The Nation Newspaper

Tag: appeal

  • Appeal court dismisses PDP appeal against Otti

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri, on Thursday dismissed two separate but similar appeals brought to it by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) Dr. Alex Otti, and his party, APGA.

    The appeals originated from a decision of the Abia State Governorship Election Tribunal, sitting in Umuahia, in a unanimous judgment of a five-member panel of justices of the Court of Appeal.

    The court, which earlier struck out three out of the four issues raised by the PDP before dismissing the appeal, agreed that  the entire appeal is premature, as same is based on complaint against a ruling  which the tribunal has not yet delivered.

    It further stated that there is no infringement of the rights to fair hearing of the appellant, as they were rightly heard by the trial tribunal before ruling was adjourned within the 180 days stipulated by the constitution.

    Addressing newsmen at the end of the judgment which lasted for about one hour, counsel to Alex Otti and APGA, Nwala  Chukwudi Oracle Esq, said what the Appeal court did was giving effect to and affirming the sanctity of Paragraph 12 (5) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act.

    He further said that the Appeal court could not have gone any other way than to confirm that the trial tribunal has the powers to take all preliminary motions along with the substantive petition. ‘’As a matter of fact, Paragraph 12 (5) is intended to reflect the sui

    generis nature of election matters.  The spirit and intendment of that paragraph is to suppress the mischief of delaying the election petition proceeding by ensuring that preliminary objections, whether on jurisdiction or not, raised in the course of the proceedings, did not derail the determination of the merit of a case by undue and unwarranted delays occasioned by preliminary objections.

    It will be recalled that on 3rd of September, the same Appeal court had dismissed a similar suit brought to it by Dr. Victor Okezie Ikpeazu against Dr. Alex Otti on the same basis that it  lacked merit and was a mere academic exercise.

    Meanwhile, the case at the trial tribunal had been adjourned to October 14, 2015 for the adoption of final written addresses of the parties

  • PDP loses appeal against Ashafa’s victory

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos, yesterday, dismissed an appeal on the matter brought by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Mrs. SalisAyodele against the lawmaker representing Lagos East Senatorial District, Senator ‘GbengaAshafa and his party, the All Progressives Congress.

    The victory follows the July 27 dismissal of the election petition filed by the PDP and its candidate in the National Assembly elections earlier this year.

    The decision to file an appeal challenging the verdict of the Justice C.U Anwukah-led tribunal was taken by the PDP candidate, SalisAyodele and her party immediately after the July 27 dismissal.

    The Court of Appeal is the highest level a National Assembly election petition can go.

    In its case at the Court of Appeal, Salis and the PDP had alleged that the judgment of the lower tribunal was erroneous on the grounds that the tribunal erred on many issues in arriving at the decision to dismiss the petition. The PDP also questioned the qualification of the chairman of( the tribunal stating that he was not qualified to sit on the case.( In the final judgement read yesterday by Muhammad Danjuma (JCA), the judgment dismissed the appeal and stated that there was no evidence presented to show cause and prove that the tribunal chairman was not qualified to hold the office.( Counsel for the PDP and SalisAyodele, Barr. OladayoOdunde in his remarks after the judgement was read said “the judgement is a victory for the judiciary no matter the outcome.”( In his own remarks after the victorious judgment, Senator Ashafa said: “The time for politicking has gone and all contenders should sheath their swords. In the spirit of democracy, I extend a hand of friendship to the PDP in Lagos East. Let us work together for the development of our dear state.”

  • Judgment reserved in Agbaje’s appeal against Ambode

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, has reserved judgment in an appeal filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate, Jimi Agbaje, against Akinwunmi Ambode of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The court also reserved verdict in cross-appeals filed by Ambode and APC against some aspects of the lower tribunal’s judgment.

    The Lagos State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal on July 1, upheld Ambode’s victory in the April 11 governorship election.

    The three-man tribunal, led by Justice Muhammad Sirajo, struck out Agbaje’s petition seeking to nullify Ambode’s declaration as winner.

    Ambode polled 811,994 votes against Agbaje’s 659,788.

    Justice Sirajo said the petition by Agbaje and the PDP were defective because they failed to pray for the conduct of a fresh election.

    The tribunal, in a ruling on the consolidated preliminary objection by Ambode and APC, held: “In the instant petition, apart from seeking an order nullifying the election of the second respondent, the petitioner did not ask for an order for fresh election.

