The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Court to rule on Lagos property July 10

    Justice Olabisi Ogungbesan of a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja  will on July 10,  rule on an application seeking to stay a writ of execution obtained by a judgment-debtor, Jagal Nigeria Limited over a property located at Plot B, Ikosi Road, Oregun Industrial Estate, Ikeja.

    A  Lagos-based company, Johnson Products Nigeria Limited had filed an application praying  the court to set aside the writ of execution obtained by the judgment-debtor.

    The new date for the ruling in the application was announced to parties in the suit by the registrar of the court at the resumed sitting of the court on the matter last week. The court registrar had earlier held a brief meeting with the parties during which the new date for the ruling was mutually agreed.

    Johnson Products Nigeria Limited had approached the court, praying it to restore them to status quo ante as at April 29, 2015, pending the hearing and determination of its application for re-listing in the Court of Appeal.

    Joined as second defendant in the suit is Chief Samuel Agboola Akintan, who is said to have earlier leased the property to Wire Manufacturing (Nigeria) Limited for 20 years, having had a Deed of Conveyance dated 1971.

    During  the last sitting of the court, the applicant through its counsel, Gabriel Olawoyin (SAN) had told the court that the order of the Court of Appeal upon which the writ of execution was predicated was obtained by deceit.

    He contended that the defendant misled the court  on the matter.

    He argued that as at the time the defendants rushed to obtain the writ of execution, they  already had applications seeking for re-listing of their appeal before the Court of Appeal.                                                       The defendants, according to him, were duly served with copies of the application and that they duly acknowledged receipt of the documents. “We have three applications, including brief of argument, pending before the Court of Appeal and they filed a counter to every application, which means they have been served”.

    Olawoyin had also told the court that his client had eight grounds for bringing its application for stay of the writ of execution before the court and that all the averments in the supporting affidavit of its various processes listed the events in the Court of Appeal that led to the higher court’s order.

    He had pleaded with the court that since the averments were not controverted by the defendants in any way, they should be taken as the true positions of things.

    But the defendant’s counsel, Qudus Mumuney had opposed the application on the grounds that the prayers of the applicants had no basis in law.

    Mumuni contended that the issue before the court was not only the proceedings of February 5, 2015 when the Court of Appeal struck out the appeal of the appellant but the entire proceeding which dated back to 2009.                                                                                                                                                                            He described the application filed by the applicants as an invitation to review the order of the Court of Appeal, adding that it would amount to calamity of the jurisprudence when a lower court would sit to review the order of a superior court.

    Mumuni, however, maintained that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application and that the court should throw out the application which he described as abuse of court process.

    But Olawoyin had insisted on the jurisdiction of the court not only to grant the prayers of the applicants but also to stay the writ of execution obtained in respect of the disputed property.

    Olawoyin also contended that the issue before the court was the writ of execution for which they are praying the court to set aside pending the determination of their application for re-listing of their appeal against the judgment of Justice Ayotunde Phillips, now a retired Chief Judge of Lagos State, which in 2008 granted possession of the disputed  property located in  Oregun Industrial Estate, Ikeja to Jagal Nigeria Limited.

    Johnson Products had dragged Jagal Nigeria Limited before Justice Ayotunde Phillips of a Lagos State High Court over the ownership of the  disputed property.

    The firm had averred that the Memorandum of Agreement executed by the two parties on  April 17, 1980 “effectively transferred Jagal’s interest in the property” to it upon the payment of N1, 340, 000 and that  Jagal issued a receipt No.1351 dated  June 2, 1982, which  stated that the payment is for the assignment of the property in question.

    Johnson Products had further averred that Jagal acknowledged its (Johnson Products) ownership of the property in a letter addressed to Ault and Wilborg (Nig) Limited.

    But Justice Phillips, in her judgment delivered on July 11, 2008  in the suit delineated ID/1466/98 held that the Memorandum of Agreement transferred no interest in the property to Johnson Products and  affirmed Jagal as the owner of the property.

    Not satisfied with the decision of the court, Johnson Products Limited, appealed against the judgment on  July 16, 2008 and claimed to have filed its Brief of Argument as at December 8, 2010.

    However, the matter assumed a new dimension in February 2015 when the matter slated for hearing  by Appeal Court, was struck out for want of diligent prosecution.

    Johnson Products re-approached the appellate court, asking the matter to be relisted but while the process was ongoing, the defendant (Jagal Nigeria Limited) obtained a Writ of Possession of the court to effect the judgment of Justice Philips against Johnson Product which also affected some interpleaders.

