The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court of Appeal

  • Anambra Central: A/Court upholds Umeh’s election

    …Dismisses Okonkwo’s appeal

     

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld the election of former Chairman of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Victor Umeh as Senator representing Anambra Central Senatorial District.

    A five-man panel of the court held, in a unanimous judgment Monday, that the appeal filed Obiora Okonkwo of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) was without merit, and dismissed it.

    Obiora had appealed the January 12, 2018 ruling by Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in which the judge set aside the court’s earlier judgment of December 13, 2017 ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue a certificate of return to Okonkwo.

    The Court of Appeal, in its judgment, held that Justice Tsoho was right to have set aside the consent judgment it delivered on December, 13, 2017.

    Justice Frederick Oho, who read the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal, held that the lower court was in order in setting aside the judgment because it was a nullity.

    Justice Oho said lower court has the inherent powers to set the records straight by setting aside the consent judgment once it was discovered that there were a lot of infractions leading to the judgment.

    While noting that a court cannot sit as an appeal on its own case, Justice Oho said a court has the power to reverse itself if it discovers that its earlier judgment was obtained by fraud or that it was misled, as is the case here.

    Justice Oho described as sacrilegious events surrounding the December 13, 2017 consent judgment of the Federal High Court.

    He noted that, despite being aware of the decision of the Court of Appeal, ordering  that a fresh election be conducted for the seat within 90 days with the exclusion of the PDP and its candidate, the appellant (Okonkwo), who was the candidate of the PDP, still proceeded to mislead the lower court to give judgment in his favour.

    Justice Oho described the attitude of the appellant as a clear disobedience to the orders of the Court of Appeal. He added Okokwo’s lawyer was duty bound to have furnished the court with all relevant facts in the case including the three judgments by the Court of Appeal.

    He held  that whether the matter is a pre-election or post-election matter, the lower court must always give way to the appellate court on the same issue.

    Read Also: Umeh: My election is victory for APGA, Anambra

  • Extradition: Appeal Court lifts order stopping Sen. Kashamu’s arrest

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division on Friday set aside a Federal High Court order which perpetually restrained the Federal Government from arresting Senator Buruji Kashamu.

    The appellate court also set aside another order which nullified a warrant for Kashamu’s arrest and prevented extradition proceedings from being commenced against him.

    Buruji, who represents Ogun East in the Red Chamber, is wanted by the United States of America (U.S.A) to stand trial for alleged importation of hard drugs into the country.

    On May 25, 2015 Justice Okon Abang of Federal High Court perpetually restrained the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) and other agencies of the Federal Government from “arresting, restraining, detaining, attacking or otherwise effecting the abduction” of Kashamu upon charges based on allegations of drug trafficking levelled against him by the US Government.

    Justice Abang also set aside and nullified a warrant for the Senator’s arrest for extradition proceedings issued by another Federal High Court judge, Justice Saliu Saidu.

    The extradition attempt followed an Extradition Treaty between the Federal Government and the U.S.A.

    But, disatisfied, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) appealed both decisions.

    It argued, through its counsel, Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), that Justice Abang erred in granting some of the injunctive reliefs.

    It urged the appellate court to set aside both lower courts’ judgment on the ground of miscarriage of justice.

    It further claimed that Kashamu suppressed facts before the lower court to secure the restraining order against his extradition.

    But in his counter application of last November 7, Kashamu, through his counsel, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN) and Hakeem O. Afolabi (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the AGF’s appeal.

    In unanimous verdicts on Friday, and in two consolidated judgments, a three-man panel comprising Justices Yagarta Nimpar, Joseph Ikyegh and Anthony Ogakwu, upheld the government’s argument and upturned the lower court’s orders.

    Justice Nimpar, who read the summary judgment, held that the lower court, having struck out several paragraphs in the affidavit relating to allegations that former President Olusegun Obasanjo was behind the Senator’s travails and alleged plans to forcibly extradite him to the US, the same court was wrong to retain other paragraphs of the same affidavit containing hearsay allegations against Mr Dapo Abiodun and Chief Godwin Obla SAN.

    Justice Nimpar observed that the lower court relied heavily on speculations and conjectures in arriving at the judgment “which is not permitted in law.”

    The court berated the lower court for not giving the AGF’s counsel opportunity to file a counter affidavit in opposition to the case file presented by Kashamu, when  under the rules they still had three days to react to the processes.

    This infraction, Justice Nimpar held, nullified the entire proceedings.

    Justice Nimpar held: “The preliminary objection filed by the appellant against the substantive appeals is dismissed as lacking in merits.

    “The appeal filed by the AGF against the ruling of the lower court is not statute barred.

    “The oral statement of threat of abduction and forcibly transporting Senator BURUJI KASHAMU to the US is insufficient having not been backed by concrete evidence.”