    “So if, for instance, the election is nullified, the people of Lagos State will be left in anarchy as no order can validly be made for the conduct of fresh election, same having not been sought for.

    “Where such a prayer is lacking, the petition will be incompetent and academic as even the resolution of such a petition in favour of the petitioner will not confer any utilitarian value on the petitioner(s).”

    Arguing Ambode’s cross-appeal against Agbaje, PDP, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Resident Electoral Commission (REC), Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) said Agbaje and PDP’s petition was “irredeemably defective” because it raised an issue that had no relationship with the reliefs they sought.

    He said the petitioners’ claimed there were “corrupt practices” during the election, which he said differed from what they pleaded.

    “There is no nexus between this particular ground and the reliefs being sought,” Olanipekun said, urging the court to allow the cross-appeal.

    Olanipekun’s contention is that Agbaje and PDP’s petition was incompetent because, according to him, there was nothing in the petitioners’ papers directly challenging Ambode’s victory.

    He said the reliefs they sought were in conflict with Section 285(2) of the Constitution as the grounds and particulars are in opposition to the facts and reliefs being sought.

    Olanipekun contended that there were no grounds challenging Ambode’s election as provided under Section 138(b)(c) of the Electoral Act 2010.

    Opposing the cross-appeal, Agbaje’s lawyer, Mr. G.O Giwa-Amu, said the fact that the election was peacefully conducted does not mean that there were no irregularities.

    “In the circumstance, we urge the court to dismiss the cross-appeal,” he said.

    PDP’s counsel A.M. Kotoye and Chief Richard Oma Ahonaruogho urged the court to dismiss the cross-appeal because Ambode was not qualified to contest the election in the first place.

    Ahonaruogho added that the appeal should be dismissed for being unmeritorious.

    In the second cross-appeal by APC against Agbaje, PDP, INEC, Ambode and REC, APC’s lawyer Kunle Adegoke sought an order setting aside a part of the tribunal’s judgment, as well as an order striking out the petition for being incompetent, having not been based on any ground recognised by the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

    APC said the tribunal was wrong to hold that Paragraphs 14 and 13(b) of the petition, which deal with nomination, are valid grounds for challenging Ambode’s election.

    According to Adegoke, the tribunal erred in law when, having held that Paragraph 14 of the petition is a challenge against Ambode’s nomination, went ahead to hold that it is a valid ground for presenting a petition.

    He argued that any complaint about invalid nomination is a pre-election issue, saying: “Only the Federal or State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain all pre-election matters and the tribunal ought to have declined jurisdiction in respect thereof…

    “The tribunal ought to have held that Paragraph 14 of the petition containing a purported ground is a pre-election matter in respect of which the tribunal has no jurisdiction,” Adegoke said.

    PDP, in its appeal, is contending that the tribunal was wrong to hear and rule on Ambode and APC’s consolidated preliminary objection without dealing with the merits of the substantive petition.

    Kotoye urged the appellate court to dismiss preliminary objections raised by INEC and Ambode against the appeal.

    “I urge your lordships to allow our appeal in the interest of justice,” he said.

    INEC and REC’s lawyer Mr. E.R. Emukpoeruo urged the court to dismiss PDP’s appeal for lacking in merit.

    “It is not enough to pray to nullify an election. There must be an order directing us to conduct a fresh one. The tribunal did nothing wrong. Their action cannot be faulted,” he said.

    APC’s lead counsel, Chief Charles Edosomwan (SAN), also prayed the court to dismiss the appeal.

    “They didn’t say whether they wanted Agbaje declared as governor or whether they wanted a rerun. There was nothing the tribunal could have done,” he said.

  • Appeal to Mimiko

    SIR: I write to plead on behalf of the elderly who make the highest percentage of pensioners in Ondo State. For three months now, they haven’t received their pensions and this is taking its toll on their health and families. How? Their blood pressure is on the increase. This is not far-fetched as they remain benefactors to some of their children who are still dependent on them due to the high rate of youth unemployment in the country.

    Sir, the stipend they get may seem intangible to you, but it helps alleviate the cost of feeding their families and also pay part of their exhorbitant PHCN bills.

    It is inevitable you would cease to be governor one day, you don’t want the children of these pensioners to remember you as a governor who didn’t pay pensions and who allowed their parents develop complications from high blood pressure as a result of  being denied their pensions at the appropriate time.

