The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court of Appeal

  • Court sets aside $2.5b judgment got by Shell, Esso against NNPC

    Court sets aside $2.5b judgment got by Shell, Esso against NNPC

    …Says oil companies can’t determine what to pay as tax

    …Upholds FIRS’ sole right to assess petroleum profit tax

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has set aside a portion of an arbitral award got by Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Limited (Shell) and Esso Exploration and production Limited (Esso) against the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).

    By the portion of the award, made by an arbitration tribunal in Lagos on October 24, 2011, NNPC was ordered among others, to pay Shell and Esso over $2.5billion for abusing a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) between them in relation to the operation of oil filed identified as Erha Deepwater Project.

    Shell and Esso particularly, accused NNPC of assuming their responsibilities, under the PSC, including determining what should be paid to the Nigerian government as petroleum profit tax (PPT), and that in so doing, NNPC over lifted petroleum products valued at $1,207,500,000 to pay its unilaterally assessed tax on their behalf (Shell and Esso).

    On learning about the Shell and Esso case against NNPC, which will require it to refund the tax paid to it by NNPC on behalf of Shell and Esso, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) went before the Federal High Court in Abuja, in suit No: FHC/AB/CS/764/11, to challenge the aspect of the arbitral proceedings relating to tax issues.

    The arbitration tribunal, at the end of its proceedings on October 24, 211, ordered NNPC to pay Esso and Shell $1,799,000,000, “with simple interest at the rate of 30-day LIBOR plus 4per cent from December 17, 2007 (the date of breach) until April 30, 2011,” estimated at $243,000,000.

    It asked NNPC to pay another “simple interest at the rate of 30-day LIBOR plus 4per cent on the $1,799,000,000 from April 30, 2011 up until the date of payment;” and a further “sum determined by the volume and value of over lifting by the respondent that has taken place since April 30, 2011 and until the date of this final award, plus simple interest at the rate of 30-day LIBOR plus 4per cent from April 30, 2011 up until the date of payment.”

    However, in his judgment on March 9, 2012 on the suit by FIRS, Justice Adamu Bello (now retired) of the Federal High Court, Abuja set aside the October 24, 2011 arbitral award/judgment on the ground that the arbitration tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to have entertained dispute relating to tax, a decision Shell and Esso appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja.

    The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment of a three-man panel on March 10 this year, a copy of which The Nation accessed last Friday, set aside the monetary award against NNPC, held that oil companies lacked the power to determine what profit tax to pay and that such responsibilities reside solely with the FIRS under the country’s laws.

    Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, in the lead judgment, faulted the exercise of jurisdiction over a tax related dispute by an arbitration tribunal. He noted that: “The payment of petroleum profit tax (PPT) by parties to a production sharing contract is not governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

    “The assessment and determination of the PPT payable and the collection of such tax is governed by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) Act and Petroleum Profit Tax (PPT) Act.”

    Justice Agim said FIRS was right to have challenged the arbitral proceedings while it was still on, because it relation to tax dispute, which an arbitration tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain.

    He said the order by the arbitral tribunal that NNPC cease making tax payments inconsistent with PPT returns prepared by the appellants, one of the reliefs claimed for by the appellants in the tribunal, takes away the discretionary power given the FIRS by Section 35(2) & (3) of the PPT Act, to accept returns filed with it and assess a tax payer’s tax liability on the basis of them or refuse to accept the returns, assess the tax payable on its own best judgment.

    Justice Agim said: “This relief has the effect of taking away completely the 1st respondent’s statutory power to assess and determine the tax payable vested in it (FIRS) by Section 35, 36 and 37 of the PPT Act and Section 43(1) of the same Act, that makes the assessment by the 1st respondent final and conclusive.

    “The order defeats the operation of sections 52 and 53 of the PPT Act, which makes the filing of inaccurate PPT returns an offence.

    “The order also defeats sections 43(1) and 46(2) of the PPT Act, which impose a duty on the parties to the PSC to pay their PPT liability as assessed and determined by the 1st respondent (FIRS) or as determined by Appeal Commissioners pursuant to Section 41 of the PPT Act or the Federal High Court on further appeal to it pursuant to Section 42 of the same Act.

    “The award of damages or compensation and interest thereon cover the $1,564,500,000 value of the crude oil over lift as at December 31, 2009 by the 2nd respondent, amounts to ordering the 2nd respondent to refund to the appellants the part of the over lifted tax oil that was used to pay PPT to the 1ts respondent on their behalf.

