The Nation Newspaper

Tag: appeal

  • Burkina Faso to appeal Pitroipa dismisal

    Burkina Faso to appeal Pitroipa dismisal

    The Stallions of Burkina Faso will give a fight to see that the Confederation of African football rescind the red card handed to their star striker Jonathan Pitroipa in the 2013 Africa Cup of Nations semi final duel with Ghana on Wednesday 6 February 2013, futaa.com has gathered.

    Leading the call for a reversal is the Stallions captain Charles Kabore who argued that Pitroipa’s red card for diving which makes him eligible for Sunday’s African Cup of Nations final against Nigeria was wrong.

    Pitroipa was shown a second yellow and sent off in the final few minutes of extra time of Wednesday’s victory over Ghana, leaving the underdog Burkinabes without their two best attacking threats for their first ever African final.

    Alain Traore was already out with injury, while Kabore and coach Paul Put both disagreed with Tunisian referee Slim Jdidi’s decision to send off Pitroipa and rule him out of the decider after he went down in the penalty area.

    Kabore said -that video must be reviewed, while Put called the second yellow card for diving “ridiculous.”

    CAF is yet to make any statement on the issue as many have rated the officiating at this year’s Afcon quite low.

  • Oni’s appeal suffers setback

    Oni’s appeal suffers setback

    Ousted Ekiti State “Governor” Segun Oni’s appeal against yesterday.

    The matter could not be heard because the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mariam Aloma-Mukhtar, observed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and its officers, who were joined as respondents, were not served the hearing notice.

    Oni’s counsel Chief Joe Kyari-Gadzama (SAN) told the court that INEC was a nominal party but deserved to be heard in the interest of fair hearing.

    He urged the court to grant a short adjournment because of the nature of the case.

    Ekiti State Governor Kayode Fayemi’s counsel John Baiyeshea (SAN), who appeared with Femi Falana (SAN), did not oppose.

    Justice Mukthar adjourned the case till March 5.

    Oni is praying the court to set aside the Appeal Court judgment, which removed him from office and declared Fayemi governor.

    The Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, gave the judgment on October 15, 2010.

    The appellants (Oni and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)) filed a motion on March 14, 2011, at the Court of Appeal, Ado- Ekiti Division, seeking to set aside the judgment.

    On February 27, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application.

    Dissatisfied, the appellants went to the apex court.

    Oni is challenging his removal on grounds that the suspended President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami, who constituted and presided over the panel, and wrote the judgment sacked him, had close affinity with the National Leader of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and former Lagos State Governor Bola Tinubu.

    Oni alleged that Salami was biased and favoured the ACN.

    In the brief submitted on behalf of Oni by Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN), he argued that bias was enough ground to set aside a judgment.

    He said: “Bias or likelihood of it makes a decision a nullity and is therefore a sufficient ground for the lower court to set aside its own judgment.”

    In a preliminary objection, Baiyashea said the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

    He said: “This court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, being an appeal emanating from the decision of the court below in the governorship election petition of Ekiti State arising from the 2007 governorship election, to which Section 246 (3) of the 1999 Constitution is applicable.

    “This application is not only frivolous and an abuse of court process, it is a subterfuge for an appeal in the governorship election petition of Ekiti State, from which no appeal lies to this court under the constitutional provision that was then applicable.

    “Furthermore, the issues formulated on the purported notice of appeal in the brief of argument of the appellants do not relate to the grounds of appeal, in that they are completely at variance with the purported grounds of appeal.

    “These are multiple errors and or blunders, which in our humble opinion, with due respect, have rendered this appeal incurably bad, grossly incompetent and liable to be dismissed.”

     

  • Ex-banker suspends hunger strike after Fashola’s appeal

    A former employee of Hallmark Bank Plc Mr Olubiyi Odunaro, who has been on hunger strike for 14 days over non-payment of his terminal benefits has suspended his action following an appeal by the Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola.

    The governor promised to intervene in the human rights aspect of the matter before Odunaro agreed to suspend the action.

    A delegation from Fashola, along with officials from the Lagos office of the Public Complaints Commission urged Odunaro to suspend the strike.

    Fashola’s Senior Special Assistant on Justice Sector Reforms, Lanre Akinsola, who ledof governemnt officials to the tent Odunaro had turned to his home on Mobolaji Bank Anthony Way, Lagos, promised to intervene.

    Akinsola said: “The attention of the Lagos State Government was drawn to the various media reports about the protest being embarked upon by Odunaro and it’s quite pathetic.