    Remember one of your favorite songs during your campaigns which translated means, God’s words are like proverbs especially when you sit comfortably to eat your three square meals from government coffers everyday.

    Sir, elections are now over, let us live in the world of reality. Do not dim the sun in the sunshine state. Let us all keep it shining by doing what is right and pleasing to God.

     

    • Anonymous,

    Akure, Ondo State.

  • Dolphins appeal to security forces

    Dolphins appeal to security forces

    General Manager of Dolphins Football Club, Joe Johnson has called on security forces in the state to provide better service to state run football clubs.

    Speaking in view of recent development in the state, Johnson said the football clubs need more concentration and focus and the attacks on them will do more harm than good to the players and state as a whole.

    “We remember that just about a week ago the coach of Sharks FC, Gbenga Ogunbote was attacked by unknown gun men, an incident that left him hospitalized for five days. His attackers are yet to be apprehended.

    “Just yesterday (Thursday), our own coach, Stanley Eguma escaped from the claws of armed young men at the Port Harcourt Liberation Stadium just as the team was rounding off its training session and this is not cheering news at all,” Johnson said.

    “If we are not guaranteed security, our training sessions will definitely be affected and subsequently our CAF Confederation Cup games,” he added.

  • Alumni appeal for funding

    Alumni appeal for funding

    The National President of the Ladoke Akintola University of Technology (LAUTECH) Alumni Association, Babajide Bewaji, has appealed to Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola, who is also the university’s Visitor, to help the school.

    Bewaji made the appeal in a statement in Ibadan yesterday. He said kudos should be given to Aregbesola, who had showed  commitment in the education sector.

    The statement reads:” it is obvious that there is dwindling allocation of resources from the centre to the states which has stagnated the financial strength due to sharp and sudden fall in oil price in the international community.

    “Government intervention at this stage is very critical  to avoid and avert a lingering crisis among various unions on campus, which could result in making the students vulnerable and exposed to the inherent danger in the coming election where they become tools in the hands of desperate politicians.”

  • Mutiny: Appeal to President Jonathan

    Mutiny: Appeal to President Jonathan

    SIR: I am deeply concerned with the case of the 54 Nigerian soldiers convicted of mutiny and sentenced to death by a court martial. The men, part of the Special Forces division ordered in August to retake three lost towns in Borno State were found to have refused to fight the terrorists.

    The facts on ground, however does not justify blatantly killing them.  On July 9, after the extremists reportedly killed 26 military personnel and seriously injured 82, the soldiers reportedly demanded to be properly armed. The point is – we are not sure if that happened. And whilst the front-line troops have consistently complained that they lack weapons and other ammunitions needed to face Boko Haram, the insurgents are known to have tanks, rocket-propelled-grenade-launchers and other heavy weaponry. It is obvious that venturing into such combat would have been a suicidal mission for these young men.

    In a similar case in September, 12 soldiers were sentenced to death for mutiny after firing at their commanding officer in Maiduguri. Since the lower-ranked soldiers have continued to bemoan the non-provision of weapons, it would suffice to say that there must be an atom of

    truth from what they are saying.

    As the Commander-in-Chief, I (with other passionate Nigerians) appeal to you to intervene and help save the lives of these young men. It will be grave injustice to kill soldiers who made a legitimate demand for equipment to fight the insurgents. The 54 Nigerian families shouldn’t be deprived of their joys anytime soon. Alongside other 43 soldiers on trial and those previously sentenced to death, let justice on the part of the military be tempered with mercy. We shouldn’t lose more Nigerians on the altar of Boko Haram. Nigeria must not shed their blood.

     

    • Prince Ifoh,

    Lagos

  • Appeal Court to hear suit over Abuja property

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja will on January 21 next year hear suit over a property dispute involving a former Nigerian Envoy to South Africa, Ambassador Shehu Malami and businessman, Sir Emeka Offor.

    The dispute is over the ownership of a land in highbrow Asokoro, Abuja on which a Nigerian in Diaspora, Mr. Imokhuede Ohikhuare built two duplexes, but which Malami, claims ownership and claimed to have transferred to Offor.

    A three-man panel of justices, Justice Abdulkadir Jega (presiding judge), Justice Joseph Tine Tur and Justice Mooren Adumein on October 22 acceded to a plea by Team of Counsel to the Appellant, Mr. Paul Erokoro (SAN), Mr S.I.Ameh (SAN) and Mr Femi Falana (SAN) to withdraw some applications they had before the court, which recent developments in the matter made irrelevant.