    “This is because all sides agree that the PPT for the contract area under the PSC be paid from the tax oil. Such an award would defeat the statutory obligation vested by sections 3(1) & 1e of the Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Production Sharing Contract Act and Section 22(3) & (4) of the PPT Act on the parties to a petroleum PSC to pay on contract area under the PSC.

    “The order of damages disregards the provision of Section 23(1) & (2) of the FIRS Act on the intent of tax refund that can be made, the basis for it and the law that it is only the 1st respondent that has the authority to decide on who is eligible for tax refund.

    “The PPT payable under a PSC for a contract area is, by virtue of Section 3 of the Deep Offshore and Inland Basin PSC Act 2004 determined in accordance with the PPT Act, which in sections 35 to 37 vests on the 1st respondent the exclusive power to assess and determine what is payable as such tax.

    “Sections 43(1) & 46(2) of the PPT Act imposes a duty on the parties to the PSC to pay their PPT liability as assessed and determined by the 1ts respondent or as determined by Appeal Commissioners pursuant to Section 41 of the PPT Act or the Federal High Court.

    “Like all tax obligations, it cannot be regulated by contract. The exercise of statutory power conferred on the 1st respondent by the PPT Act, the FIRS Act and other legislations cannot be done by any other body, including an arbitral tribunal and cannot be regulated by contract.

    “Therefore, the duty of the parties to the PSC to pay the PPT for the contract area and the exercise of the statutory powers of the 1st respondent to assess, determine and collect petroleum profit tax from oil producing companies in Nigeria and the non-refundability of paid PPT, except the part considered as overpayment, overpayment, not arbitrable,” Justice Agim said.

    He faulted the decision by Shell and Esso to refer to an arbitration tribunal, their grievance over the way NNPC handled the issues of tax assessment and payment.

    Justice Agim noted where oil companies have issues with tax assessment by FIRS, they can, by virtue of the provisions of sections 42 and 43 of the PPT Act, appeal to Tax Appeal Commissioners, and further to the Federal High Court for the finality and conclusiveness of the assessment.

    He said: “On the whole, this appeal succeeds in part and fails in part. The judgment of the Federal High Court at Abuja in suit No: FHC/AB/CS/764 delivered on March 9, 2012 by A. Bello J. (Justice A. Bello), nullifying the entire arbitration agreement between the appellants and 2nd respondent, the arbitration proceedings and the award is hereby set aside, except as it affects the request or claims for reliefs F, H and I in the arbitration proceedings and the award of the same reliefs by the arbitral tribunal.

    “For the avoidance of doubt, the judgement nullifying the request for reliefs F, H & I in the arbitration proceedings and the award of these reliefs by the arbitral tribunal is upheld and affirmed.

    “The part of the judgment dismissing the preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain and determine the suit is affirmed and upheld in respect of the request for reliefs F, H & I in the arbitration proceedings,” Justice Agim said.

    Justices Tinuade Akomolafe-Wilson and Tani Yusuf Hassan, who were on the panel, agreed with Justice Agim’s reasoning in the lead judgment.

     

  • Appeal Court affirms Ogun community’s right to land

    Appeal Court affirms Ogun community’s right to land

    The Court of Appeal in Ibadan has vested the right of ownership of Ofada community land in Obafemi Owode Local Government Area of Ogun State on the community’s families and individuals constituting it.

    It set aside the lower court’s judgment and held that the plaintiffs/appellants reserve the right to apply for and obtain a statutory right of occupancy in respect of the land.

    The appellants are the Baale, Rabiu Adewunmi of Ofada land and 14 others, who filed the suit for themselves and on behalf of Ofada community/village.

    The others are Tunji Sotomi, Akinwale Savage, Taiwo Majiyagbe,  Rabiu Adewusi, Dr Bode Sowunmi, Alhaji Sulaiman Adebayo, Muyiwa Adewunmi, A.V.M Femi Oshigbo, Mr Sogeyinbi, Dr Babatunde Ladele, Mosudi Adeboye, Kunle Binutu and Kehinde Adebakin.

    They sued Mr Ayowole Adetayo and Dayo Shyllon, who traded under the name Shyllon Properties Ltd.

    The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed a cross appeal filed by the respondents for lack in merit.

    An Ogun State High Court had dismissed the plantiffs’ suit and entered judgment in the defendants’ favour. Dissatisfied, the plaintiffs appealed, while the respondents filed counter claims.

