Objection are:

    The Appellant has failed to appeal against the ratio decidendi of the decision of the lower Court.

    Grounds 1 and 2 of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal are foundation of the decision; not the ratio decidendi of the decision of the lower Court.

    Grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the grounds of appeal do not relate to the decision of the lower Court.

    The Appellant in his brief of argument, argued issue 1 (formulated from competent grounds 1 and 2) together with issue 2 (formulated from incompetent ground 3).

    The Appellant distilled issue 3 from incompetent ground 4 of his grounds of appeal.

    The Appellant is in his brief seeking very different reliefs from what he pleaded and claimed at the lower Court and in his notice of appeal filed on 20th July, 2016.

    The appeal is manifestly incompetent.

    This Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.”

    While canvassing the first and second legs of the Preliminary Objection together, the Respondents stated the position of the law to be that the ratio decidendi of a case is the principle of law upon which the case was decided. According to him, it is this principle (ratio decidendi) that is binding on the parties that can be the subject of an appeal; not an obiter dictum. The Respondents posited that the holding of the trial Court with respect to their Preliminary Objection and as contained on page 459 of the record of Appeal shows that grounds 1 and 2 in the notice of appeal are issues relating to the foundation of the decision, i.e. interpretation of Section 87(9) by the trial Court preparatory to making its pronouncement and not the ratio decidendi.

    In arguing the grounds of the Preliminary Objection, Respondents’ counsel, in respect of grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the notice of appeal said the grounds do not arise from live issues at the trial and not any hypothetical assumption by the Appellant. It is the stance of the Respondent that ground 3 which is to the effect that the trial Court failed to nullify the primary election of the 1st Respondent cannot be said to have arisen from the objection before the trial Court and which was the only matter the said Court pronounced on. The Court was consequently urged to strike out ground 3 and issue 2 formulated therefrom for being incompetent. Dwelling on ground 4 which the Respondents said complains about failure of the trial Court to consider the substantive suit, the Respondents submitted that this ground like ground 3 also erroneously presupposes that the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit but refused to hear and determine the substantive matter. Further, the Respondents pointed out that grounds 3 and 4 are also incompetent for contradicting each other and since the Appellant cannot approbate and reprobate, Respondent urged the Court to strike out grounds 3 and 4.

    On ground 5, the omnibus ground, it is the stance of the Respondent that the said ground is designed to allow a complaint on the evaluation of evidence and it encompasses complaint of improper evaluation of evidence but that as the trial Court did not consider the substantive case, ground 5 cannot be said to have arisen from the judgment of the trial Court and is therefore incompetent and liable to be struck out. It was further pointed out that since the Appellant has not distilled any issue from the said ground, the ground is liable to be struck out since the position of the law is that any ground of appeal upon which no issue has been distilled and upon which no argument has been canvassed is deemed abandoned by an appellant and deserves to be struck out.

    Respondents submitted that the Appellant’s argument in his brief on issue 1 (formulated from competent grounds 1 and 2) together with issue 2 (formulated from incompetent ground 3) should be stuck out in its entirety since Appellant has argued both issue 1 and issue 2 together. It was Respondents’ submission that the position of the law is that where an issue formulated from an incompetent ground of appeal is argued in the brief of argument with those formulated from competent grounds, the entire argument on both issues must be discountenanced. That it is not the duty of the Court to extract arguments in respect of the valid grounds from the invalid ones.

    Also dwelling on issue 3 distilled from what they described as incompetent ground 4, the Respondents equally urged the Court to strike out the said issue as the position of the law is that issues for determination must be distilled from only competent grounds of appeal. It is respondents’ stance that an incompetent ground of appeal cannot give birth to a competent issue for determination, similarly, issues for determination distilled or framed from incompetent grounds of appeal which has been struck out, share the same fate with grounds of appeal which gave rise to them and such issues will be struck out.

    Conclusively, Respondents posited that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal since same is manifestly incompetent and the Court was urged to strike out this appeal in its entirety.

     

    Appellant’s argument

    Appellant adopted and relied on the portion of their reply brief in respect of the Preliminary Objection to the appeal and urged the Court to overrule same and allow the appeal.