  • Court orders DSS to release Islamic cleric, tender public apology

    Court orders DSS to release Islamic cleric, tender public apology

    A Federal High Court in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital, yesterday told the operatives of the Department of the State Security Service(DSS) that it does not have power to detain a terrorism suspect,  Ganiyu Ibrahim-Jimoh, indefinitely.

    The court said the arrest and continued detention of Ibrahim-Jimoh is not only “illegal and unconstitutional”, but also an “abuse of his rights”.

    Delivering judgment in a suit filed by the Prisoners Right Advocacy Initiative (PRAI), Justice F. O. Ogunbanjo held that the detention of Ibrahim – Jimoh in perpetuity since July 5, last year, without trial, violated certain provisions of the constitution.

    The judge, therefore, ordered his immediate release, payment of N1million damages and tendering of public apology to him by DSS.

    The cleric and his expectant wife, Muinat, were abducted at their Ijoko-Ota home by unknown persons last year.

    In September, Muinat was set free when her Expected Due Date (EDD) drew close.

    On getting home, she told family members that she and her husband were in DSS custody.

    Following the disclosure, Counsel Hammed Adetola-Kazeem filed an application, seeking a declaration that the arrest and detention was illegal, release of the suspect and payment of N300 million damages.

    The Director-General of DSS and the Attorney General of the Federation were joined as respondents.

    During the trial, the DSS argued that the  suspects were being held for suspicious terrorism-related activities.

    But Justice Ogunbanjo held that the DSS could not convince the court that the law empowering it to detain suspects also granted it unlimited power to  detain beyond what was permissible in the constitution.

    “The DSS didn’t deny the arrest of the applicant and his wife but denied all other allegations in the motion.

    “The right of citizen is enshrined in the constitution and also the power to arrest and investigate suspects, however, I am yet to see which law gave the DSS the wide power to arrest and detain suspects for 64 days without charging them to court.

    “The DSS failed to show the law which gives it power to detain anyone beyond what is  in the constitution,” the court submitted.

    However, the judge maintained that the position of the court doesn’t constitute a shield on the applicants should the DSS and the Attorney General of Federation resolve to charge them.

  • Court refuses foreigners’ bid to quash charge

    Court refuses foreigners’ bid to quash charge

    The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday dismissed a preliminary objection filed by 14 foreigners charged with illegal dealing in petroleum products.

    Justice Ibrahim Buba held that the court has jurisdiction to try them directed the prosecution to open its case.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on June 10 preferred a four-count charge of conspiracy, dealing in and storage of petroleum products without lawful authority against them.

    They are three Russians – Arthur Pakhladzhian, Vasaliy Shkundich, Kretov Andrey; a Japanese – Sergio Abgarian; and three Ukrainians – Vitalis Biluos, Laguta Olesksiy and Chepikov Oleksan.

    Others are seven Britons – Hilarion Teofilo Regipor Jr, Cadavis Gerardo, Baduria Benjamin, Naranjo Allian Antero Jr, Patro Christian, Alcayde Joel and Carantiquit Micheal Bryan.

    Three vessels – MT Anukt Emerald, Monjasa DMCC, and Glencore Energy UK Ltd were charged with them.

    EFCC said they committed the offence on February 27 by storing 1,500 metric tons of Automated Gas Oil (AGO) popularly known as diesel inside the MT Anuket Emerald’s Cargo Tank. It said they also stored 3,035 metric tons of Low Pour Fuel Oil (LPFO) in other tanks.

    The offence contravenes Sections 4, 17, 19(6) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the Petroleum Act, Laws of the Federation.

    On Wednesday, defence counsel Babajide Koku (SAN) argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to try them because they were not carrying out any illegal activities within Nigeria’s territorial waters.

    He said the accused were within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and that the Miscellaneous Offences Act does not cover the zone.

    EFCC’s lawyer, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, urged the court to discountenance Koku’s arguments, saying: “It is late for the accused after taken their plea to challenge the prosecutorial powers of the EFCC.”

    Justice Buba held that the EFCC has the powers to file the charges under the Act being  since the offence was committed on Nigerian waters.

    Besides, the EFCC can file any charge on the government’s behalf.

    The judge said the accused had taken their plea without any objection, adding that the defence counsel applied for their bail which was granted.

    “The instant case is not an abuse of court proceedings. The accused has a case to answer and the court has jurisdiction to entertain the case. I hereby dismiss the objection,” the judge held. He adjourned till today for trial.

  • Court restrains Edo from sacking striking judicial workers

    Court restrains Edo from sacking striking judicial workers

    The National Industrial Court sitting in Akure, Ondo State, has restrained the Edo State government from terminating the appointment of members of the state’s Judicial Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) pending the hearing on notice.