    The appeal court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Chinwe Eugenia Iyizoba, held: “It will be a miscarriage of justice in the circumstances to grant to the cross appellants a declaration of title to the entire Ofada land as counter claimed.

    “The cross appeal is consequently lacking in merit. It is hereby dismissed. The part of the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State, Abeokuta delivered on the 24th of October, 2012 in suit No: AB/237/2008 granting the cross appellants declaration of title to the unallotted portion of Ofada Land is hereby set aside,” the court held.

     

  • How to achieve efficient justice delivery, by judge, SANs

    How to achieve efficient justice delivery, by judge, SANs

    Senior lawyers and a judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, Monday said the imposition of punitive cost for time wasting, use of electronic recording devices and effective use of case management powers by judges will enhance speedier justice delivery.

    They spoke in Lagos during the second day of the 11th Annual Business Law conference of the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Business Law (NBA-SBL), with the theme: Law and changing face of legal practice.

    Justice Dimgba, who was a panelist in the third session with the theme: Creating an efficient system of justice delivery, urged judges to make better use of their case management powers.

    He said fear of being accused of bias sometimes forces judges to grant frivolous applications for adjournments.

    According to him, judges operate in a “difficult terrain” in which false reports are sometimes sponsored against them in the media by litigants whose prayers for adjournment were refused.

    “Sometimes fear and intimidation impedes the exercise of their (judges’) case management powers. Some of my colleagues are afraid of petitions being written against them. It is true that some careers have damaged by such petitions, but I always ask them, is a petition going to kill you? As long as my conscience is clean, I do my job,” he said.

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dr Babatunde Ajibade, called for imposition of full indemnity cost against those who file frivolous cases, as is done in other jurisdictions.

    According to him, if people pay heavily for time wasting, they would be discouraged from deliberately delaying court actions, especially when they have bad cases.

    “If people have a dispute and know it will never be settled in court, they can just send assassins to kill the other person. If we have an efficient judicial system, crime will reduce and people won’t take laws into their hands,” he said.

    A United Kingdom based lawyer, Segun Osuntokun, wondered why Nigerian judges still record proceedings in long hand rather than with electronic devices.

    “In UK courts, there is real time transcription of what is being said. Everyone sees it instantly. Here, everyone waits for the judge to write in long hand,” he said.

    Osuntokun also faulted the practice whereby cases which had spent years in court begin all over (de novo) when the judges handling them are elevated to Court of Appeal.

    “In England, when you are elevated, you finish your portfolio of cases before leaving. That way, you save at least two years of cases having to start afresh before a new judge,” he said.

    Another SAN, Chief Chief Arthur Obi Okafor, said courts could schedule cases so that lawyers know when to be in court, rather than everyone being in court at the same time and some waiting all day for their turn.

     

  • Lawyer urges court to commit Edo Speaker to prison

    Lawyer urges court to commit Edo Speaker to prison

    A Benin based lawyer, Barr.  Ikhide Ehighelua, has asked a Federal High Court in Benin City to commit Speaker of the Edo State House of Assembly, Hon Justin Okonoboh to prison custody until they purge themselves of contempt by complying with the orders of the Court of Appeal.

    Barr. Ikhide in motion on notice filed before the court said Speaker Okonoboh violated the court order by not swearing-in his client, Hon Godwin Adenomo, as a member of the State House of Assembly after the Court of Appeal declared Adenomo winner of the party primaries.

    The Court of Appeal had in February sacked Hon Sunday Aghedo and ordered Adenomo to be sworn-in as a member of the Assembly representing Ovia South West constituency.

    Ikhide told newsmen that the judgement which sacked Hon. Sunday Aghedo from the Assembly has not been reserved or set aside.

    He said it was worrisome that months after his client got  judgement from the appeal court, the Speaker refused to comply even when there was no order staying the execution or enforcement of the judgment of the appellate court.

    Ikhide noted that the Speaker has been served with the judgement and a copy of Certificate of Return issued to his client.

    Hon.  Godwin Adenomo by INEC,  the leadership of the House remained adamant hence the  need to commence a  committal process against the speaker and the clerk of the house.which will see them go to prison if they are found wanting.

    According to the lawyer, “The enrolled orders of the court have been served on the Speaker and the clerk respectively of the Edo State House of Assembly and they have failed and deliberately refused to comply with the orders of the court.

    “It is fit and proper in the circumstances to commit them to prison custody until they purge themselves of contempt by complying with the orders of the court.