    In response to grounds 1 and 2 of the Preliminary Objection, Appellant submitted to the effect that grounds of appeal consist of all the attacks and complaints against the judgment of a trial Court being appealed against and which an appellant relies on in urging an appellate Court to dismiss the judgment of the trial Court. It was canvassed by the Appellant that the grounds of appeal can be on the final decision, the finding of a Court, the reason for the decision, the omission in the judgment, a mistake or error found in the judgment and everything which the appellant feels is the reason why the judgment of the trial Court cannot be allowed to stand. It is Appellant’s contention that as long as the grounds relate or have a link to the issues canvassed before the trial Court or the judgment of the Court, they are competent and shall not be struck out by the Court.

    The Appellant also submitted that a ground of appeal is not rendered incompetent if it is not lifted verbatim ad literatim from the judgment of the Court; or if it is couched in the language of the appellant. That as long as it relates to the decision of the Court or what the Court could have decided or acted upon; it is a valid ground of appeal. Cases considered relevant including that of Akpan v. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 421, were cited in aid of the submissions. Appellant therefore posited that grounds 1 and 2 in the notice of appeal are competent.

    Dwelling specifically on the Respondents attack on his ground 5, i.e. the omnibus ground of appeal, the Appellant submitted that the Respondents have displayed a total misconception of the omnibus ground of appeal. That an omnibus ground of appeal is a general ground which does not attack a specific finding of a trial Court and therefore to that extent needs no issue to be formulated therefrom as it is a ground which is general in terms and cases considered relevant were cited in aid.

    In relation to his argument of issues 1 and 2 together, the Appellant submitted that it was proper to do so.

    In concluding, the Appellant posited that the arguments of the Respondents in respect of his (Appellant’s) grounds of appeal are unduly technical and this Court was urged to discountenance the Preliminary Objection in its entirety as it is quite unmeritorious.

     

    Court’s findings

    The Court observed that though an appeal is not a new action vis-à-vis the one from which it has arisen but its continuation; as it is a complaint against the decision of the trial Court, it must not only be initiated by a notice of appeal embodying the appellant’s grounds of appeal and particulars, but the complaint in the ground or grounds must be relevant to the decision appealed against and not to any matter which is not subject of the appeal. The case of FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LTD (2010) LPELR – 1283(SC) was cited.

    The Court went on to say that the settled position of the law has always been and still remains that where a notice of appeal is defective in a fundamental manner; such as where all the ground(s) in the notice are not valid or proper ground of appeal in that they are not distilled in relation to the decision appealed against, this Court (notwithstanding any appeal to the interest of the justice in the appeal) is invariably left with no option than to strike out such a notice.

    In determining Respondent’s argument that the grounds of the Notice of appeal are unconnected with the decision of the trial Court appealed against, the Court herein looked into the motion for Preliminary Objection filed by respondents at the trial Court and the Court said that a party cannot disclose in his notice of appeal that he is appealing against a particular decision of the trial Court in a proceeding and go about formulating grounds of appeal in respect of another decision of the Court in the same proceeding.

    The court found that grounds 1 and 2 are glaringly connected with the decision of the said trial Court that is the subject of the instant appeal and therefore competent. However, in respect of grounds 3 to 5 the Court held that they all relate to matters in respect of which the trial court never made pronouncement in that it never considered the substantive case before it on the merit. Consequently, grounds 3-5 are incompetent as it is not related in any way to the decision of the trial Court appealed against and same were struck out.

    In the same vein, the court stated that the issues distilled from the grounds namely, issues 2 distilled from ground three and issue 3 distilled from ground 4 must and are hereby struck out having been distilled from incompetent or invalid grounds of appeal. The cases of ACHONU V. OKUWOBI (2017) LPELR – 42102 (SC); DREXEL ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES LTD. V. TRANS INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD (2008) LPELR – 962(SC), (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 388 (SC); and BALIOL NIGERIA LTD. V. NAVCON NIGERIA LTD (2010) LPELR – 717(SC), (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 619 (SC); were referenced.

    On the propriety or otherwise of the Appellant arguing issue 1 formulated from grounds 1 and 2 (which have been held to be valid grounds) together with issue 2 distilled from ground 3 (which has been struck out for incompetence, the Court upheld Respondents’ argument to the effect that by arguing together the competent issue 1 and incompetent issue 2, it has rendered the arguments on both the issues liable to be discountenanced by the Court. Resultantly, the arguments in relation to Appellant’s issues 1 and 2 were discountenanced.