    Chief Udechukwu (SAN) lead counsel to Ambassador Malami and Sir Ofor, informed the court that he has already filed an appeal at the Supreme Court ahead of the Court of Appeal hearing of the matter.

    Sir Offor claimed ownership of the property on the strength of an irrevocable power of attorney purportedly given to him by Ambassador Malami.

    In 2006, Ohikhuare, a businessman, bought the land in dispute for the sum of N50 million and built residential apartments valued at over N1 billion on it.

    He was living with his family in the property until he was allegedly ejected with force, on the strength of a verdict by Judge A.S. Umar of the Abuja High Court.

    Ambassador Malami challenged the legality of the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy issued to him on then Plot 865 (now Plot No. 1809) within Cadastral Zone A04) Asokoro, Abuja by the Minister of the FCT and the FCDA.  At the trial court, Malami had claimed that the land was originally allotted to him in 1984, but was unlawfully revoked in October 2005 by the FCDA, which then assigned the same plot to Alhaji Mohammed Habib Aliyu, who eventually sold the land to Mr.Ohikhuare.

  • Court of Appeal Ekiti moves to Ilorin

    Court of Appeal Ekiti moves to Ilorin

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Ado-Ekiti, the Ekiti State capital, has been moved to Ilorin, the Kwara State capital.

    The relocation, which might not be unconnected with recent politically-motivated unrest in the state in the past weeks, would be temporary, according to a source.

    Hoodlums unleashed a series of unrest within the high court premises, which also houses the magistrate and appeal courts.

    Vice chairman, state chapter of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Gbemiga Adaramola, confirmed the reports at the weekend.

    Adaramola said the relocation would take effect from today.

  • Court martial: Three soldiers appeal death sentence

    Court martial: Three soldiers appeal death sentence

    Three of the 12 soldiers sentenced to death on September 15 by a court martial have challenged the rulling at the Court of Appeal, Abuja.

    The men, Igomu Emmanuel, Stephen Clement and Andrew Ngbede  faulted the trial leading to their conviction and urged the court to quash the decision.

    They raised 11 grounds of appeal in their case filed for them last Thursday by their lawyer, Godwin Obla (SAN).

    The appellants said the charge on which they were tried and convicted “is vague, disjointed, imprecise and incoherent”, adding that they did not understand  it.

    They argued that not only were their names not stated on the charge, it also violated Section 36 (6) of the constitution, which entitled an accused to be informed of the details and nature of the offence for which he was charged.

    The appellants further argued that the General Court Martial erred in law and came to a perverse decision by convicting them in respect of the offence of conspiracy and failed to consider the defence of  alibi, which they raised, but which was not investigated by the court martial.

    “The General Court Martial erred in law and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it disregarded the objection of the defence counsel raised before and at the arraignment of the appellants on the defective nature of the charge brought against them.”

    The soldiers said they were charged and convicted at large under Section 114 of the Armed Forces Act and that the charge did not tie the offence they allegedly committed to any of the subsections of Section 114 of the Armed Forces Act.

    They said Section 114 did not define the offence of criminal conspiracy as an offence known to law.

    The appellants argued that the first count of the charge “is ambiguous, uncertain and defective”, because they were charged under Section 114 of the Armed Forces Act, but punished under Section 97 (1) of the Penal Code Law.

    They also faulted the third count of the charge for being “uncertain and defective” because they were charged under Section 95 of the Armed Forces Act, which provided a punishment of life imprisonment if convicted, but were sentenced to death under Section 106 of the Act.

    The appellants said the General Court Martial based its decision on an equivocal, indirect, negative, uncorroborated and suspicious circumstantial evidence in convicting them.

    They said the General Officer Commanding (GOC) 7 Division, Maj.-Gen. Ahmadu Mohammed, whom they were accused of attempting to murder, was not invited by the prosecution to give evidence on the alleged attempt on his life.

    The appellants also noted that no ballistic evidence was produced to show that it was their shot that hit Maj.-Gen. Mohammed’s car.

    They contended that none of the witnesses identified any of them as the person who shot at the GOC’s vehicle, and that the court martial merely relied on circumstantial evidence, which did not lead conclusively and indisputably that any of their shots was the one, if any, that hit the rear right door of the command’s Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV).

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