Tag: Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved judgment in a case filed by the Osun Government against the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) for withholding statutory allocations due to its 30 local government councils.

The apex court reserved the judgment after taking arguments from Mr Musbau Adetunbi, SAN, counsel to the Osun government and Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, counsel to the AGF.

Justice Uwani Aba-Aji who led the seven-man panel of justices that heard the matter said that the date for the judgment delivery would be communicated to all parties when ready.

The state government had filed the suit against the Attorney-General of the Federation for withholding its statutory allocations due to its 30 local government councils since March 2025.

Adetunbi noted that the state government had 10 reliefs, 11 grounds and an affidavit of 35 paragraphs.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls that the state government had filed an application to withdraw an earlier one filed against the AGF on the subject matter.

In the originating summons, the state is asking the apex court to compel the Federal Government to release all seized funds and to stop what it described as “an unconstitutional and arbitrary seizure” of local government revenues.

He argued that the AGF had ignored subsisting judgments of the Federal High Court, Osogbo delivered November 30, 2022 and the Court of Appeal (June 13, 2025), which affirmed the legitimacy of council chairmen and councillors elected on Feb.  22.

The state said the AGF, in a March 26, 2025 letter had advised that the funds be withheld pending resolution of a local government crisis.

But the state government maintained that the appeal court ruling had already settled the matter, nullifying the October 2022 polls conducted under the previous administration.

Among reliefs being sought by the Osun government is a declarations that the AGF lacks constitutional power to seize local government funds, that his actions contravene valid court judgments.

It also prayed that all withheld allocations be released directly into the accounts of the duly elected councils. It also wants a perpetual injunction restraining future seizures.

It claimed that the seizure, suspension, withholding and/or refusal to pay the allocations and revenues due to the constituent local government councils of the plaintiff state is unconstitutional, unlawful, wrongful and ultra vires the powers of the defendant.

The state also raised five issues for the Supreme Court’s determination, including whether the AGF is constitutionally bound under Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to enforce the rulings of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, and whether his March 26, 2025 directive to withhold funds can stand in the face of the appellate judgment.

The state had also simultaneously filed another suit at the Federal High Court, Osogbo, challenging the Chief Judge’s decision to transfer an earlier case on the same funds from Osogbo to Abuja for hearing by a vacation judge.

It warned that proceeding with the Abuja case while the apex court is seized of the matter could result in conflicting judgments.

The state government described the Federal Government’s actions as “an affront to the rule of law,” insisting that only the Supreme Court can conclusively resolve the constitutional issues. He cited precedents such as A.G. Kano State v. A.G. Federation (2007) and RMAFC v. A.G. Rivers State (2023).

The state had equally accused the AGF of “self-induced urgency,” noting that he delayed responding to originating processes for over 80 days before filing an affidavit of urgency on Aug. 13.

Read Also: Court freezes firm’s account over alleged fraud

It argued that the Chief Judge’s transfer order “casts the lot of the court with the AGF” and risks creating a perception of bias.

The state government argued that the the AGF was wrong in his letter recognizing APC Local Government chairmen when the matter was pending before court of records.

It also predicated its case on the ground that the election that brought in the APC officials as Local Government chairmen and Councillors had been nullified by a Federal High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

However, in opposition, the AGF represented by Akin Olujimi SAN argued a preliminary objection where he urged the apex court to dismiss the case of the plaintiff on various grounds.

Among others, the Olujimi argued that the plaintiff lacked locus standing (Legal power) to bring the case before the Supreme Court to invoke the original jurisdiction because the matter is between two political parties.

(NAN)

A Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an order temporarily freezing a bank account belonging to Mars Aviation Limited in Fidelity Bank Plc over the company’s alleged complicity in fraud associated with Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL).

Justice Musa Liman issued the order while ruling on an ex-parte motion filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), moved by its lawyer, Geraldine Ofulue.

Ofulue, while moving the motion, claimed that the account was currently being investigated in a case of criminal misappropriation and money laundering.

The lawyer identified the account number as: 5250350283 (C03651082) with the account name – Mars Aviation Limited.

The order issued on September 22 was on the motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1299/2025, filed on July 1.

The EFCC stated, in a supporting affidavit, that it received an open source intelligence alleging that some monies had been paid by NNPCL to Mars Aviation Ltd for purported contracts that were phony and granted in default of the provisions of the Procurement Act.