  • 18 years after, Supreme Court voids Mobil’s sack of 860 Nigerian staff

    …Orders their immediate re-engagement, payment of outstanding salaries, allowances

     

    The Supreme Court has voided the sack by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited of about 860 Nigerians employed on or before the year 2000 as security officers, but named by the company Supernumerary Police officers (SPY).

    The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment of five justices, held that it was illogical and without legal backing for Mobil to have employed the Nigerians and sought to off-load them to the Nigeria Police through the back door.

    The judgement was on an appeal marked:SC/33/2010 filed by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited against the 2009 Court of Appeal judgment which upheld the Nigerian workers’ claim to being employees of the oil giant.

    The Supreme Court, in the lead judgment by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, but read Friday by Justice John Okoro, upheld the earlier Court of Appeal’s decision in the case, which agreed that the Nigerians, led by Okon Johnson, were and are still Mobil’s staff and should be accorded all benefits.

    The Court of Appeal also ordered Mobil to pay the Nigerian staff all oustanding allowances and salaries from when they were purportedly variously disengaged.

    While summarising the lead judgment, Justice Okoro said: “the summary of the facts is that the 1st to 15 respondents were employed by the appellants as Supernumerary Police officers (SPY) and issued with appointment letters.

    “Thereafter, it (appellants) tried to off-load them (the 1st to 15 respondents) to the Nigeria Police, a decision the Nigerian employees rejected.

    “The court bellow upheld their argument that they are not police officers, but staff of Mobil Nigeria Unlimited

    “So Mobil appealed to this court. And after we have painstakingly looked at all the exhibits before us, including the appointment letters. And we have also looked at the Police Act as it relates to the mode of appointment of SPYs.

    “We agree with the lower court that the respondents were employed by Mobil Nigeria Unlimited as their security staff.

    “There is nothing in the Police Act, which gives Mobil the authority to appoint security officers and then, off-load them to the Nigeria Police.

    “If the Police Council wanted to appoint SPYs it would have done in accordance with the Police Act, which it failed to do.

    “The law is very clear. Whoever wants the services of policemen in its establishment, should apply to the Inspector General of Police (IGP). The IGP would then request for and receive clearance from the President of the country.

    “After receiving clearance from the President, the IGP will now authorise the Police Council to direct the Police Service Commission (PSC) to appoint. That is the way the law puts it.

    “The PSC will now appoint these officers and then, post them to any establishment that requires them.

    “But, in this case, Mobil advertised for recruitment, conducted interview, issued them with appointment letters; and then, gave them that name: Supernumerary Police Officers (SPY).

    “Whatever name you give them, the basis is, who appointed them? So, whoever appointed them is their boss, which is Mobil Nigeria Unlimited.

    “So, this appeal lacks merit and its is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower court is upheld,” Justice Okoro said.

    The apex court also dismissed a similar appeal by the IGP, on the ground that it was unnecessary and a waste of public funds.

    The Nigerian workers were variously employed in early 1990s by Mobil in its security unit. But for unknown reasons, the company chose to refer to them as: “SPY Police of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited,” a decision that later created confusion over the actual status of the workers.

    In 2000 a dispute arose about the status of the security guards, with Mobil claiming to have transferred their employment to the Nigeria Police Force (NPF).

    Mobil claimed it engaged them as SPY police personnel, and not actual staff; a claim the affected workers disputed, with some of them refusing to be transferred out of their stations.

    They (the Nigerian workers) alleged being victimised, with some sacked unceremoniously for insisting on right to being entitled to be treated as other employees of Mobil.

    They further alleged that, aside from being subjected to harsh working condition, they were compelled to sign a document identified as “Mobil Producing Nigeria status agreement for supernumerary police service condition agreement.”

    The workers said although some of them succumbed and endorsed the documents, others stood their ground, and later sought the protection of the court by filing a suit at the Federal High Court, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, marked: FHC/UY/CS/2004.

    In a judgment on January 24, 2006, Justice Gladys Olotu of the Federal High Court (now compulsorily retired by the National Judicial Council) ruled in favour of Mobil.

    The judge said, among others, that although the Mobil did not fully comply with the requirement under the Police Act, in recruiting SPY policemen, it could be assumed that it complied, having substantially complied with some of the regulations

    The Nigerian workers appealed Justice Olotu’s decision at the Court of Appeal, Calabar, Cross River State, which rendered its judgment  on May 21, 2009 a nullity.

    A three-man panel of the Appeal Court, in its May 21, 2009 judgment, held among others, that the Nigerian workers were Mobil’s employees and ordered it to assume its responsibilities as they relate to the Nigerian workers. The panel comprised Justice Kumai Akaahs, Jean Omokri and Theresa Orji-Abadua.