    “Therefore, the judgement which sacked Aghedo from the house is a valid and subsisting judgement.  Until the judgement is set aside, it must be obeyed. For Speaker and the clerk allowing Aghedo to continue to sit, the parties sought to be committed are eroding the authority of the court.

    “The issues here are founded on the rules of law, and the need for all levels of government to obey the rules of law.  This is Executive and legislative lawlessness. Ehighelua said.

    Speaker Okonoboh in his reaction said the Assembly was an institution of the rule of law and could run fowl of the law by swearing in Adenomo when the Supreme Court was yet to rule on the case.

     

  • Edo polls: Court throws out Ize-Iyamu appeal on ballot recount

    Edo polls: Court throws out Ize-Iyamu appeal on ballot recount

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Benin City has thrown out the appeal filed by Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu and the Peoples Democratic Party against the ruling of the tribunal on the recounting of ballot papers.

    Pastor Ize-Iyamu had asked the appellate court to order a complete recounting of used ballot papers from four local government areas produced before the lower tribunal.

    The four local government areas are Akoko-Edo, Egor, Estako West and Estako East.

    He contended that the tribunal erred when it stopped the recounting of the ballot papers once the 14 days given to the petitioners to present their case have elapsed.

    Pastor Ize-Iyamu also requested an order that the period utilized by the recounting be discounted from the the 14 days granted the petitioners to prove their case.

    He pleaded that the time be restored in order for him to call more witnesses.

    Delivering the unanimous judgment on the appeal, Justice Mudasiru Nasiru who read the lead judgment said he decided to take great caution not to go out of bound since the tribunal was yet to deliver judgment on the main petition.

    Justice Nasiru held that paragraph 41 of First Schedule of the Electoral Act prescribed the time upon which petitioners and respondents were to prove and defend their case.

    He ruled that any action done outside the prescribed time would be a nullity and that the tribunal was right to stop the counting of ballot papers after the 14 days have elapsed.

    His words, “Whatever any party should do to prove its case must be done within the time produced by the Schedule. Once a party commences, the time prescribed will start to run”.

    “The two issues for determination are resolved against the appellants. The appeal is unmeritorious and lacked merit. It is hereby dismissed.”

    On the Cross Appeal filed by Governor Godwin Obaseki on the directive of the tribunal, the appellate court described it as being at cross purpose, premature and preemptive on the final matter.

    It held that dealing with the issue would entails going into the main issues yet to be determined by the tribunal.

    An appeal by the All Progressive Congress on whether the tribunal was right to order a recount of ballot papers was also struck out by the appellate court.

    The APC had sought an order that the tribunal wrongly exercised its decision on the recounting of ballot papers since it was made outside the pre-hearing.

    But Justice M. A Abumen who read the lead judgment said the order was properly made since the used ballot papers were produced as demanded by the petitioners.

  • Court strikes out stay of execution filed by Sen. Akpan

    The Federal High Court, Uyo, on Friday struck out the application for stay of execution filed by Sen. Bassey Akpan, of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) representing Akwa Ibom North..

    Akpan filed the suit for the court to stay execution of its Feb. 27 judgment, which was in favour of Mr Bassey Etim, also of the PDP.

    The judge, Justice Fatun Riman, said that since there was an appeal on his judgment of Feb. 27, his court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same matter.

    The judge, therefore, struck out the case and awarded N50, 000 cost in favour of the plaintiff, Mr Bassey Etim, the defendant.

    The court in the Feb.27, judgment had ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission ( INEC) to immediately issue certificate of return to Etim.

    The court faulted the primary that produced Akpan as the flag bearer of the PDP.

    Speaking to newsmen after the judgment, counsel to the defendant, Mr Taiwo Abe, described the judgment as excellent.

    He said that the application was brought by the appellant, PDP and Akpan.

    “The record shows that the appellant had already filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Calabar.

    “His Lordship said that only the Court of Appeal can entertain stay of execution, since the case had been transmitted from the Federal High Court, Uyo, to Court of Appeal, Calabar, since March 10, 2017.’’

    “I made the application that the court should strike out the case and award me a cost, the judge today has agreed with me and even granted cost of N50, 000.’’
    Also speaking, counsel to Sen. Akpan, Mr Godswill Umoh, said that he was satisfied with the judgment.

    “Actually that is the rule of practice, since we have filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal; the lower court cannot adjudicate on the same matter.

    “Earnestly, the rule of practice is we withdraw the case, which I did.”