It added that based on the intelligence, the commission launched an investigation and found that huge sums of money had indeed been paid to the account of Mars Aviation Ltd by NNPCL, in various instalments.

The EFCC said interim freesing was necessary to preserve the funds and prevent any transaction on the accounts, pending the conclusion of investigation.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has been urged to restrain former President Goodluck Jonathan from presenting himself to any political party in the country for the purpose of contesting the 2027 presidential election.

The request forms part of the reliefs being sought in suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/ 2025, filed by a lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi.

The plaintiff is equally praying the court to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from accepting or publishing Jonathan’s name as a duly nominated candidate of any political party for the purpose of contesting the next presidential election.

Listed defendants in the suit are Jonathan, INEC, and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

The plaintiff raised a sole question for the determination of the court – Whether in view of the combined provisions of the entirety of Sections 1(1), (2) & (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution and their conflated interpretation, the first defendant (Jonathan) is eligible, under any circumstances [whatsoever] to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Jideobi, who is seeking about five reliefs, wants the court to also declare that upon an intimate reading and complete understanding of the entirety of Sections 1(1), (2) & (3) and 137(3) of the Constitution, Jonathan “is ineligible to stand for or occupy the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

He equally wants a declaration that in view of the entirety of Sections 1(1), (2) & (3) and 137(3) of the Constitution INEC lacks the constitutional power to receive from any political party the name of the first defendant or publish same as the candidate of any political party for the election into the office of the president in 2027 and other years to come.

Read Also: Court quashes suspension of NURTW by Makinde

The plaintiff stated, in a supporting affidavit, that Jonathan was first sworn in as President on May 6, 2010, following the death of then-President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua on May 5, 2010, having previously been the Vice-President.

The plaintiff said he recently saw in various national dailies and television stations reports on Jonathan’s intention to contest for the presidency in 2027.

“That the Plaintiff believes that the 1st defendant, having completed the unexpired term of late President Yar’Adua and subsequently served a full term after the 2011 election, has exhausted the constitutional limit of two tenures as President.

“That if the court does not intervene timeously, a political party may present the 1st defendant as its presidential candidate in the 2027 general election, thereby breaching the Constitution.”

The plaintiff stated that part of his duties, as a lawyer, is to forestall a violation of the Constitution and to uphold the rule of law.

He added, “There are chances that one of the political parties in Nigeria may favour the 1st defendant to stand as its presidential candidate in the forthcoming 2027 general elections to be conducted and overseen by the 2nd Defendant.

“If unchallenged, the 1st defendant may enter the 2027 presidential race on the platform of one of the political parties in Nigeria and may emerge the winner of the said election.

“In the event the 1st defendant is returned as elected and sworn as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2027, it will mark the 3rd time the 1st defendant will be taking the oath of office as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“In the event the 1st defendant is returned as elected and sworn as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria come in 2027, the plaintiff, as a Nigerian citizen, would become one of the those under the governance control of the 1st defendant [who by virtue of his office would be saddled with the responsibility of executing the laws of the country].

“As a Nigerian lawyer trained in Nigerian constitutional law, the plaintiff has come across a provision in the Nigerian constitution stating that a person who was sworn in as President to complete the term for which another person was elected as President shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.

“The plaintiff knows that the 1st defendant was indeed, on the 6th May, 2010, sworn in as President to complete the term for which (former) President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was elected as President as a consequence of the demise of the former President on the 5th day of May, 2010.

“The 1st defendant, after being sworn in on 6th May, 2010, to complete the term of late Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, was subsequently elected into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and sworn in on the 27th May, 2011.

“I know that if the 1st defendant eventually wins the forthcoming 2027 general election as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (which is for a term of 4 years spanning 2027 to 2031), he will have exceeded 8 years, being the cumulative maximum years a Nigerian President is to stay in office.

“As a Nigerian lawyer, trained in Nigerian constitutional law, the plaintiff knows of a provision in the Nigerian constitution stating that the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any persons or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of the same Constitution.

“The plaintiff, being a lawyer committed to the reign of constitutionalism, an unrepentant apostle of the rule of law and a known crusader for democratic governance, especially in Nigeria, does not wish to be governed by any person or group of persons who may have taken control of the Government of Nigeria in a manner not contemplated by the Nigerian constitution.