    Justice Orji-Abadua observed, in the lead judgment, that: “It is clear in exhibits D and E (Mobil’s letters to the Police, requesting training for its security recruit) that the 1st respondent (Mobil) was referring to their own security men as Supernumerary Police recruit, and it wanted them to be trained by the Nigeria Police in respect of which it made application to the Commissioner of Police in charge of Cross River State.”

    She noted that: “Section 18(1) & (2) of the Police Act expressly stated the way and manner a supernumerary police officer will be appointed upon the application of the person desiring to take advantage of the services of police for protection of his property. It is clear that any step short of the ones prescribed by the Police Act will be null and void.

    “The appellants were not employed by the Nigeria Police Force and then appointed as Supernumerary Police Officers by the Police Service Commission on the directive of the Inspector general of Police for the protection of the 1st respondent’s property as envisaged by Section 18(1) & (2) of the Police Act.

    “They were and still are the employees of the 1st respondent since there was no affidavit evidence indicating that the appellants’ employment had been determined by the 1st respondent,” Justice Orji-Abadua said.

    Mobil and the IGP appealed the Appeal Court’s judgment separately, the appeals that were dismissed Friday by the Supreme Court for lacking in merit.

    Read Also:ExxonMobil sells 60% stake in Mobil Oil Nigeria to Nipco

     

  • Appeal court freezes Fayose’s Zenith Bank accounts

    ….Nullifies governor’s Victory at Federal High Court

    After a relief of one year and four months, the hammer of the Court of Appeal has fallen on the two accounts of Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose domiciled with the Zenith Bank.

    The appellate court in a judgment on Tuesday ordered that the two accounts be frozen having been convinced by the argument of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) that they are used to keep proceeds of crime.

    The three-man panel led Justice Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh in allowed the appeal of the EFCC and upturned the judgment of the Federal High Court, Ado-Ekiti.

    Other members of the panel are Justice Boloukurumo Moses Ugo and Justice Mohammed Mustapha in the appeal marked CA/EK/8C/2017.

    The judgment of the lower court delivered by Justice Taiwo Taiwo on 13th December, 2016 which unblocked the governor’s two accounts domiciled with Zenith Bank.

    Fayose withdrew N5 million from one of the accounts immediately and transferred the sum of N75 to his lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN).  It was unblocked by the Federal High Court order.

    Dissatisfied with the Ado-Ekiti Federal High Court verdict, the EFCC filed an appeal at the appellate court on three grounds.

    The two accounts had earlier been frozen by Justice Mohammed Shuaibu of Federal High Court, Lagos in an ex-parte motion brought by the EFCC which it was consequent upon investigations that the accounts were being used to keep proceeds of crime.

    On Monday, the EFCC had filed an application before the court to adduce fresh evidence but the court turned down the motion.

    The briefs of the parties in the appeal, the EFCC (the appellant) and Fayose (1st Respondent) and Zenith Bank (2nd Respondent) were adopted with the court adjourning to Thursday for judgment.

    The EFCC in its brief argued that Fayose is a citizen of Nigeria and his accounts could be frozen if they are found to be used to hold proceeds of crime.

    The anti-graft agency contended that the immunity enjoyed by the governor does not preclude his account from being frozen.

    The Appeal Court allowed the appeal and held that Fayose’s accounts which were unblocked by the Federal High Court be frozen.

    The court delivered the judgment upon reading the record of the appeal and after hearing EFCC’s counsel, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo, Fayose’s counsel, Ozekhome and Zenith Bank’s counsel, Mr. Oluwasegun Ayinde.

    Justice Ikyegh ordered: “That the appeal is meritorious and, having resolved all three issues agitated in the appeal in appellant’s (EFCC’s) favour.

    “That the appeal is hereby allowed; that the judgment delivered by Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the Federal High Court, Ekiti Judicial Division, on the 13th day of December, 2016 granting the claims of the 1st Respondent in Suit No: FHC/AD/CS/27/2016 is hereby set aside.”

    Read Also: Fayose’s excesses will spell doom for PDP in Ekiti – Oni

  • Court stays proceedings in Honeywell’s suit against Ecobank

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has suspended the hearing of a N5.5billion debt case between Honeywell Flour Mills Plc, its sister companies and Ecobank Nigeria Limited.

    The companies are praying the court to hold that they are not indebted to Ecobank.

    Justice Mohammed Idris adjourned pending the determination of an interlocutory appeal filed by Ecobank.

    The bank appealed against the judge’s refusal to recuse himself from the case.

    When the case came up for continuation of defence, the bank’s lawyer, Mr Divine Agbua, told the judge that the Court of Appeal directed him to suspend further hearing.

    He said: “The appeal filed by the defendant came up for hearing at the Court of Appeal. Judgment was reserved. They made a directive to await their decision. May I apply that this case be adjourned sine dine (indefinitely). We shall notify your lordship upon delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.”

    Plaintiffs’ counsel Olabode Olanipekun confirmed that the Court of Appeal directed that the case be halted “out of respect for the hierarchy of courts.”