  • No grudges against those behind my impeachment – Ex-Ondo deputy governor

    A former Deputy Governor of Ondo State, Mr Ali Olanusi, who was impeached in 2015 under the administration of the immediate past Governor Olusegun Mimiko, said on Saturday that he had no grudges or ill-feelings against those who masterminded his removal.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Court of Appeal sitting in Akure on Friday reversed the impeachment of Olanusi as the deputy governor.

    Olanusi was impeached by the state House of Assembly on April 27, 2015, following his defection to the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the then state ruling party – Labour Party – on the platform he was elected with Mimiko.

    Mimiko, who also defected to the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), completed his eight-year tenure in February and handed over to the incumbent governor, Mr Rotimi Akeredolu of APC.

    In an interview with newsmen in Akure, Olanusi, said his vindication was not by his cleverness, but by God.

    “There is no cause for revenge, if God did not want all these to happen, it would not have turned out this way.

    “The injustice has been exposed to the people of Ondo State and may God reward all accordingly,” he said.

    Olanusi also praised the Nigerian judiciary for granting true justice to anyone who sought it.

    He said: “I also thank the people of Ondo State, who stood by me in the period of my travails and did not lose hope.’’

    Also speaking with newsmen, Counsel to Olanusi, Mr Richamond Natha-Alade, noted that the court had done justice because Olanusi was wrongfully impeached under the last administration.

    “The best interest of Nigeria has been served and it is on this ground that the court granted all our requests; everybody is bound by the law.

    “It is a new dawn in Nigeria because the judgment is classical and it touches on every aspect of law that borders on infringement of rights,” Natha-Alade said

     

  • Contempt: PDP asks court to jail Makarfi, Obi, others

    Contempt: PDP asks court to jail Makarfi, Obi, others

    The National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Senator Ali Modu Sheriff, has asked the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to jail his arch rival, Senator Ahmed Makarfi, and some of his loyalists.

     

    Apart from the former governor of Kaduna State, Sheriff, who is also a former governor of Borno State, also listed three other prominent leaders of the party as those to be jailed by the appellate court.

     

    Sheriff and the National Secretary of the party, Prof. Wale Oladipo, accused Makarfi and others of flouting the order of the court, which was delivered on February 17, 2017.

     

    The court, in the judgment, had pronounced Sheriff as the national chairman of the party while it also upheld that Oladipo remained its national secretary.

    Apart from Makarfi, others named as alleged contemnors are the two other members of the sacked National Caretaker Committees, Senator Ben Obi (secretary) and Mr. Dayo Adeyeye(publicity secretary).

     

    He also listed a former Minister of Aviation, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, among the alleged contemnors.

     

    Sheriff, in suit number APPEAL NO: CA/PH/349/2016, asked the court to commit the four persons to prison for one year over the alleged contempt.

     

    Apart from the four named above, the PDP national chairman also listed a former Deputy Speaker of House of Representatives, Mr. Emeka Ihedioha; a former Minister of Information, Prof. Jerry Gana; Chairman, Board of Trustees of the party, Senator Walid Jibrin; and an aspirant to the office of the party’s national chairman, Chief Bode George, as alleged contemnors.

     

    However, he did not pray the court to commit Ihedioha, Gana, Jibrin and George to prison, rather, he asked the court for an order restraining them from “proclaiming or otherwise holding out to the public that the 1st to 3rd  alleged contemnors are national  officers of the PDP for any purpose whatsoever.”

    Listed as defendants in the case are the PDP, the Independent National Electoral Commission, the Inspector-General of Police and the Department of State Services.

     

    The duo asked the court to stop Makarfi and his group from parading themselves as national officers of the party.

     

    They also asked the court to direct the IGP and the DSS to close down the factional secretariat being operated by the Makarfi group.

     

    Apart from that, they also asked the court not to transmit the records of the court proceedings to Markarfi and his group, saying they didn’t have the permission of the party to get it.

     

    Oladipo, who signed an affidavit in support of the claim, stated that on February 17, “soon after the judgment was delivered, the alleged contemnors proceeded to address the media and to comment negatively, contemptuously, disparagingly and contumeliously on the findings and order of the court set out above.”

     

    He added, “Rather than accept that the justice of the matter as determined by this honourable court was as expressed in the findings, holdings and order set out above, the 4th to 8th Alleged Contemnors made statements encouraging the 1st to 3rd respondents to defy the order of the court and flout the purpose of the court’s judgment delivered on the 17th of February 2017.”