    Flowing from above, grounds 3 – 5 in the notice of appeal have been struck out; and issues 2 and 3 distilled from grounds 3 and 4, having also been struck out; and arguments on issues 1 and 2 having been discountenanced, the appeal is left bare and without issues for its determination.

     

    Held

    The Preliminary Objection of the Respondents to the appeal was upheld. Consequently, the appeal was struck out for being incompetent. No order was made as to costs.

     

    • Copyright: Lawpavilion(2017) LPELR-42881(CA)

  • Appellant can’t use other court’s decision as appeal ground

    Before their Lordships
    Raphael Chikwe Agbo J.c.a
    Ayobode Olujimi Lokulo-sodipe J.c.a
    Ita George Mbaba J.c.a
    Between
    Hon. Eze Ama Nwa-Uwa …………………………………….. Appellant(s)
    And
    Peoples Democratic Party (Pdp)
    Senator Hope Uzodinma
    Independent National Electoral
    Commission                     ……………………………………….. Respondents
    Suit No: Ca/Ow/263/2016

    Lead Judgment Delivered by Ayobode Olujimi Lokulo-sodipe, J.c.a.

     

    Concise facts

    This is an appeal against the judgment delivered on 25/4/2016 by the Federal High Court holden in the Owerri Judicial Division.

    The Appellant (then Plaintiff) by way of Originating Summons, commenced the case leading to this appeal against the Respondents (then defendant). Appellant’s grouse was based on the conduct and outcome of the primary elections conducted by the People Democratic Party (PDP)(1st Respondent) for the selection and nomination of a candidate to represent the party in the 2015 National Assembly election for the (Orlu) Senatorial District, Imo State.

    By a motion filed on 21/4/2015, the Respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit. On 25/4/2016, the trial Court duly delivered its judgment wherein it upheld the preliminary objection of the 1st and 2nd Defendants therein (now 1st and 2nd Respondents) challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the substantive matter and struck out the Appellant’s suit in limine.

    This decision greatly aggrieved the Appellant and he subsequently lodged this Appeal.

    The Respondents raised a Preliminary Objection in a process titled: “Notice by 1st and 2nd Respondents of Intention to rely on Preliminary Objection brought pursuant to Order 10, Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court” wherein it gave the Appellant notice that they shall raise a Preliminary Objection. to the hearing of this appeal and shall seek for the order to dismiss or strike out the appeal in its entirety.

     

    Issue(s) for determination

     

    The Appellant formulated three issues for the determination of the appeal viz: –

    Issue 1: Whether the learned trial judge of the Court below was right when he held that the order for the nullification of primary election is not within the purview and contemplation of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, (sic) 2010 as amended. (GROUNDS 1 and 2).

    Issue 2: Was the learned trial judge right in not nullifying the Imo West Senatorial District primary election of the 1st Respondent conducted on 7/12/2014 and declaring the Appellant the candidate of the 1st Respondent for the Imo West Senatorial District Election held in April, 2015. (GROUND 3).

    Issue 3: Whether the learned trial judge was right when he failed to consider the substantive suit after the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ preliminary objection was upheld and does this failure not amount to denial of Appellant’s right to fair hearing. (GROUND 4).

    N:B The Court said “in line with the settled position of the law in respect of Preliminary Objection to an appeal, the Court is duty bound to first resolve the Respondents’ Preliminary Objection as upholding same could result in the non-entertainment of the appeal on the merit.” The case ofGARBA (RTD) V. MOHAMMED (2016) LPELR – 40612 (SC) was called in reference and on this note, the Court dealt with Respondents’ Preliminary Objection first.

     

    Respondent’s argument

     

    The grounds for the objection as set out in the Preliminary Objection are: –

    The Appellant has failed to appeal against the ratio decidendi of the decision of the lower Court.

    Grounds 1 and 2 of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal are foundation of the decision; not the ratio decidendi of the decision of the lower Court.

    Grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the grounds of appeal do not relate to the decision of the lower Court.

    The Appellant in his brief of argument, argued issue 1 (formulated from competent grounds 1 and 2) together with issue 2 (formulated from incompetent ground 3)

    The Appellant distilled issue 3 from incompetent ground 4 of his grounds of appeal.