    “Governor Fashola, who was worried about his state of health, formed an inter-ministerial committee comprising medical, legal and welfare officials and directed me to lead the team to  persuade him to end his hunger strike.

    “As a responsible government, we don’t want a dead casualty in our hands as a result of this protest. Once he ends this protest, we would first provide him medical service while the Lagos State Directorate of Citizens Rights would engage the authorities concerned in a comprehensive dialogue.”

    Akinsola said the Lagos State Attorney- General and Commissioner for Justice, Ade Ipaye, had promised free legal services to Odunaro and other ex-workers of non-consolidated banks seeking the payment of their entitlements if the negotiations become unfruitful.

    In his words, “We will mediate and talk to the right people and we believe reason will prevail in this matter and if not, lawyers from the Lagos State Ministry of Justice will work in conjunction with the lawyer of the group and ensure that justice prevails and everyone of them gets their entitlement.”

  • Appeal Court crisis: It’s a question of character

    Appeal Court crisis: It’s a question of character

    Since the suspension of the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Ayo Salami, in August 2011 and the crisis that action unleashed, the National Judicial Council (NJC) has vacillated between wary avoidance of confrontation with the executive branch and studious reluctance to defend its independence and integrity. This may be because the judiciary is unlike a trade union or a political party where radicals and hotheads tend to dominate affairs and cultivate fame. The best that sometimes comes out from the judiciary resembling radicalism is what some legal scholars and analysts have nebulously described as judicial activism, a term even the late Justice Kayode Esho once questioned its appropriateness.

    After sustaining the illegality of appointing and reappointing Justice Dalhatu Adamu as acting president of the Court of Appeal for a record five times of three months in each instance, much to the discomfiture of the NJC and stakeholders in the judiciary, President Goodluck Jonathan has eventually found a novel way of perpetuating that illegality and making it look and sound like progress and resolution. He has appointed Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa as the acting president of the appellate court. Reports indicate the appointment was based on the recommendation of the NJC. Were the eminent justices intimidated? Did their consciences not prick them? Unlike the serial reappointment of Justice Dalhatu, only one of which was approved by the NJC, Bulkachuwa’s appointment, it seems, followed the letter of the law.

    Let us briefly remind ourselves of the genesis of the crisis in the Court of Appeal. After the March 2010 arrest of the Appeal Court’s (Sokoto Division ) verdict in the governorship election dispute between the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) candidate, Alhaji Maigari Dingyadi, and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Alhaji Aliyu Magatakarda Wammako, a face-off ensued in which the PCA, Justice Salami, alleged unhealthy influence and unethical behaviour by the then Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu. The Salami allegation unleashed a maelstrom on the judiciary, leading the NJC to recommend to the president the PCA’s suspension. Both the NJC resolution, which was reportedly controversial, and Katsina-Alu’s readiness to cut NJC’s nose to spite its face in turn created more crises and disaffection within the body and armed the executive branch to unconstitutionally meddle in the affairs of the appellate court.

    Not only has the Sokoto verdict stayed unprecedentedly arrested since 2010, making a mockery of justice in Nigeria and lowering the country in the esteem of the civilised world, politicians have managed to instigate court-ousted and disaffected governors in the Southwest to petition the manner their defeat in the appellate court arising from the 2007 elections in Osun and Ekiti States came about. It is also recalled that Justice Bulkachuwa, who is now the acting president of the appellate court, was involved in the Sokoto governorship petitions (which sat in Kaduna at the time) when, leading other justices, she gave a defiant denunciation of the shenanigans that accompanied the Wammako victory. Even though she denounced the subterfuge that procured victory that victory in the 2007 governorship election in a brilliant and stirring judgement, and that election probably triggered the main crisis in the appellate court, it is doubtful whether there is anything substantial she can do to reclaim the integrity of the court.

    With the appointment of Justice Bulkachuwa, the message is clear. The presidency has somewhat temporarily salved its conscience long tormented by its disloyalty to the constitution. The presidency is not driven by a passion for justice or logic. It is driven solely by politics and by private and distorted expediency. At least, now, it has bought time, and may even have stumbled into some sort of less reprehensible solution, which rotating the presidency of the appellate court in acting capacity offers. All these manoeuvres are doubtless designed to prevent Justice Salami from regaining the court’s presidency, for he is rigid in favour of the law and indifferent to the blandishments of the ruling party or its bullying methods, and is arguably a veritable palladium of judicial rectitude and activism, if we can agree on the meaning of the term. After all, we recall that for more than one year after the Sokoto rerun in 2008, the then PCA, Justice Umaru Abdullahi, refused to constitute the appeal panel to hear the Dingyadi petition. Salami daringly did it soon after he became the PCA.