“The plaintiff has instituted this suit in the public interest, in the defence of the rule of law and accentuation of the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the integrity of the Nigerian Constitutional order,” he said.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered a retired Director (Administration and Finance) at the Abuja Metropolitan Management Council (AMMC), Garba Mohammed Duku to either refund N1, 592,750,000 (N1.6b) to the coffers of the Federal Government or spend the next four years in prison.

Justice James Omotosho issued the order on Friday after convicting Duku, said to have retired from the AMMC in 2014, of the offences of corruption and money laundering, on a six-count charge brought against him by the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related Offences Commission (ICPC).

Duku, who looked well-fed, with glowing skin, was said to have committed the offences between 2012 and 2013, when he converted funds, totalling N318,550,000 transferred from AMMC into his personal account domiciled with Fidelity Bank Plc.

Justice Omotosho found that Duku received N56,250,000 into the Fidelity Bank account on July 23, 2012; N71m on December 2012; N53m on December 7, 2012; N54m on December 2012; N46m on March 8, 2013 and N36,300,000 on March 21, 2013.

The judge found that, not only was the defendant unable to justify the payment of his employer’s funds into his personal account that he opened just a year earlier (2011) and became dormant immediately he retired, he also failed to provide convincing evidence for what official projects the funds were deployed for.

Justice Omotosho noted that the manner the defendant withdrew the funds hastily, in tens of millions, some of which were sent to bureau de change for conversion to United States dollars, betrayed a sinister motive.

The judge found that the defendant, in his statement to the ICPC claimed to have handed some of the funds in dollars to some of his superiors, a claim the court said, he failed to support with evidence.

Read Also: First Lady reaffirms maternal health as core of Renewed Hope Agenda

Justice Omotosho also noted that some of his subordinates, called as prosecution witnesses, claimed to have been directed to issue certificates of completion for projects they did not inspect, a claim, the judge said the defendants also failed to disprove.

He faulted the defendant’s lawyer’s arguement that the funds in question were appropriated for, noting that most of the funds appropriated by public officials in the country are mostly monies duly budgeted/appropriated for projects .

Justice Omotosho found that the prosecution established all the relevant ingredients relating to the offences charged and proved itS case beyond reasonable doubt, as required under the law, with the three witnesses called.

He also found the the defendant failed to dislodge the case of the prosecution through his sole witness, which was himself.

The judge, accordingly convicted the defendant on all counts.

In his allocutus, the defendant, who said he could not fully recollect all that happened while he was in service as at when he made statements to the investigation some years later, prayed the court for mercy.

The judge proceeded to sentence Duku to four years imprisonment per count with an option of fine, which must be an equivalent of five times the amount listed in each count.

Four count one, he is to refund N355m; count two, N230m; count three, N270m; count four, N266.25m; count five, N280m and count six, N191.5m.

…upholds President’s power to suspend elected officials to avert anarchy

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed three suits challenging the state of emergency declared in Rivers State, the suspension of the state’s elected officials, and the activities of the appointed sole administrator.

Justice James Omotosho, in three decisions on Thursday, held that, not only were the cases filed in the wrong court – the Federal High Court – which lacked the necessary justification, the plaintiffs were also without the requisite locus standi (the right to approach the court on the issues raised).

The first suit, marked: FHC/PH/CS/51/2025, was filed by Belema Briggs, Princess Wai-Ogosu, I. Acho, Emmanuel Mark, and Hadassa Ada, who claimed to have sued for themselves and residents of Rivers State.

They listed the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation, Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (retired), and the Nigerian Navy as defendants.

The plaintiffs queried the emergency declaration, the suspension of elected officials, including Governor Siminalayi Fubara, the appointment of a sole administrator, and, among others, prayed the court to void them.

In a judgment on Thursday, Justice Omotosho upheld the preliminary objection raised by the defendants and dismissed the suit.

In holding that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, Justice Omotosho held that they could not, on their own, file a suit to address the interest of all the residents of a state, more so when none of the suspended officials was made a party to the suit.

The judge found that the plaintiffs, who claimed to be residents of Rivers, did not show that they were more affected by the decision than the elected officials, who were suspended, or other residents of the state, nor obtained the permission of the state’s Attorney General before approaching the court.

In holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit, Justice Omotosho held that it was the law that issues arising or connected with a declaration of a state of emergency are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by virtue of section 1 (1) and (2) of the Emergency Powers (Jurisdiction) Act, 1962.

He added that the same statute has been modified by the Emergency Powers (Jurisdiction) Act (Modification) Order, 2025.