    The Appellant is in his brief seeking very different reliefs from what he pleaded and claimed at the lower Court and in his notice of appeal filed on 20th July, 2016.

    The appeal is manifestly incompetent.

    This Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.”

    While canvassing the first and second legs of the Preliminary Objection together, the Respondents stated the position of the law to be that the ratio decidendi of a case is the principle of law upon which the case was decided. According to him, it is this principle (ratio decidendi) that is binding on the parties that can be the subject of an appeal; not an obiter dictum. The Respondents posited that the holding of the trial Court with respect to their Preliminary Objection and as contained on page 459 of the record of Appeal shows that grounds 1 and 2 in the notice of appeal are issues relating to the foundation of the decision, i.e. interpretation of Section 87(9) by the trial Court preparatory to making its pronouncement and not the ratio decidendi.

    In arguing the grounds of the Preliminary Objection, Respondents’ counsel, in respect of grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the notice of appeal said the grounds do not arise from live issues at the trial and not any hypothetical assumption by the Appellant. It is the stance of the Respondent that ground 3 which is to the effect that the trial Court failed to nullify the primary election of the 1st Respondent cannot be said to have arisen from the objection before the trial Court and which was the only matter the said Court pronounced on. The Court was consequently urged to strike out ground 3 and issue 2 formulated therefrom for being incompetent. Dwelling on ground 4 which the Respondents said complains about failure of the trial Court to consider the substantive suit, the Respondents submitted that this ground like ground 3 also erroneously presupposes that the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit but refused to hear and determine the substantive matter. Further, the Respondents pointed out that grounds 3 and 4 are also incompetent for contradicting each other and since the Appellant cannot approbate and reprobate, Respondent urged the Court to strike out grounds 3 and 4.

    On ground 5- the omnibus ground, it is the stance of the Respondent that the said ground is designed to allow a complaint on the evaluation of evidence and it encompasses complaint of improper evaluation of evidence but that as the trial Court did not consider the substantive case, ground 5 cannot be said to have arisen from the judgment of the trial Court and is therefore incompetent and liable to be struck out. It was further pointed out that since the Appellant has not distilled any issue from the said ground, the ground is liable to be struck out since the position of the law is that any ground of appeal upon which no issue has been distilled and upon which no argument has been canvassed is deemed abandoned by an appellant and deserves to be struck out.

    Respondents submitted that the Appellant’s argument in his brief on issue 1 (formulated from competent grounds 1 and 2) together with issue 2 (formulated from incompetent ground 3) should be stuck out in its entirety since Appellant has argued both issue 1 and issue 2 together. It was Respondents’ submission that the position of the law is that where an issue formulated from an incompetent ground of appeal is argued in the brief of argument with those formulated from competent grounds, the entire argument on both issues must be discountenanced. That it is not the duty of the Court to extract arguments in respect of the valid grounds from the invalid ones.

    Also dwelling on issue 3 distilled from what they described as incompetent ground 4, the Respondents equally urged the Court to strike out the said issue as the position of the law is that issues for determination must be distilled from only competent grounds of appeal. It is respondents’ stance that an incompetent ground of appeal cannot give birth to a competent issue for determination, similarly, issues for determination distilled or framed from incompetent grounds of appeal which has been struck out, share the same fate with grounds of appeal which gave rise to them and such issues will be struck out.

    Conclusively, Respondents posited that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal since same is manifestly incompetent and the Court was urged to strike out this appeal in its entirety.

     

    Appellant’s argument

     

    Appellant adopted and relied on the portion of their reply brief in respect of the Preliminary Objection to the appeal and urged the Court to overrule same and allow the appeal.

    In response to grounds 1 and 2 of the Preliminary Objection, Appellant submitted to the effect that grounds of appeal consist of all the attacks and complaints against the judgment of a trial Court being appealed against and which an appellant relies on in urging an appellate Court to dismiss the judgment of the trial Court. It was canvassed by the Appellant that the grounds of appeal can be on the final decision, the finding of a Court, the reason for the decision, the omission in the judgment, a mistake or error found in the judgment and everything which the appellant feels is the reason why the judgment of the trial Court cannot be allowed to stand. It is Appellant’s contention that as long as the grounds relate or have a link to the issues canvassed before the trial Court or the judgment of the Court, they are competent and shall not be struck out by the Court.