    As embarrassing as the crisis in the appellate court is to everyone, especially a simple majority of the NJC, an overwhelming majority of members of the Court of Appeal, and the rest of the country, there may never be an administrative solution. Ignoring Katsina-Alu, his successor had made a determined attempt to redress the wrong. The Appeal Court, the sick physician, is powerless to cure itself. A vast majority of legal experts and practitioners watch in total helplessness, and tens of millions of Nigerians, minus of course the presidency, are left bewildered. But if there cannot be a solution to the mess in the appellate court, we must at least understand why. I do not think the lack of resolution has anything to do with lack of knowledge; we have enough brilliant minds to chart a way out. I do not think it has anything to do with political, legal or bureaucratic power; we have enough instruments to redeem the law and repair the damage to our image if we choose.

    The problem, I think, is the lack of character in high office. When you observe a country drifting, it is because men of character have not assumed office. When you see a community, family or an organisation embracing expediency, do-or-die tactics, or Machiavellianism, it is because their leadership are unscrupulous, unprincipled, and even sometimes diabolical. The appellate court crisis endures because there are no people of character in critical and sensitive positions in the judiciary and in the presidency to make the difference – people who have a passion for the country, for justice, for humanity, and who have a great and lofty vision for the future. President Jonathan talks endlessly about patriotism, the rule of law, fairness, equity and justice. The Appeal Court crisis was the perfect opportunity to put his money where his mouth was when he assumed the presidency. He chose not to. More than that, he in fact muddied the waters further, encouraged himself in the unreasoned choices advanced by sycophants and court jesters, and engendered a situation that may undermine his legacy for life. It requires an unfathomable depth of understanding and character to appreciate these consequences.

    Up till now, Salami’s predecessor, Justice Umaru Abdullahi, has not offered persuasive reason for not constituting the appeal panel in 2009 to hear the case arising from the Sokoto governorship rerun. Justice Dahiru Musdapher, on becoming the CJN, resolved to get Salami reinstated. We may never know what transpired when he and Salami presented themselves before Katsina-Alu, except to appreciate that it was his word against Salami’s when both gentlemen gave their versions of the then CJN’s attempt to influence the Sokoto governorship petition verdict. But Musdapher failed to achieve Salami’s reinstatement because even he recognised the behemoth he had to move to get the job done. He knew the president was ready to fight to sustain the injustice against Salami, and anyone who wanted a different outcome had to be prepared to fight to the death. If, as Salami suggested, Musdapher could not and did not fight Katsina-Alu, would it not be expecting too much to nudge him into an even bigger and messier fight with the president, especially a president not deterred by constitutional niceties and patriotic zeal, and the full weight of executive wrath?

    When Justice Mariam Aloma-Mukhtar assumed office as the CJN, her genuine words and honest body language indicated she wanted to resolve the Salami stalemate. But with the recommendation by the NJC to the president to appoint Justice Bulkachuwa as acting president of the appellate court, that resolve seems to have collapsed. There does not seem to be any elbow room left for her or anyone else to manoeuvre. She and her fellow justices in the NJC and Federal Judicial Service Commission will have to stomach the continuing indignity of being treated shabbily by an imposing and excessive presidency. Katsina-Alu’s unprincipled and undignified actions played into the hands of the executive; now the consequences will linger far longer than the acquiescent justices in the NJC projected. Would to God a Ribadu had been CJN.

    Now, how would a man of character resolve the logjam? Isn’t Palladium asking for too much, nay, the impossible? Indeed, what could Bulkachuwa do when neither Musdapher nor Aloma-Mukhtar could land even one limp blow on the presidency’s gloating face? First, I think a man of character could do so much, in fact limitless much. Second, I think Palladium is not asking for too much. It is when choices like these face a man in high office, and he makes the right call, that history is made. It is not Palladium’s fault that Jonathan and the justices that have yielded to his assault have no sense of history, not to talk of sense of a country’s great future. In any case there are two options. One is for Bulkachuwa to have declined the appointment based on the principle of not profiting from a moral and historical wrong. If she had taken this option, would there not have been countless others angling for the post and jumping at it if offered? There would of course be; though if in theory they all had a sense of history and all of them declined the nauseous offer, the president could not hope to keep the ineffective Justice Dalhatu for much longer without precipitating a major crisis capable of consuming even the presidency itself. Moreover, if Justice Bulkachuwa declined the offer and others accepted, it would be impossible for any apostate to conduct himself in clear conscience.