     

    He said it was on this basis that the alleged contemnors placed notices in newspapers, where they convened a meeting of what they called “PDP stakeholders.”

     

    He stated, “The said meeting was held on Monday, February 20, and was attended by the 4th to 8th alleged contemnors, who made further statements encouraging the 1st to 3rd alleged contemnors to defy the holdings and order of the court.”

     

    The motion on notice for the committal of the alleged  contemnors was filed by eight lawyers, led by a former Minister of Justice, Akin Olujimi (SAN), who was joined by two other SANs – Dr. Alex Izinyon  and B. E. Nwofor – among others.

     

    The lawyers said, “The actions of the alleged contemnors, as shown in the affidavit in support of this application, have the effort of flouting the purpose of the judgment of this Honourable court, which purpose is to properly regulate the exercise of powers by the alleged contemnors against the applicants and 1st Respondent; avoid any further anarchy, lawlessness and deepening crisis capable of heating up the Nigerian polity; and establish the requirements of the rule of law and due process in the administration of justice.

     

    “Although the alleged contemnors were not parties to the action in court, it is our humble submission that they have a responsibility to ensure that they do not aid and abet the disobedience of the judgment order or treat the said judgment with disdain and disrespect.”

     

    Markarfi and the other faction of the party are believed to have filed an application seeking for stay of execution of the judgment and leave for appeal.

    No date has been fixed for the hearing of Sheriff’s case, which was filed on February 24, 2017.‎

  • Appeal Court sacks Edo APC lawmaker

    Appeal Court sacks Edo APC lawmaker

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Benin City has sacked the lawmaker representing Ovia South West Constituency in the Edo State House of Assembly, Hon. Sunday Aghedo.

     

    It ordered Mr. Godwin Adenomo, a member of the All Progressive Congress, to be sworn in immediately.

     

    Adenomo had dragged the APC and the Committee that conducted the party primaries to court over imposition of the sacked lawmaker as the winner of the party primaries to the State House of Assembly in 2014.

     

    He claimed he won the primaries but was denied the party’s ticket which was given to his opponent.

     

    A judgement of the High Court asked the APC to conduct a fresh primary for the position but Adenomo rejected the ruling and headed for the appellate court to get proper judgment.

     

    Reacting to the judgment, the sacked lawmakers said he was already consulting with his lawyers.

     

    His words, “I have no reaction. I am still consulting with my lawyers on what to do next.”

  • NBA to nominate lawyers as Court of Appeal justices

    NBA to nominate lawyers as Court of Appeal justices

    •Shittu: it’s a positive development

    THE Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) is set to nominate lawyers as Justices of the Court of Appeal.
    This is coming after it nominated nine lawyers, including six Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), for appointment as Supreme Court justices at the instance of Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen.
    The association had last week sent notices to all lawyers asking those interested in serving as Court of Appeal Justices to send in their profiles.
    NBA said the call was at the instance of President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulchachuwa.
    The submission of profiles ended last Friday.
    NBA’s letter to lawyers, signed by its General Secretary, Isiaka Olagunju, reads: “Pursuant to Section 238(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the President of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Hon Justice Z.A Bulkachuwa, CFR has invited the NBA to nominate suitably qualified legal practitioners to express interest for appointment as Justice of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria. Interested legal practitioners are hereby required to send their hard copy profile.”
    Lagos lawyer and university teacher Mr. Wahab Shittu said the opportunity given to the Bar to nominate lawyers as appellate court justices was welcome.
    “This is a very, very positive development. I’ve gone through the list of those who have been shortlisted for the Supreme Court and I’m convinced about them in terms of competence, character, capacity, knowledge, exposure and experience.
    “I believe the search for persons to occupy the appellate courts should not be limited. It should be extended, guided by the need to get the best to serve us,” he said.
    On suggestions that it could kill the morale of judges, who had been hoping to be elevated, Shittu said: “If you look at the composition of the Supreme Court presently, they are made up mainly of those who rose through the ranks.
    “There is nothing stopping the search for more hands to be extended to the Bar and even the academia, driven by the need to retain the very best.
    “All over the world, the norm is to encourage people at all levels with requisite knowledge, experience and exposure to come to the Supreme Court bench.
    “Recall that the late Justice Taslim Elias was appointed CJN from the academia. Retired Supreme Court Justice Adolphus Karibi-Whyte used to lecture at the Faculty of Law, University of Lagos.
    “I think it’s salutary in the sense that you know you can rise to the highest court in the land either from the Bench, the Bar or the academia.”