    The Appellant also submitted that a ground of appeal is not rendered incompetent if it is not lifted verbatim ad literatim from the judgment of the Court; or if it is couched in the language of the appellant. That as long as it relates to the decision of the Court or what the Court could have decided or acted upon; it is a valid ground of appeal. Cases considered relevant including that of Akpan v. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 421, were cited in aid of the submissions. Appellant therefore posited that grounds 1 and 2 in the notice of appeal are competent.

    Dwelling specifically on the Respondents attack on his ground 5, i.e. the omnibus ground of appeal, the Appellant submitted that the Respondents have displayed a total misconception of the omnibus ground of appeal. That an omnibus ground of appeal is a general ground which does not attack a specific finding of a trial Court and therefore to that extent needs no issue to be formulated therefrom as it is a ground which is general in terms and cases considered relevant were cited in aid.

    In relation to his argument of issues 1 and 2 together, the Appellant submitted that it was proper to do so.

    In concluding, the Appellant posited that the arguments of the Respondents in respect of his (Appellant’s) grounds of appeal are unduly technical and this Court was urged to discountenance the Preliminary Objection in its entirety as it is quite unmeritorious.

     

    Court’s findings

     

    The Court observed that though an appeal is not a new action vis-à-vis the one from which it has arisen but its continuation; as it is a complaint against the decision of the trial Court, it must not only be initiated by a notice of appeal embodying the appellant’s grounds of appeal and particulars, but the complaint in the ground or grounds must be relevant to the decision appealed against and not to any matter which is not subject of the appeal. The case of FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LTD (2010) LPELR – 1283(SC) was cited.

    The Court went on to say that the settled position of the law has always been and still remains that where a notice of appeal is defective in a fundamental manner; such as where all the ground(s) in the notice are not valid or proper ground of appeal in that they are not distilled in relation to the decision appealed against, this Court (notwithstanding any appeal to the interest of the justice in the appeal) is invariably left with no option than to strike out such a notice.

    In determining Respondent’s argument that the grounds of the Notice of appeal are unconnected with the decision of the trial Court appealed against, the Court herein looked into the motion for Preliminary Objection filed by respondents at the trial Court and the Court said that a party cannot disclose in his notice of appeal that he is appealing against a particular decision of the trial Court in a proceeding and go about formulating grounds of appeal in respect of another decision of the Court in the same proceeding.

    The court found that grounds 1 and 2 are glaringly connected with the decision of the said trial Court that is the subject of the instant appeal and therefore competent. However, in respect of grounds 3 to 5 the Court held that they all relate to matters in respect of which the trial court never made pronouncement in that it never considered the substantive case before it on the merit. Consequently, grounds 3-5 are incompetent as it is not related in any way to the decision of the trial Court appealed against and same were struck out.

    In the same vein, the court stated that the issues distilled from the grounds namely, issues 2 distilled from ground three and issue 3 distilled from ground 4 must and are hereby struck out having been distilled from incompetent or invalid grounds of appeal. The cases of ACHONU V. OKUWOBI (2017) LPELR – 42102 (SC); DREXEL ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES LTD. V. TRANS INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD (2008) LPELR – 962(SC), (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 388 (SC); and BALIOL NIGERIA LTD. V. NAVCON NIGERIA LTD (2010) LPELR – 717(SC), (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 619 (SC); were referenced.

    On the propriety or otherwise of the Appellant arguing issue 1 formulated from grounds 1 and 2 (which have been held to be valid grounds) together with issue 2 distilled from ground 3 (which has been struck out for incompetence, the Court upheld Respondents’ argument to the effect that by arguing together the competent issue 1 and incompetent issue 2, it has rendered the arguments on both the issues liable to be discountenanced by the Court. Resultantly, the arguments in relation to Appellant’s issues 1 and 2 were discountenanced.

    Flowing from above, grounds 3 – 5 in the notice of appeal have been struck out; and issues 2 and 3 distilled from grounds 3 and 4 respectively, having also been struck out; and arguments on issues 1 and 2 having been discountenanced, the appeal is left bare and without issues for its determination.