    “My application would be for the court to adjourn, not sine dine, but till a further date for us to report the outcome of the appeal,” he said.

    Ruling, Justice Idris said he would comply with the appellate court’s directive.

    He held: “I have listened to learned counsel. I have read the orders of the Court of Appeal. It is clear that the Court of Appeal had directed this court to await its judgment on this matter out of respect for the hierarchy of courts.

    “As a trial court, subordinate to the Court of Appeal, this court shall abide by the orders made by the Learned Law Lords of the Court of Appeal. This court shall, therefore, await the judgment of the Court of Appeal in this matter before further proceedings are continued herein.

    “In the circumstances, further proceedings in this matter are hereby adjourned pending the determination of the appeal. Either party shall be at liberty to apply for a hearing at the conclusion or the delivery of judgment by the Learned Law Lords of the Court of Appeal. This shall be the decision of the court,” the judge ruled.

    Ecobank had asked Justice Idris to recuse himself because it no longer had confidence in the judge to do justice in the case.

    The judge had refused the application, saying he would stick to his judicial oath in determining the case.

    His words: “It is always tempting for a judge against whom criticisms are made to say he would prefer not to hear further proceedings in which the critic is involved.

    “But it is important for a judge to resist the temptation to recuse himself simply because it’ll be comfortable to do so. The danger is that we’ll soon reach a position in which litigants were able to select judges to hear their cases simply by criticising all the judges that they do not want to hear their cases, whether the criticism is justified or not.

    “These issues are either for the appellate court or appealable issues and the defendant can exercise the right of appeal if it so desires. The application for the judge to recuse himself from this matter is most frivolous and it is refused,” he said.

    Ecobank subsequently appealed against the ruling.

    Read Also: Honeywell Flour Mills revenue hits N53.27b

     

     

  • Nganjiwa: Implications of Court of Appeal judgment, by Falana

    Nganjiwa: Implications of Court of Appeal judgment, by Falana

    Activist lawyer Mr Femi Falana (SAN) writes that the Court of Appeal judgment in the appeal filed by Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa could have “far-reaching implications”, if allowed to stand.

    I am unable to persuade myself to share the views of some learned colleagues who have argued that the judgment delivered on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 by the Lagos Judicial Division of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Honourable Justice Hyeldzira Ajiya Ngangiwa v Federal Republic of Nigeria (Appeal No CA/L/969c/2017) has clothed Nigerian judges with immunity. It is indisputable that the sole legal issue decided by the Court is that a serving judicial officer cannot be charged with a criminal offence in any court by any prosecution agency unless and until he/she has been subjected to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the National Judicial Council.

    The Hon Justice Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo who read the leading judgment of the Court and her learned brothers who concurred with her Ladyship are not unaware of the case of Fawehinmi v Inspector-General of Police (2002) NWLR (PT 767) 606 wherein the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the immunity conferred on the President and state governors they can be investigated even though they cannot be charged with any criminal offence until the expiration of their term of office.

    The Court of Appeal has not said that judges cannot be investigated by the anti graft agencies. On the contrary, the Court conceded that judges can be investigated but that the report of any criminal investigation indicting them should be turned over to the National Judicial Council which will deal with it as a complaint of misconduct and possibly recommend the removal and prosecution of such judges to the appointing authorities before they can be arraigned in court. Realising that the judgment might be misunderstood or misinterpreted the Court made it abundantly clear that “no judicial officers is covered by immunity from prosecution under the Constitution as the Constitution only grants the powers to discipline judicial officers for official misconduct to the NJC.”

    Having read and digested the landmark judgment which has generated an interesting debate in legal circles I have come to the irresistible conclusion that it was a protest judicial decision against the special treatment being accorded to certain personalities and criminal suspects by the Buhari administration in the prosecution of the war against corruption. Hence the Court did not cite any decided case in Nigeria or any other common law country.

    In fact, their Ladyship and Lordships said, ex abundanti cautela, that the judgment had taken judicial notice of the decision of the President of the Republic to set up a panel of inquiry to probe a former Secretary to the Government of the Federation and a former Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency. As far as the Court is concerned, indicted judges deserve to be treated, in like manner, before they can be properly prosecuted in a court of law.

    It is however doubtful if the Court of Appeal was aware of the fact that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had reported the judges on trial to the National Judicial Council which had endorsed the prosecution and placed the judges on suspension pending the conclusion of their trial. The position of the NJC cannot be faulted in the circumstance because the Supreme Court has ruled in the cases of Garba v University of Maiduguri 1986) 2 NWLR (Pt 18) 559 and Federal Civil Service Commission v Laoye (1989) All N.L.R 350, that administrative bodies lack the vires to determine the civil rights and obligations of any person accused of committing a criminal offence in Nigeria.