The judge faulted the plaintiffs’ claim that, as voters, their fundamental rights to enjoy democratic government were taken away from them by the emergency declaration, which they argued amounted to a coup against Rivers’ residents.

He said, “The plaintiffs’ claim that their fundamental rights were breached as a result of these actions holds no water, as section 45 (1) of the Constitution permits the derogation of rights in the interest of public order and public safety.

“The facts before the court all show that Rivers State was on the brink of anarchy, and allowing matters to flow in the normal course was only going to lead to severe breakdown of law and order.

“Consequently, it was necessary that in the interest of public safety and public order that the President suspended the Governor, Deputy Governor, and Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and also appointed the 3rd defendant, who is a retired Naval officer, to ensure peace in the state,” he said.

Justice Omotosho also faulted the plaintiffs’ contention that conditions precedent to warrant a declaration of state of emergency were not available as at March 18 when the proclamation was made.

He said, “To begin this discourse, it is important to examine if the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the power to declare a state of emergency in any state in Nigeria, as this is the starting point for the suspension of the Governor, the Deputy Governor, and the members of the House of Assembly of Rivers State.

“The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the custodian of executive powers in Nigeria. He is vested with enormous powers to discharge his duties, including the duty to ensure the safety of lives and properties within the country.

“One of the distinct powers of the President is the power to proclaim a state of emergency in Nigeria, throughout the federation or in a part of the Federation.

“This power is enshrined in Section 305 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

“A state of emergency is usually not a planned event, and it is not an event that the law can fully capture, as there are several instances that may necessitate the declaration of a state of emergency, such as a natural disaster, religious crisis, or a political crisis, among others.

“An imminent threat or present danger to the Federation of Nigeria or a part of it is a ground for declaring a state of emergency, as done in this case.

“Once the proclamation of the state of emergency is ratified by the National Assembly, the power to administer the emergency area vests exclusively in the President.

“He (the President) is then empowered to take measures to restore peace and order to the affected area, including the appointment of the 3rd defendant as Sole Administrator and stationing of the 4th defendant in strategic locations in the state as the case may be.

“The findings of this court, with regards to the facts before it, show that there were reasonable grounds for the President to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State.

“The Governor, Deputy Governor, and Members of the House of Assembly were suspended for a period of time and not removed from office, and the President exercised his discretion in appointing a Sole Administrator as he saw fit.

“All these actions were aimed at ensuring peace and security in the state.

“The issue raised by the plaintiffs that the President did not secure the required two-thirds majority of the members of each house of the National Assembly is not what can be resolved through affidavit evidence, but by a writ of summons where witnesses will be called and cross-examined,” the judge said.

The two other decisions were rulings on the suits filed by two groups. The one marked: FHC/PH/CS/43/2025 was by The Incorporated Trustees of Rivsbridge Peace Initiative.

It had six defendants – the President, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Accountant General of the Federation (AG-F), the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retired).

The suit had queried Ibas’ appointment and sought to, among others, restrain the President, the AGF, and the AG-F from releasing from belonging to Rivers State in the Consolidated Revenue Funds to Ibas.

The second suit, marked: FHC/PH/CS/436/2025, filed by Pilex Centre for Civic Education Initiative and Courage Nsirimovu had Ibas as the sole defendant.

The suit, which also queried the legitimacy of Ibas’ appointment, prayed the court to, among others, restrain the administrator from appointing sole administrators for the state’s 23 Local Government Areas.

In the two rulings, Justice Omotosho upheld the objection raised by lawyers to the defendants, including Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who represented Ibas and dismissed the suits on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and want of locus standi.

The judge expressed displeasure at the conduct of lawyers to the plaintiffs, who he noted failed to conduct adequate research before filing the suits.

Justice Omotosho said, “I must not fail to say here that counsel to the plaintiffs ought to make proper research regarding his case before filing the same.

“He must make diligent research as to which court has jurisdiction and the necessary parties in that suit before filing his action.

“Counsel has the duty to be professional in making such research rather than spending time spreading misinformation or painting the wrong picture on social media and other broadcast media.

“This court is saddled with a lot of cases, including commercial, civil, and criminal matters, which makes its time very precious.

“Filing suits which are void ab initio is inimical to the course of justice, and the court can suo motu non suit such a void suit to save its time.

“I therefore hold that a void process cannot activate the jurisdiction of this court.

“In the final analysis, the suit of the plaintiffs is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of this court, and the plaintiffs themselves lack locus standi to maintain this action.