     

    Held

     

    The Preliminary Objection of the Respondents to the appeal was upheld. Consequently, the appeal was struck out for being incompetent. No order was made as to costs.

     

    • Copyright: Lawpavilion(2017) LPELR-42881(CA)

     

     

     

     

  • Anambra: The Obaze appeal

    In the build-up to the Anambra State governorship election for 2014, Oseloka Henry Obaze [OHO] was actually the first choice of the party faithful to succeed Peter Obi. His primacy was informed by the need to entrust the state to competent hands that would continue the great work of consolidating the giant strides the state had recorded with the celebrated Anambra State Integrated Development Strategy [ANIDS]. It was a great struggle for those that desired a continuation of good governance in the state and those who wanted a candidate that would be amenable to their selfish interests.  Today, everybody is living with the consequences. That is, however, a story for another day.

    Anambra State that was acknowledged as the leading light on all indices of development is now a shadow of its old self. The good news coming from the state today is that Oseloka Henry Obaze is contesting to become the governor again. In 2013 when he first showed interest, Chuks Iloegbunam, one of the aides to Governor Willie Obiano, actually praised him enviously. Writing then from an unaffected position, Iloegbunam pronounced Obaze the best candidate in 2013 way above Willie Obiano, among others. He revealed how he did a character profile of Obaze and came to the conclusion that he was the best qualified. Practically begging the people of the state to vote for Obaze, he drew attention to a popular Igbo that he translated thus: “It will be impolitic to ditch the venue of a chieftaincy celebration simply to pitch camp at the propitiation of the god of recklessness”. Iloegbunam wrote then from a neutral platform.

    I have been part of the present campaign of this great man who comes from a rich pedigree of education, exposure and experience. He worked under three presidents before joining the United Nations system. His career in the UN was admirably paraphrased by the then UN Secretary-General, Banki Moon: “You have proven yourself as a most dedicated, dependable and competent staff member. Throughout your service, you have unfailingly upheld the highest standards of efficiency, competence required of an international civil servant”.

    Listening to OHO as he campaigns rekindles one’s faith in the feasibility of restoring Anambra to the right path. He says many things, all of which are issues-based. I have accompanied him to nearly all the 21 Local Government Areas of the state and his messages have remained consistent; marshalling out policy options his administration will pursue, if elected.

    Strongly committed to real governance, he has done his homework which people can see. Among others, his commitment to human capital development is reflected in his pledge to allocate 26% of the budget of Anambra State to education; letting us know and realize it is the universal requirement among developing countries. Indeed, under the administration of Mr. Peter Obi, great attention was paid to education and series of concrete actions taken that elevated Anambra State from number 26 to first in external examinations [NECO and WASC].

    Throughout the ages, discerning and wise men have held education dearly. When asked to differentiate between the educated and the uneducated, Aristotle said the difference was as that between the living and the dead even as Aristophanes said it was as that between broken and unbroken horses. It was also not a joke that on seeing an uneducated man seated on a stone, Zeno laughed and declared: “Behold a stone seated on top of another stone”.

    Oseloka Obaze is just not reeling out policy options and expectations, but also reveals the realistic modalities to achieve the great re-birth. Still on education, he says: “If I become the governor, education will be free from primary school to JSS 3. From the money budgeted for education, we shall also engage in serious programme of certification and re-training of the youths geared toward skills acquisition. We shall also commit 10% of the money to church-owned schools because they train the people of Anambra State”.

    OHO was part of the “brain box” behind Peter Obi in the implementation and execution of policies. It pains him that the richly crafted and well-executed policy to support the aged – those above 75 years who are not retirees and who do not have people they depend on – has become a conduit pipe for self-enrichment. Under an Obaze administration, the policy will be restored in accordance to its pristine objectives.

    Obaze is also committed to affordable health care provision on the classical Hippocratic principle. “The Physician”, Hippocrates wrote, “should maintain a becoming exterior. Sometimes he should give his services for nothing, and if there is an opportunity of saving a stranger who is in financial straits, he should give his assistance, for where there is love of man, there is also love of the art”. Considering those in real emergencies and are denied medical care because of money, Oseloka says his administration would introduce a legislation that would ensure that doctors and other medical professionals attend to real emergencies the way they should be. To back it up, he also assured: “We shall set up a care foundation with the initial deposit of N1 billion. We shall get wealthy organizations and individuals to contribute to that. The charity, to be administered by honest Anambrarians, will assist in hospital payment for those in real need”.