    Regrettably, our colleagues who have been celebrating the landmark judgment have not considered the fact that it has exposed our judges to greater danger. For instance, the criminal case filed against of one of the judges arrested by the Department of State Security (DSS) last year was dismissed by the trial court in his favour. Consequently, the judge was reinstated and was allowed to resume duty in his court.

    He has just been recommended for compulsory retirement by the NJC following another case of misconduct. But assuming that the President had dismissed the judge based on the recommendation of the NJC which might have found him guilty of the allegation of corrupt practices levelled against him by the DSS he would not have been reinstated since the dismissal would have been premised on the civil offence of misconduct. It is common knowledge that the age long practice of interdicting public officers on trial pending the conclusion of criminal cases pending against them is to prevent a situation whereby they are removed from the public service on account of criminal allegations that have not gone through the crucible of cross examination. But once they are discharged and acquitted they are reinstated with all the rights and privileges.

    Therefore, by asking that judges be disciplined by the NJC before they are prosecuted the Court of Appeal has made it impossible to reinstate such judicial officers even if they are eventually discharged and acquitted. With respect, such unintended consequence of the judgment has made a mockery of judicial independence and further exposed our judges to danger.

    However, since the judgment has seriously questioned the inconsistency of the federal government in the prosecution of the war on corruption the Court of Appeal has equally challenged our judges to apply the law to all citizens without fear or favour. Out of ingenuity some lawyers are going to invoke the constitutional right of equality of all citizens before the law to challenge the validity of the criminal cases pending against some civil servants on the grounds that the administrative jurisdiction of the Federal Public Service Commission has not been invoked against them. More so, that the NJC, the Federal Civil Service Commission and other executive bodies have been created by section 158 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.

    Even professionals in the private sector who are standing trial for corruption will rely on the judgment of the Court of Appeal and insist on going through administrative procedure before they can be prosecuted in any court. For instance, a medical doctor who is charged with murder in a state high court for killing a patient in a hospital due to criminal negligence may challenge the case on the grounds that the Medical and Dental Practitioners Tribunal has not been given the opportunity to try the allegation of professional misconduct which informed the criminal prosecution. If such preliminary objections are filed the trial courts may have no choice than to uphold them as they are bound to follow the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Honourable Justice Hyeldzira Ajiya Ngangiwa v Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra).

    Finally, in view of the foregoing, it is indubitably clear that the judgment has far reaching implications for the judiciary, the anti graft agencies and other law enforcement agencies as well as the Buhari administration which has loudly proclaimed to be fighting a war against corruption and impunity in the country. It is therefore hoped that the EFCC will not hesitate to challenge the controversial judgment of the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court.

  • Court of Appeal plans for better 2018

    Court of Appeal plans for better 2018

    For two days last week, Justices of the Court of Appeal met in Abuja to review the court’s activities in 2017 and strategise on way forward. Eric Ikhilae reports.

    SEVENTY-SIX Justices of the Court of Appeal, from its 16 divisions nationwide, converged on Abuja for two days last week for brainstorming.

    The Annual Justices Conference of the Court of Appeal, held between December 14 and 15, afforded the judicial officers the opportunity to review their performance during the year, identify errors committed and strategise on how to ensure improved performance in the coming year.

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, praised the court for its outstanding performance in the receding year.

    He added: “I am very proud of the leadership strides of the President of the Court of Appeal and all the Justices of the court, who worked assiduously to decongest the courts by speedy conclusion of matters pending before your various divisions.”

    Onnoghen spoke on the need for more openness in the conduct of court activities, for judges to distance themselves from unethical conduct and to watch their back when dealing with politicians.

    He noted that election season was around the corner and urged the gathering to work to prevent a repeat of the unpleasant development during the last post-election litigation season where various divisions of the Court of Appeal came up with varied decisions on similar issues.

    Justice Onnoghen said the problem of conflicting judgments could be addressed where Justices of the court abide by the time-tested legal principle of stare decisis (precedent).

    “I urge you to change your attitude towards your obligation to stare decisis. The benefits are far-reaching and far out-weigh the few and feeble disadvantages.

    “On Judicial precedents as it relates to election and pre-election matters, I want to remind us that the Supreme Court has decided in a number of cases that the principles of judicial review, such as mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, etc do not apply, because election and election-related matters, such as pre-election causes, are suis generis.

    “There is an emerging trend whereby a party in a pre-election or election matter, after exhausting his remedies sometimes up to the Supreme Court still pursues a parallel cause of action under the guise of judicial review hoping that one of such parallel actions may succeed, thereby making the Court to contradict itself resulting in great embarrassment to the system.

    “Much injustice is thereby created, particularly in matters that may not get to the Supreme Court for correction.

    “Where, however, the matter gets to the Supreme Court and the right thing is done, much injustice would have been occasioned by not following the principles of stare decisis.