    Courts in the state have been closed since January when JUSUN members embarked on an indefinite strike over non-implementation of financial autonomy for the judiciary.

    Also restrained were the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, and the Judicial Service Commission.

    Justice A.N. Ubaka restrained the respondents whether by themselves, their servants, agents or privies from terminating the appointments and advertising the positions of the claimants after entertaining hearings from Uhunmwangho D.A. from Olayiwola Afolabi’s chamber.

    Justice Ubaka also barred the respondents from filling the JUSUN members positions on account of the ongoing industrial action embarked upon pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

    The judge further ordered that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants are hereby restrained from carrying out anything that will lead to the termination of the appointment of the claimant/applicant’s members or advertise their position and or fill same on account of the ongoing industrial action embarked upon by the claimant/applicant’s members pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction filed in this case”.

    The case was adjourned to June 23.

    Secretary of the Commission, Mr. Issac Sanu, had in a statement, ordered all judiciary workers in the state to report for duty on June 10 or faced dismissal.

    Over 3000 persons have filled recruitment forms into the state judiciary.

  • Court orders arrest of kerosene-laden vessel

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the arrest and detention of a vessel laden with 5,000 metric tonnes of kerosene over an alleged contract breach.

    The cargo, covered by an allocation letter by the Pipelines and Products Marketing Company Limited (PPMC), is onboard MT Sea Pioneer on Lagos waters.

    Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke made the order following an application by a petroleum products dealer, Stallionaire Nigeria Limited, who sued Acorn Petroleum Plc, PPMC and others.

    The plaintiff claimed that it paid Acorn for the product, but rather than deliver it, Acorn (the first defendant) resold it.

    “Acorn has now completed plans to accord loading rights to the said third party over the 5,000MT cargo of DPK (Dual Purpose Kerosene) over which the plaintiff has and retains legal title as per parties’ agreement and full consideration paid,” Stallionaire said.

    The plaintiff said Acorn has applied to PPMC for loading rights over the cargo which Stallionaire is entitled to.

    Justice Aneke held that the vessel should be detained, pending Acorn’s provision of a bank guarantee for N488 million and N132,287,960 from a reputable commercial bank to secure the plaintiff’s claims.

    Acorn has prayed the court to discharge the order, but the plaintiff is urging the court to refuse the application.

    It accused the first defendant of conducting the sale of kerosene allocation “in a similar manner as resulted in this dispute.”

    Stallionaire recalled that in November 2014, it paid for 5,000 metric tonnes of DPK to Acorn upfront, but the first defendant collected money on the same consignment from another company, Bono Energy/Achetype International.

    “Upon arrival at the cargo offshore Nigeria, confusion ensued between the two buyers,” Stallionaire, said, adding that it was only after it offered to refund Archetype that it was able to take the cargo.

    Acorn denied the allegation, saying it is not true and not related to Stallionaire’s claims.

    Yesterday, the first defendant’s counsel, Eubena Amedu, sought to move his pending application, but the plaintiff’s counsel, Mr Chijioke Emeka, objected because Amedu has not filed a memorandum of appearance and as such was not properly before the court.

    Besides, Emeka said Acorn has not satisfied the claim nor furnished a bank guarantee to secure the claims as ordered by the court.

    Justice Aneke adjourned till June 30.

     

  • N12billion bank fraud: court orders quarantine of suspect

    N12billion bank fraud: court orders quarantine of suspect

    •Accused persons to remain in prison throughout trial

    Justice Ayo Emmanuel of the Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan yesterday ordered Nigeria Prisons officials to quarantine Mr. Salami Ibrahim, one of the accused persons in the alleged N8billion mutilated currency fraud.

    The judge also ordered that the accused persons should remain in the prison custody throughout the trial.

    The accused, Salami Ibrahim, had through an application sought for freedom based on health grounds.

    Ibrahim of Sterling Bank, according Justice Emmanuel, did not disclose the nature of his illness in the affidavit before the court.

    In his ruling on a bail application for the accused persons, Justice Emmanuel, who refused bail for all the accused persons, also ordered that a health certificate must be produced after medical examination by prison officials and a federal hospital on Ibrahim.

    Justice Emmanuel said: “I have considered the evidence before the court; the offences are mind-boggling and weighty. I have not been persuaded by the submission before me to think otherwise. Evidence before me point to a new wave of economic crime. I must state that the court does not have the power to detain an accused person beyond constitutional limit. The discretion to grant bail resides with the court but such discretion must also be judiciously applied.

    “The alleged crimes have adverse effect on the economy of the nation and the offence carries a maximum of 21 years in prison. It is a capital offence against the economy of this country. It is a common knowledge that the first, second and third accused are answering other criminal charges in suits before me.