    As far as Oseloka Obaze is concerned, electioneering is not about throwing tantrums. He has evidently meditated on so many problems facing Anambra State and has come up with well laid-down programme of action to tackle them. He is exasperated with the antics and diversionary tactics of those who fail to recognize the great need to re-build an Anambra State that Governor Willie Obiano has shattered almost beyond recognition. OHO, therefore, lets us see the reason he is interested in replacing him.

    From the vantage position of a principal participant in government, he talks about monies that have accrued to the treasury of Anambra State since Obiano assumed office in 2014 –  N75 billion left in the treasury by his predecessor; N60 billion borrowed secretly by Obiano; Internally-Generated Revenues; over N455 billion appropriated in the budgets of 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017; Paris Club refund; special budget support money given to states by the federal government – and which have been squandered as there is nothing on ground to show for them.

    OHO talks about the flight of decorum and propriety from Government House, Awka; governance by billboards and false claims as in Ugu, Onugbu and yam exports; elevation of propaganda to an industry with Obiano enjoying the monopoly. He draws attention to the abandonment of all on-going projects and total absence of government in the state except in Aguleri, the governor’s home town.

    OHO cautions the people of the state not to be deceived by the movement of caterpillars and bull-dozers to project sites for election purpose; and asks what Obiano has been doing in nearly four years. He raises the issue of crass nepotism that has become the order of the day, where over 50% of Obiano’s aides came from the same town; which is antithetical to the development of a state where everybody will have a sense of belonging.

    He correctly asserts that he remains the best candidate to repair the so many wrongs wrought on the state and its people.

    A man of integrity and compelling force of equity and justice, OHO has made it clear that he would serve only one term, and make way for other zones to take their turn.

    With Obaze, hope is rekindled for Anambra State. The people listen to him in incredible fascination, for no one speaks to them with such obvious honesty and a clear purpose. The lash of his tongue is mostly directed at bad governance. Those of us who know him and have worked with him are relieved that very soon we shall bury an orgy and crown a saint.

     

    • Obienyem wrote from Agulu, Anambra State.

     

  • Appeal to ASUU

    Appeal to ASUU

    Sir: I can remember vividly that 2009 was the last time the Academic Staff Union of Nigerian Universities (ASUU) hit the war path with an indefinite strike. However the drumbeats of war have been reverberating since this regime came to power.

    In August 2016 and January 2017, warning strikes were launched as the first salvos of warning shots across the bow of the citadels of learning. And the grouse of the lecturers is palpable as “change” has robbed the nation’s higher institutions of their last vestigial remnants of glory.

    Lecturers have been on half pay since APC came to power. One wonders if this is a deliberate punishment or an act of negligence, but this shows the premium the regime places on higher learning. Investment into the nation’s educational citadels has not been forthcoming.

    Billions have been poured down the drain pipe of looking for oil in the North with nothing to show for it, when only a fraction of that amount could have revamped the nation’s universities.

    And the regime cannot claim that there is no money. Besides what have they done with all the billions they claim to recover every day from looters?

    Boko Haram is running around causing havoc because the Northern elite denied the vast majority of its people qualitative higher education. One can imagine the devastation across the land if another protracted ASUU strike ensues. Female students may embrace full time prostitution while their male counterparts may become armed robbers and kidnappers after all, an idle mind is the devil’s workshop.

    One can only implore ASUU to temper justice with mercy. Please have mercy on the youths of the land. They are the grass that will suffer when the two elephants of ASUU and the federal government start fighting. To open conflict with the administration will only attract the usual propaganda that ASUU is now a tool of the opposition PDP and in a flash the police and

    DSS will be unleashed to give striking lecturers the Charly Boy VIP treatment.

    Better for everyone including lecturers to bear the hardship in silence and guard their voter’s card jealously.

    2019 General Elections is just 16 months away and that’s the ideal platform to vent all anger at this regime. But please ASUU half the indefinite strike. The nation will definitely collapse if you do.

     

    • Usman Mohammed,

    Chenche House,

    Lapai-Niger State.