    “I am saying these because soon the tempo of political activities will pick up and some lawyers will stop at nothing in their effort to outsmart the Bench; so be very, very careful and as I have always said, be on top of your game by mastering the principles of laws and facts relevant to the case or issues involved in the dispute so as not to allow legal practitioners to mislead you to the embarrassment of the Judiciary.

    “Always be consistent by following the principles of stare decisis and the law. If you stick to this simple piece of advice, you will not go wrong in your determinations/ decisions.

    “I therefore say to all of us, be strong, courageous, fair but firm. Stick to the constitutional provisions, the Law and doctrine of precedents (stare – decisis) and you cannot go wrong,” Onnoghen said.

    The conference also witnessed presentations of health and time management, probity and accountability.

    Participants were tasked on probity and accountability and given tips on how the Justices could improve on their performance and ensure quality time management, which are described cardinal to incentives to attaining speedy justice dispensation.

    President Court of Appeal (PCA) Justice Zanaibe Bulkachuwa explained the reason for the gathering. She said it is a tradition set aside to bring together Justices of the court ”to brainstorm on the successes so far recorded with a view to highlighting and proffering solutions to the issues raised”.

    She gave an overview of the court’s performance in the receding year, saying the the Justices had done a good job. She explained how her court was able to land its outstanding performance in the year, noting the creation of a task force for the decongestion of the court’s docket.

    Justice Bulkachuwa explained that the taskforce required that Justices from less busy divisions of the court move to, and sit over pending appeals in busier divisions, while also taking out time in between to sit in their primary divisions.

    The PCA, who gave details of her participation in the activities of the task force, said she moved with some Justices of Abuja division to sit in Lokoja in September to determine appeals emanating from Kogi State.

    She added: “Other divisions of the court have also, during the year, moved to states within their jurisdictions to hear appeals in those states with a view to bringing justice closer to the people.

    “This extraordinary feat by my brother Justices in all the 16 divisions of the court has recorded 3001 judgments as well as 6963.”

    The PCA, who noted that the Judiciary came under attacks on allegation of corrupt practices, cautioned the court’s Justices against associating themselves with acts that could soil their reputation.

    She stressed: “As judicial officers, it is not enough to simply talk about corrupt practices but one must believe in the fight against corruption and we must work at it together.

    “I therefore, urge us all to eschew corruption and uphold best practices that will rekindle and bring back trust to the judicial arm of government.

    “Let’s not ask how corruption can be tackled. Our main focus should be on what we can do as individuals, or collectively as a body to address this plague.”

    Giving hints of what the court was doing to improve on its operations in the new year, the PCA said the court would deploy information and communication technologies (ICT) in all the its divisions next year, beginning with Abuja, the headquarters.

    This, she said, was part of initiatives to ensure that the court remains persistently relevant in today’s fast developing world, which continues to open new opportunities that hitherto were unthinkable.

    She added: “Several reforms are being introduced to allow the use of exchange of electronic data and documents within the judicial system. Permit me to say here that the future is not about hardware or software. It is about making those technologies work for you.

    “It is my pleasure to notify your lordships that the Court of Appeal Mediation Centre will soon take off by early next year in Lagos, Port Harcourt and Abuja Divisions.

    “The Court of Appeal Mediation Programme (CAMP) is a step towards disposing appeals before the court without recourse to litigation.

    “It will give an enabling environment to litigants to fully enjoy the flavour attached to Order 16 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016. The mediation programme will go a long way to decongest the Court of backlog of Appeals,” Justice Bulkachuwa said.

  • Appeal Court sacks Senator Aidoko

    Appeal Court sacks Senator Aidoko

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has asked Senator Attai Aidoko, representing Kogi East Senatorial District to vacate his seat.

    The court, in a judgment by a three-man panel led by Justice Abdu Aboki, reversed its earlier decision of December 14, 2016 on which basis Aidoko assumed office.

    The appellate court held that its earlier judgment, which nullified ex-Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshall Isaac Alfa’s election and installed Aidoko was given in error and said that the Kogi East Senatorial seat now remains vacant until the Federal High Court in Abuja determines the true candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) for the election held on July 24, 2016.

    Alfa had challenged the Appeal Court ‘s decision of December 14, 2016 at the Supreme Court, which ordered that the suit over the dispute about the actual candidate of the party be heard on the merit by the trial court.

    While the Federal High Court, Abuja was yet to give its verdict on the case before it, Aidoko filed an application at the Appeal Court, seeking an interpretation of the judgement of the Supreme Court and determine the eligible candidate to the  seat.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeal Monday was on the application by Aidoko.

    Justice Aboki, in the lead judgment, said the judgment of 5ecember 14, 2016 was in error, he reversed it and ordered Aidoko to vacate the seat, pending the determination of issue of candidacy at the court of first instance.