    The second option is to accept the offer and hope that one’s meagre principles would suffice to give some fair amount of decent leadership to a distressed and reluctant, if not disoriented, Appeal Court. Since somebody has to take the position anyway, it is argued, better it should be taken by someone who can to some extent still call his soul his own. To decline the position and let it be taken by an arrantly acquiescent justice is to further push the beleaguered appellate court into the abyss. I suggest there is no one who would not tremble just considering how shorn of choices our country’s parched moral landscape has made us. It is indeed a reflection of our troubles that the Supreme Court did not have unanimity over this crisis, nor did the appellate court, nor did the NJC, nor most importantly did the presidency. As the judicial subterfuge to enthrone favoured judges in Kogi and Adamawa States a few years back showed, we are in far deeper trouble than we imagine.

    I get very angry when we tamely excuse our failings, when we use extenuating circumstances to condone our lack of character, when we suggest joining a bad gang to activate reform from within that soulless bunch, when we use our perennial impecuniosity to justify our crass behaviour, and when because of our religious, ethnic and class preferences we colour arguments, deny truth and logic and pervert the cause of justice and fair play. I have no patience for Jonathan’s fancy footwork on the Court of Appeal crisis; and I am not amused by the depth of infamy the justices have made us to plumb, nor of the consequences their betrayal will bring upon us and future generations.

     

  • Okereke-Onyiuke: Hearing in appeal stalled

    Okereke-Onyiuke: Hearing in appeal stalled

    The absence of judges at the Court of Appeal, Lagos, yesterday stalled the hearing of an appeal by former Director-General of the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) Prof. Ndidi Okereke-Onyiuke.

    Ms Okereke-Onyiuke is challenging the High Court’s assumption of jurisdiction in the N3.3billion theft charge brought against her by the Lagos State Government.

    The prosecution accused her of stealing the money from the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE).

    Her lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), told Justice Christopher Balogun that the case was slated for hearing yesterday.

    The judge, while dismissing her application for a stay of proceeding, said he would allow some time to enable the appeal to be heard before further proceedings resume.

    However, no cases came up for hearing yesterday as the judges were said to be away.

    The Lagos State Government filed two charges, accusing Ms Okereke-Onyuike, her deputy, Lance Musa Elakama and six others of alleged N3.3 billion theft while on the Exchange.

    The others are Creative Financial Services Limited, Mining System Limited, OPDC Properties Limited, OAK Business and Finance Company Limited, Uzoma Henry Onyekuru and Kingdom Securities and Finance Company Limited.

    In one of the charges, the state said the former DG and Elakama on or about June 20, 2008 conspired to steal various sums, property of the Exchange.

    Ms Okereke-Onyiuke had sought to stay proceedings in the matter pending the determination of the appeal.

    But Justice Balogun held that Section 273 of the state’s Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL), 2011, prohibits suspension of proceedings in a criminal trial.

    He said the position of the law was that a court must treat a statute as it is without adding or subtracting.

    Justice Balogun said he was not entitled to remove or add anything to the law.

    According to the judge, the words used in the section are “clear and unambiguous,” therefore the court would not “derogate from the provisions of the law.”

    He stated that going by the letters of the law, no criminal matter can be suspended both at the Magistrates’ Courts and at the High Court in Lagos.

    “This is the position of the law in Lagos State as regards criminal matters.

    “The application for stay of proceedings brought by the defendant, dated May 11, is thereby refused and dismissed,” he decided.

    Justice Balogun, however, said he was aware that the defendants had filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos, against his assumption of jurisdiction on March 23.

    He said he would defer to the Court of Appeal by continuing hearing in the case later.

    Justice Balogun adjourned hearing till December 4.

  • Woman nominee for Appeal Court dropped

    Woman nominee for Appeal Court dropped

    •New judges sworn in

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mariam Aloma Mukhtar, yesterday did not swear in Justice Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo listed for elevation to the Court of Appeal.

    She was among the 12 justices approved by President Goodluck Jonathan for elevation.

    Although no official reason was given for the action, The Nation gathered that she was not sworn-in due to a petition against her nomination.

    A source said Justice Jombo-Ofo was opposed because she is not from Abia State which she claims to represent on the bench.

    According to a statement from the Supreme Court, Justice Jombo-Ofo, who was called to bar in 1979, was appointed a High Court judge on November 4, 1998.