“Even if this court could exercise jurisdiction over this matter, the weight of evidence tilts heavily in favour of the defendants.

“Consequently, this suit is hereby dismissed in its entirety,” the judge said.

The Abakaliki Division of the Federal High Court has delivered a landmark judgment in favour of a legal practitioner, Sampson Imeze Ekigbo, awarding him a total of ₦22 million in damages and costs against the Nigerian Correctional Service and four other respondents.

The judgment, delivered on Thursday by Justice Hillary Oshomah in suit number FHC/AI/FHR/11/2025, arose from a fundamental rights enforcement action filed by Mr Ekigbo on January 30, 2025.

The applicant was brutally assaulted on November 26, 2024, at Harriz Filling Station, Abakaliki, by two men identified as Mr. Ifeanyi Nwovu and Mr. Ogwuma Chidi, who were officers of the Nigerian Correctional Service.

The lawyer, who is also a presiding officer in the Customary Court filed a suit against the Service,  its Comptroller General and the Comptroller in Charge of Ebonyi Command of the Service and the two officers.

In his ruling, Justice Oshomah held that the beating amounted to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental human rights, particularly his right to dignity of person as enshrined under Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“The beating of the Applicant who is presiding officer of customary court and legal practitioner at Harriz Filling Station, Abakaliki on the 26thday of November, 2024 without just cause by the 4th and 5th Respondents who were working for the 1st to 3rd Respondents, is a gross violation of the Fundamental Human Rights of the Applicant to dignity of his person contrary to Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

Read Also: NASC launches 2025–2029 strategic plan to modernise Nigeria’s seed sector

He further issued a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further torturing, intimidating, or molesting the applicant without lawful cause.

“An Order of Perpetual Injunction be and is hereby granted by this Honourable Court restraining the Respondents or anyone acting through them from torturing, molesting and/or intimidating the Applicant without committing any known wrong or offence or without a justifiable reason,” the judge said.

The Judge also ordered the Respondents to tender an unreserved apology to the applicant, to be published in two national dailies within 14 days.

“That the Respondents are by order of this Honourable Court mandated to tender an unreserved apology to the Applicant and same to be published in two national dailies within 14 days of this Judgment,” the judge said.

Justice Oshomah further awarded ₦20 million as compensation for the assault and the pain suffered by the applicant.

In addition, the court awarded an additional N2 million  to cover costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of the case by the applicants.

He said: “That N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only is hereby assessed and awarded against the Respondents jointly and severally as compensation for the pains and torture that was meted on the Applicant by the 4th and 5th Respondents on 26h November, 2024.

“Cost and expenses incidental to the institution and prosecution of this action is by order of this Honourable Court assessed to be N2, 000, 000.00 (Two Million Naira) in favour of the Applicant against the Respondents jointly and severally”, the Judge added.

The court imposed a 10% per annum post-judgment interest on the cumulative judgment sum should the respondents fail to pay within 14 days.

“Post judgment interest at the rate of 10%  per annum on the entire cumulative Judgment sum is hereby awarded, to commence running if after 14 days from this Judgment the judgment sum is not finally and fully liquidated by the Respondents”, the judge said.

Neither the applicant nor the respondents were physically present in court during the judgment.

Their lawyers C.C. Aliugo, for the applicant, and Samuel Nwalieze, for the respondents were however in court.

Mr Aliugo described the ruling as a bold step in reinforcing the sanctity of fundamental human rights and sending a strong signal against abuse of power by security agencies.

The applicant,  Mr Ekigbo in an interview on Friday expressed relief at the judgement.

Recounting his ordeal, Ekibu said the incident occurred on November 24, 2024, after a tricycle rammed into his vehicle at Harriz Filling Station Abakaliki,  where he had gone for repairs.

He noted that he was attacked by two armed officers of the Correctional Service who slapped and dragged him, threatening to shoot him despite his protests that he was a judicial officer.

The assault, he said, left him with a severe ear injury that required hospitalization.

He further noted that all efforts by him, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and civil society groups to seek redress from the authorities were ignored, prompting his decision to go to court.

“I followed the path of peace, but they neglected every intervention. The judgment today is justice.  I will ensure the judgment is enforced to the letter,” Ekibu stated.

He emphasized that the victory was not only personal but also a step toward upholding the dignity of judicial officers and the protection of citizens’ rights. Ends