  • Appeal Court verdict on Nganjiwa self-serving, tragic, says Sagay

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) has described the Court of Appeal judgment striking out the charge against Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa as a “tragedy”.

    He said judges do not have immunity from prosecution for corruption.

    Sagay described the judgment as “a negative step”, adding that it was self-serving and not backed by the Constitution or any law.

    He disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s position that NJC must first discipline a judge before anti-graft agencies can step in.

    “That is purely self-interest, self-protection. There’s nowhere in the Constitution where that is stated.

    “Yes, there is provision for disciplinary measures by NJC over judges, but there’s nowhere in the Constitution that judges are given immunity from interrogation, arrest and prosecution.

    “Only the President, Governors, the Vice President and Deputy Governors are given immunity.

    “This is a creative judgment. In other words, the judges are making law, although they have no power to do that – taking over the power of the legislature in order to protect themselves from the consequences of their own misconduct. That’s what has happened. Judges are now a special breed of Nigerians.

    ““If you have a civil servant who can be interdicted in the civil service, is there any law that says he cannot be prosecuted? There’s no difference between a judge and a civil servant in this regard. They have their own internal cleansing system.

    “The NJC and the civil service have in-house provisions for dealing with their members. That does not affect the overall authority of the state. It’s contained both in the Constitution and in our criminal law.

    “So, what they have done is not in the law. It is a new law made by themselves. It is wrong because they have taken over the duties of the legislature.

    “It’s just to protect themselves from the consequences of misconduct and it’s a tragedy. And it’s an aspect of the underdevelopment of Nigeria and its rule of law process,” Sagay said.

    Sagay said the examples cited by the Court of Appeal about the Presidency setting up a panel to probe members of the executive before the EFCC stepped in, was inapplicable.

    “Those do not apply. The fact that the Presidency decided to set up a panel does not mean that EFCC could not have gone after them, at all. It doesn’t mean that. All the examples they have given are wrong.

    “There’s no example that can suspend the application of the Constitution and our criminal laws. None.

    “There are many occasions in which NJC was reluctant to discipline its men who have committed crimes, who have been corrupt or engaged in misconduct.

    “For instance, in the case of Justice (Adeniyi) Ademola, before he was arrested, he was cleared by the NJC. There are tens of such cases, which NJC turned down petitions in which there were concrete reasons to believe that they (the judges) did something wrong.

    “Are they saying the state should fold its arms and be looking on, because they’re reluctant to do the right thing?

    “I think the judgment is completely against the rule of law and it’s against our whole administration of criminal justice system, because it promotes a group of people above the law. And it’s a negative step,”

  • Court of Appeal Court orders Saraki’s trial on three counts 

    Court of Appeal Court orders Saraki’s trial on three counts 

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reversed Senate President Bukola Saraki’s acquittal of false assets declaration charges.

    The appellate court, in a unanimous judgment by a three-man panel, led by Justice Tinuade Akomolafe Wilson, ordered Saraki to return to the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for the continuation of his trial.

    The court held that the prosecution led direct and credible evidence to establish a prima facie case against Saraki in three of the 18 counts contained in the charge for which he was tried.

    The counts on which Saraki is to enter defence are 4, 5 and 6 in relation to his alleged failure to declare some houses he acquired in Ikoyi, Lagos.

    In Count 4, Saraki is alleged to have falsified his Assets Declaration at the end of his tenure as Kwara State Governor in 2011 and on assumption of office as a senator in 2011 when he declared that he acquired No. 17A, McDonald, Ikoyi, Lagos.

    The prosecution contended that the defendant falsely declared that he had acquired No 17A, McDonald, Ikoyi on 6th September 2006 from the proceeds of sale of rice and sugar.

    In Count 5, he is also alleged to have falsified his Assets Declaration at the end of his tenure as Governor of Kwara State in 2011 and on assumption of office as a senator in 2011 when he declared that he acquired No. 17B, McDonald, Ikoyi Lagos.

    The prosecution contended that the defendant falsely declared to have acquired No. 17A, McDonald, Ikoyi on 6th September 2006 from proceeds of sale of rice and sugar.

    In Count 6, Saraki is accused of making a false declaration in the Assets Declaration Form at the end of tenure as governor in 2007 and on assumption of office as executive governor in 2007 when he failed to declare his outstanding loan liabilities of N315,054,355.92 out of the loan of N380,000,000 obtained from Guaranty Trust Bank Plc.

    The CCT  on June 14, upheld Saraki’s no-case submission, discharged and acquitted him, a decision the Federal Government appealed.

    The Appeal Court, in its judgment yesterday, resolved four out of the five issues identified for determination in favour of the appellant.

    The court said the tribunal was wrong to have held that Saraki was not invited to make a statement in the course of investigating the allegations against him.

    It said the Senate President made a statement in the course of investigation, which was tendered and admitted by the tribunal as Exhibit 46.