    Those sworn in yesterday are: Justice Ibrahim S. Bdliya, who was called to bar in 1976 and appointed a High Court Judge on 20th August, 1987; Justice Abiriya James Shehu, called to bar in 1979 and subsequently appointed a High Court Judge on 17th September, 1993 and Obietonbara O. Daniel-Kalio who was called to Bar and became a High Court Judge in 1981 and October 30, 1995 respectively.

    Others are Justices Onyekachi Otisi, called to Bar in 1980 and sworn in as a High Court Judge in November, 1998; Stephen Jonah Adah, called to Bar in 1982 and appointed a High Court Judge on 12th November, 1998; Tinuade Akomolaje-Wilson who was sworn in on May 3, 1999 having being called to Bar in 1975; and Fatima O. Akinbami who was called to Bar in 1977 and sworn in as High Court Judge on May 12, 1999.

    The rest are Justices Habeeb Adewale Abiru who was called to Bar in 1985 and appointed to the High Court in May 2001; Peter Olabisi Ige, sworn in as High Court Judge on 27th June, 2001 following his call to Bar in 1985; Tijani Abubakar, called to bar in 1985 and sworn in as a High Court Judge in 2004; and Emmanuel Agim who was sworn in as a High Court Judge in 2008.

    The CJN advised the appointees to adhere to the ethics of the profession and to discharge their duties without fear or favour.

     

  • Flood victims appeal to Uduaghan

    Our homes are no more; our farmlands and cash crops have been washed away by the flood. We have nothing left, but we believe our governor, Dr. Emmanuel Uduaghan, can make a difference. We need help.

    That was the position of residents of Obecha-Utchi, Ndokwa-East Local Government Area of Delta State, after flood submerged their houses and wasted their farms and cash crops.

    The community is situated by the bank of the River Niger.

    Leaders of the community, under the aegis of Obecha Development Union (ODU), articulated the residents’ plight in a letter sent to the state governor, copies of which were also delivered to Senator Ifeanyi Okowa (Delta North Senatorial District); Hon. Ossai Ossai (member of the House of Representatives, representing Ndokwa/Ukwuani Federal Constituency), and the Presidential Committee on Flood Disaster, Abuja.

    In the letter, the ODU leadership, including the oldest man in the community, Chief Obi Chiejina, its president Elder Paul Nwose, and six others informed Governor Uduaghan and others of “the destruction of properties in Obecha-Utchi community by the flood in September and October 2012.”

    The community leaders said their settlement is “ravaged by massive coastal erosion and flood” every year because of its location, but emphasised that the residents have never experienced such destruction as they did this year.

    Part of the letter read: “The havoc occasioned by the September and October flood from River Niger is catastrophic and unprecedented in the annals of history. The destruction affected houses, ancient landmarks, economic trees, farmlands, plantain plantations, cassava farms, livestock, fishponds, and other infrastructure.

    “Due to the flood, our people whose main occupation is farming and fishing are prone to diseases. Hunger and starvation are a clear challenge; we are in dire need of relief materials.”

    No fewer than 136 residents of the community were said to be directly affected by the flood, some losing their houses or farms and cash crops. The community leaders estimated the losses at N146 million.

  • Bakassi: Why Nigeria won’t appeal ICJ verdict, by govt

    Bakassi: Why Nigeria won’t appeal ICJ verdict, by govt

    Failed case will be diplomatically damaging, says Attorney-General

    Advocates of a fresh legal action over Bakassi lost the battle last night.

    The Federal Government last night declared that it will not appeal the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the ceding of the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.

    The decision was communicated in a statement by Attorney General of the Federation Mohammed Adoke.

    The nation’s number one law officer said after consultations locally and with an international firm, he decided not to explore the window of appeal because “an application for a review is virtually bound to fail.”

    Besides, a failed application for review by Nigeria “will be diplomatically damaging to Nigeria”.

    The government’s position reflects The Nation’s exclusive story last Friday that the government had decided not to appeal the ruling. It was a day that many newspapers reported that government had decided to appeal the judgement.

    Government said yesterday that it did not have any new evidence to enable it successfully challenge the judgment.

    The full text of the Attorney general’s statement is as follows:

    “It will be recalled that on 10th October 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered judgment in Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, which covers about 2000 kilometres extending from Lake Chad to the Sea. It will also be recalled that before the judgment was delivered, President Olusegun Obasanjo, GCFR of Nigeria and President Paul Biya of the Republic of Cameroon gave their respective undertaking to the international community to abide by the judgment of the Court.

    “The commitment and undertakings given by both Heads of Government were confirmed by the establishment of the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission (CNMC) pursuant to the Joint Communiqué adopted at a Summit Meeting on 15 November 2002 in Geneva. The CNMC is composed of the representatives of Cameroon, Nigeria and the United Nations and is chaired by the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for West Africa.