    The appellate court also faulted the CCT’s decision that the joint investigation team constituted by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate the allegations against Saraki was unknown to law.

    It said there was no law forbidding the CCB from collaborating with other investigating agencies of government to effectively discharge its mandate.

    The court also faulted the tribunal for holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case by not tendering the original copies of Saraki’s assets declaration forms and his statement.

    It said the certified true copies (CTC) of the forms and statement were sufficient under the law to be admitted as exhibits in favour of the prosecution.

    On whether the tribunal was right to have upheld Saraki’s no-case submission, the appellate court resolved the issue against Saraki.

    After a thorough analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution, the appellate court said the prosecution led credible and direct evidence in respect of three counts – 4, 5 and 6 – of the 18-count amended charge, to warrant his being called upon to enter his defence.

    The court said the prosecution was unable to discharge the burden of proof placed on him by the law in relation to counts 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

    It said some of the prosecution’s witnesses gave both oral and documentary hearsay evidence that are inadmissible in law. It also said the prosecution failed to call witnesses in relation to the 15 counts.

    For instance, the court noted that the prosecution, though accused Saraki of earning double salaries from the Kwara State Government and as a senator, it failed to call witnesses from the Kwara State Government and the National Assembly in support of the allegation.

    The court ordered that the case be remitted back to CCT for Saraki to enter his defence.

    Other members of the panel – Justices Tenimu Y. Hassan and M. Mustapha – agreed with the lead judgment by Justice Akomlafe-Wilson.

    A two-man panel of the CCT, headed by Danladi Umar, on June 14, 2017, upheld the no-case submission filed by Saraki after the prosecution, led by Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), closed its case after calling four witnesses and tendering 48 documentary exhibits.

    In upholding the no-case submission, the tribunal dismissed the amended 18 counts preferred against Saraki on the grounds that the prosecution, was unable to establish any prima facie case against the Senate President.

    Umar, in his lead ruling, exonerated Saraki, holding that failure of the prosecution to obtain his  statement and make it part of the proof of evidence was fatal to the case.

    He adjudged as “absurd” that neither Saraki’s statement nor the report of the investigation said to have been carried out was produced before the tribunal.

    He agreed with the defence team, led by Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN),  that the prosecution’s evidence had been manifestly discredited during cross-examination by the defence.

    He added that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, led by Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), was “so unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could convict” based on it.

    The tribunal chairman specifically noted that the third prosecution witness, Mr. Samuel Madojemu, who is Head, Intelligence Unit of the Code of Conduct Bureau, only gave hearsay evidence on the information the witness purportedly received from the EFCC.

    But the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, through  Jacobs, on June 20, filed a 17-ground notice of appeal against the CCT’s judgment.

    The Federal Government faulted all the grounds on which the CCT predicated Saraki’s acquittal, describing the entire judgment as unreasonable and unconstitutional.

    Jacobs subsequently filed an appellant’s brief on July 28, formulating five issues for determination.

    Saraki, through his lead counsel Agabi, also filed his respondent’s brief on August 22.

    While adopting his appellant’s brief on November 22, Jacobs urged the court to grant the Federal Government’s appeal and hold that the judgment of the CCT was perverse. He also reiterated that the CCT erred by adjudging the oral evidence of the prosecution’s third witness, Madojemu, the Head, Intelligence Unit of the CCB, as hearsay.

    I’ve been vindicated, says Senate President 

    Senate President Bukola Saraki yesterday described the Court of Appeal verdict as a vindication for him.

    In a statement by his media adviser Yusuph Olaniyonu, Saraki expressed the belief that upholding a no-case-submission with regards to 15 of the 18-count charge confirmed his innocence.

    “At least, today’s judgment has confirmed the position of the Tribunal that the prosecution’s case was entirely based on hearsay, not on any concrete evidence.

    “The verdict of the Court of Appeal, just like that of the Tribunal before it, aligned with our position that the preposterous claims made during trial by the prosecution concerning operation of foreign accounts, making anticipatory declarations, collecting double salaries, owning assets beyond his income and failure to declare assets owned by companies in which the Senate President owns interests, among others, have fallen like a pack of cards and lack any basis.

    “On the remaining three counts, which really touch on two issues, referred back to the Tribunal for the Senate President’s defence, it should be noted that the Appellate Court only gave a summary of its decision today promising to provide the parties with Certified True Copies of the judgment soon. As soon as it makes the details of the judgment available, our lawyers will review the grounds of the decision and take appropriate action.

    “We remain convinced about the innocence of the Senate President on the three ( or two) counts because we believe the decision of the Court of Appeal is not consistent with the submissions made by both parties at the Tribunal. Thus, it is our view that that aspect of the judgment will not stand”.

    Saraki added that his confidence and faith in the nation’s judiciary and its ability to dispense justice to all manners of people remained unshaken.