    “The CNMC has held 29 Sessions since its inception and has peacefully, amicably and successfully:

    (a) brought Cameroon and Nigeria back to negotiation table;

    (b) supervised the handing over of 33 ceded villages to Cameroon and 1 to Nigeria in December, 2003 and received 3 settlements and territory in Adamawa and Borno States Sectors from Cameroon in 2004;

    (c) initiated the Enugu-Abakiliki-Mamfe-Mutengene Road project as part of the confidence building measures between the two countries;

    (d) supervised peaceful withdrawal of Civil Administration, Military and Police Forces and transfer of authority in the Bakassi Peninsula by Nigeria to Cameroon in 2008 in line with the modalities contained in the Greentree Agreement signed by Cameroon and Nigeria in 2006 which the United Nations, Germany, USA, France, UK and Northern Ireland witnessed; and

    (e) commenced the emplacement of boundary beacons/pillars along the land boundary and initiated final mapping of the whole stretch of the boundary. It is instructive to note that about 1800 kilometres of the boundary have so far been assessed for Pillar Emplacement leaving only about 220 km to complete the assessment of the entire boundary.

    “The Greentree Agreement was also signed by H. E. Paul Biya, and President President Olusegun Obasanjo GCFR, on 12 June, 2006, in Long Island, Greentree, New York, USA; reaffirming their willingness to peacefully implement the judgment of the ICJ. The Agreement contains the modalities for withdrawal and transfer of authority in the Bakassi Peninsula by Nigeria to Cameroon in pursuance of the ICJ Judgment.The Follow-Up Committee comprising representatives of Nigeria and Cameroon wasestablished to monitor the implementation of the Agreement and settle any dispute regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Agreement. Nigeria handed over the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon in 2008.

    “The Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that the Judgment of the Court is final and without appeal. However, following the resolutions of both Houses of the National Assembly calling on the Executive to take steps to apply for a review of the judgment, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan called a Stakeholders meeting comprising the leadership of the National Assembly, the Governors of Akwa Ibom and Cross River States, the Members of the National Assembly from both States, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Director General, National Boundary Commission to review the situation.

    “The Stakeholders Meeting after due deliberations constituted a Committee comprising the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Attorney General of the Federation, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Director General, National Boundary Commission and Members of the National Assembly namely: Senator Victor Ndoma Egba, Dr. Ali Ahmed and Nnena Ukaje to examine the issues in contention and available options for Nigeria including, but not limited to the application for review of the ICJ Judgment, appropriate political and diplomatic solutions.

    “Although the judgment of the ICJ is final and not subject to appeal, the ICJ Statute provides for circumstances under which its judgment can be reviewed. The relevant provisions are:

    (a) Article 61 (1) which provides that the Court can review its judgment upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was due not to negligence;

    (b) Article 61 (4) which stipulates that application for revision must be made at least within six months of the discovery of the new fact, and

    (c) Article 61(5), which provide that no application for revision may be made after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the judgment.

    “The implication of the above provisions of the ICJ Statute is that a case for revision of the judgment of the court can only be successful if:

    (a) the application for revision is based on the discovery of a new fact;

    (b) the fact must have existed prior to the delivery of the judgment;

    (c) the newly discovered fact must be of a decisive nature; and

    (d) the party seeking revision (Nigeria) and the Court, must not have known of the fact at the time of the delivery of the judgment.

    “The Committee proceeded to examine the case for revision against the requirements of Article 61 of the ICJ Statute and was constrained to observe from the oral presentations made to it by the proponents of the revision that the strict requirements of Article 61 could not be satisfied. This is because theirpresentation was unable to show that Nigeria has discovereda decisive fact that was unknown to her before the ICJ judgment, which is capable of swaying the Court to decide in its favour.This is more so as most of the issues canvassed in support of the case for a revision of the ICJ judgment had been canvassed and pronounced upon by the ICJ in its 2002 judgment.

    “The Federal Government also retained a firm of international legal practitioners to advise on the merits and demerits of the case for revision. The firm after considering all the materials that were placed at its disposal against the requirements of Article 61 of the ICJ Statute came to the reasoned conclusion that “an application for a review is virtually bound to fail” and that “a failed application will be diplomatically damaging to Nigeria”.

    11. In view of the foregoing, the Federal Government is of the informed view that with less than two days to the period when the revision will be statute barred (October 9, 2012), it would be impossible for Nigeria to satisfy the requirements of Articles 61(1) -(5) of the ICJ Statute.Government has therefore decided that it will not be in the national interest to apply for revision of the 2002 ICJ Judgment in respect of the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria.

    “Government is however concerned about the plight of Nigerians living in the Bakassi Peninsula and the allegations of human rights abuses being perpetrated against Nigerians in the Peninsula and is determined to engage Cameroon within the framework of the existing implementation mechanisms agreed to by Nigeria and Cameroon in order to protect the rights and livelihoods of Nigerians living in the Peninsula. Nigeria will also not relent in seeking appropriate remedies provided by international law such as the invocation of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ; Petitioning the United Nations Human Rights Council and good offices of the United Nations Secretary General which has played pivotal role in ensuring the peaceful demarcation and delimitation of the boundary between the two countries and other confidence building measures and calls on the United Nations to continue to provide assistance to the affected populations.

    “Finally the Federal Government wishes to assure all Nigerians especially the people living in the Bakassi Peninsula of its determination to explore all avenues necessary to protect their interests including but not limited to negotiations aimed at buying back the territory, if feasible, the convening of bilateral meeting of the Heads of State and Government to ensure protection and development of the affected population.In the meantime, we call on all well meaning Nigerians in the Bakassi peninsula to be law abiding and to allow the various initiatives being undertaken by the Federal Government to bear fruitful results.”

     

  • Tension in Bakassi ahead appeal deadline

    Tension in Bakassi ahead appeal deadline

    Barely 48 hours to the deadline allowable for the review of the 2002 judgment on the ceding of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has rejected an application by a law firm in Nigeria to appeal on behalf of some aggrieved people.

    The ICJ said only states (sovereign governments), can file an application before it.

    This development has also put legal obstacles before Bakassi Support Group which has engaged Mrs. Cherie Blaire’s International Legal Consultancy firm, Omnia Strategy LLP, on the review.

    Also, the Federal Government has got a legal advice from London counseling Nigeria against any move to review the judgment.

    The government got security report that tension was already mounting in the Peninsula with Cameroon determined to protect the place.

    An Abuja-based law firm, Victory and Rose Associates had through its lead partner, Barrister Ugochukwu Osuagwu, written ICJ on its plans to seek a review of the 2002 judgment on Bakassi.

    The letter reads in part: “With barely two weeks to the expiration of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), ruling which ceded Bakassi Peninsular and other territories to Cameroon on October 10, 200 2, my firm wishes to lodge a review over the judgment.

    “We therefore seek permission to file an application to review the said judgment delivered in favour of Cameroon against Nigeria.”

    But in its response, the ICJ said only states(sovereign governments or nations) could file an application before it.

    The ICJ through its Information Department said: “In reply to your e-mail, I have to inform you that the International Court of Justice is not authorised, in view of its functions strictly defined by its Statute (Article 34) and Rules, to give advice or make observations on questions such as those raised in your communication.

    “The Court’s activities are limited to rendering judgments in legal disputes between States submitted to it by the States themselves and giving advisory opinions when it is so requested by UN organs or specialized agencies of the UN system.

    “It follows that neither the Court nor its Members can consider applications from private individuals or groups, provide them with legal advice or assist them in their relations with the authorities of any country.

    “That being so, you will, I am sure, understand that, to my regret, no action can be taken on your communication. Yours faithfully, Information Department, International Court of Justice.”

    A source, yesterday, said: “By implication, the Bakassi Support Group which has hired Mrs. Cherie Blair cannot seek any review without applying through the Federal Government.

    “What the Bakassi Support Group is trying to achieve is to internationalise its agitation and probably pressurise the Federal Government to back its request for review.

    “But the President has tried to be as transparent as possible by raising a committee, headed by the Attorney-General of the Federation to look into fresh factors and documents being canvassed by Cross River State and other agitators.

    “In the last 72 hours, the Federal Government Committee has not received relevant documents to be evaluated.

    “The counsel to the Cross River State Government, Mrs. Nella Andem-Rabana, has so much relied on the fact that the 1913 Anglo/German Treaty which ceded Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon was not signed.

    “This same evidence was tendered at the ICJ between 1994 and 2002 where it was confirmed that the treaty was actually ratified. We cannot go back to argue on the same issue of which judgment had been delivered.”

    Meanwhile as Bakassi Support Group was hiring Mrs. Blair’s firm, the Federal Government has also sought legal advice from experts in London.

    Another source added: “The legal advice has been received, it does not support any application for a review of the judgment at all.

    “The Bakassi Support Group has forgotten that the judgment of the ICJ covered alignment of borders from Lake Chad to the Atlantic Ocean.

    “With Lake Chad involved in the judgment, there is also need to protect the border interest of some Northern states too. No one is talking about protecting these Northern states.

    “That is why we are saying that the issues surrounding the judgment have to do with maritime and land boundaries. How do you seek a review for one part of the country without carrying the other part along? Have they forgotten that some Nigerian villages around Lake Chad were also relocated.

    “So, there is no way Blair’s firm could go to ICJ for a review without the consent or authority of the Federal Government. There are no facts known to law as I am talking to you for Nigeria to make a U-Turn on the ceding of Bakassi.

    As at press time, it was gathered that there had been tension in Bakassi Peninsula with Cameroon ready to protect the place that was handed over to it in 2008.

    A government source added: “We have got reports about tension in Bakassi Peninsula, but we are trying to manage the situation so that there won’t be crisis between Cameroon and Nigeria.

    ‘The Cameroonian Government is determined to protect the Peninsula. We are suspecting that it is moving troops towards the area to secure the place.”

    Notwithstanding, the Cross River State Government and other support groups have explained why they are adamant on the review.

    A document prepared by Andem-Rabana(SAN) which was also submitted to President Goodluck Jonathan reads in part: “Cameroon does, of course, dispute Bakassi’s current status as part of Nigeria. But, as Nigeria has shown, there is no doubt that historically Bakassi is Nigerian. Nigeria’s forerunners in this area were the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. They were not just a miscellaneous group of undeveloped tribes. They were, rather, an entity with recognized sovereign status. Within their territory, they ruled with sovereign authority.

    “With the outside world, they conducted their relations through an extensive network of treaties including treaties both with Great Britain and other European States. Nigeria’s Counter Memorial contains a long, but even so not necessarily complete, list of such treaties.

    “The Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar exercised their sovereign authority over a large area around the Calabar Estuary. That authority extended a considerable distance to the East. The Bakassi Peninsula was therefore clearly within their domains. Of that there can be no doubt.

    “One must therefore ask, Mr. President, what can have happened to change that clear position. Nigeria’s answer is simple-nothing. A century ago, Bakassi was clearly and admittedly Nigerian; the same remains true today. Bakassi was, and still is, Nigerian territory.

    “Cameroon is misguided in its legal arguments and this is equally apparent from a simple statement of what those arguments amount to.

    “In the first place, they involve giving weight to a series of proposed agreements as if they had entered into force but they never did enter into force.

    “In the second place they involve the astounding proposition that a State can give to another State something-in this instance, a piece of territory-which the first State does not itself have.

    “Mr. President, there can be few, if any , legal principles more universally respected than that expressed in the maxim memo dat quod non habet.

    “Yet Cameroon wishes this Court to agree that Great Britain, which did not have sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula, could nevertheless give that territory to Germany and thus, later to Cameroon.”

     

  • UNIJOS lecturers, students appeal for funds

    Lecturers and students of the University of Jos (UNIJOS) have appealed to the National Assembly to appropriate adequate funds to the university in next year’s budget.

    The appeal was made through a member of House of Representative from Buruku federal constituency, Benue state, Rt. Hon. Emmanuel Yisa Orker-Jev when he came to deliver alumni lecture in the school.

    During the university’s distinguished alumni lecture with the theme: “The Role of Lawyers in a Fast Changing World” Students of the Law Faculty demanded improved funding of the institution from the federal government to prevent the production of half-baked graduates.

    One of the students, who called himself Damilola said the university lacks requisite facilities to deliver quality education.

    “We want the national assembly members to realise that we students are facing serious challenge in our studies because the university lack basic facilities to enhance our studies. Studying law in modern world require basic Internet facilities and it is only improve funding that can give them such advantage”

    Another Law student, Michael Josiah said, “Our hostel is not conducive, we lack modern law books in the library and access to Internet facilities which is central to our studies is lacking.”

    Lecturers of the Law Faculty told the lawmaker that UNIJOS has stagnated for 20 years and requires emergency funding intervention before it collapses. In his lecture, Rt. Hon. Orker- Jev, an alumnus, agreed that the university had stagnated and promised to present the problem to the National Assembly.

    He said, “It is obvious the school has stagnated because it is the same facilities in use when I studied here 20 years ago that I am seeing today as guest lecturer. It means the school facilities has not improve in the last 20 years.

    “Now that I have seen things myself, I will go back to the National Assembly and work with the committees on education so as to ensure something is done urgently in next year’s budget.”