    “In view of evidence before me, I have not been persuaded or convinced by the sworn affidavits tendered by the accused persons that if granted bail, they will not interfere with court processes.  In concluding, the accused persons have not persuaded me to exercise my discretion to admit them to bail. The bail application is hereby dismissed and I grant the order of accelerated hearing. This court will not tolerate frivolous applications.”

    The accused persons are Kolawole Babalola, Olaniran Adeola Muniru, Toogun Kayode Phillips, Ibrahim and Oddiah Emmanuel.

    Others are Patience Okoro Eye, Afolabi Olufemi Johnson, Ilori Adekunle Sunday, Kolawole Babalola, Olaniran Muniru Adeola, and Fatai Adedokun Yusuf.

    Also facing trial are Kolawole Babalola, Olaniran Muniru Adeola, Toogun Kayode Phillips and Tope Akintade.

    The accused are facing a 31-count charge ranging from conspiracy, abuse of office, stealing to false declaration of actual amount and concealing of property.

    Seven cases are filed on the fraud totaling N12 billion.

    Responding to the ruling yesterday, EFCC counsel Adeola Aborisade said: “The ruling is not different from every other ruling on bail application. Bail application is at the discretion of the court and the court has exercised its discretion not to admit them to bail because the court said that the accused persons have not convinced the court based on the affidavit before the court that they were entitled to bail and the court in looking at the proof of evidence before the court that the evidence against the accused persons are so weighty that if they were granted bail, they may not be able to stand their trial. Well, we are the ones that suggested accelerated hearing instead of bail; once we were able to prove our case or they were able to defend their case, if the court finds them guilty fine, if the court finds them otherwise, they will go their houses.

    “So, accelerated hearing is in the interest of the accused persons so that them will know the case before them on time and dispose them one way or the other. It is the constitutional right of the accused, if you are dissatisfied with the ruling of any High Court, you have the choice to either go to the Court of Appeal or take the ruling as it were. So, if they decide to go on appeal, that won’t in anyway hinder the hearing of the case since the case will be going on here. Since the case is substantive, the bail application is just integral part of it to secure their freedom nothing more.”

    Also, counsel to Phillips, Mr Olalekan Ojo, said: “The ruling certainly was against our expectation, but we have always known that any ruling or judgment could go either way, either in your favour or against you. So, to that extent, I will say I am not surprised. But I am only worried because there is no justification why there should be no parity of treatment as far as this application is concerned. Like you know, several ex-governors have been charged with one economic crime or the other, several bank chiefs, you remember that they were charged to court after the crash in the bank industry during the era of former CBN Governor Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, these were also alleged offences against the economy of Nigeria. But I stand to be corrected sir, that none of them was denied bail.

    “I remember one of the dictum of Justice Oputa of blessed memory, that there should be no different scale of justice for the wealthy and another for the not too wealthy, or those who are lower in the hierarchy. If ex- governors, ex-bank chiefs are granted bail, I am at a loss why it should not be so for those who are just managers and security guards.  But nevertheless, it is an exercise of discretion. Well, the clients have immediately informed us to appeal the ruling and we shall do that. You know we tried our best possible to let the Lordship know that it is dangerous at this stage to go into the substantive issue ,there are pronouncements made in the ruling in the bail application which touch on the substantive issues at the trial to the detriment of the defendants; that is why we are worried.

    “Indeed, as far as we are concerned, some of the accused persons even said it’s like this court has found us guilty already. That is what they said. In fact, one of them said, when the judge said having regard to the pulse of the nation, he asked: ‘how did the lordship know the pulse of the nation? He also asked: did he go to Oje market or some other markets to find the pulse of the nation? But nevertheless, we are worried.”

    Relatives, families, and friends of the accused were hoping that the court would grant them bail. When it became known that the court refused them bail, many of them broke down in tears, weeping profusely. Lawyers were seen consoling and reassuring them that hope was not lost.

    The case was adjourned to July 6 and 7 for accelerated hearing.

  • Court strikes out Kashamu’s N20b libel suit against Obasanjo

    Court strikes out Kashamu’s N20b libel suit against Obasanjo

    •Senator claims on-going settlement moves     •Extradition proceedings open June 25

    Justice Valentine Ashi of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has struck out a suit by a chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Senator Buruji Kashamu, against former President Olusegun Obasanjo.

    The decision followed an application for withdrawal filed by Kashamu, who claimed that parties were engaged in on-going settlement moves.

    Obasanjo’s lawyer denied knowledge of such moves.

    Kashamu had on February 6, last year, sued Obasanjo, asking the court to award N20billion as aggravated and exemplary damages, and another N100million against the former President for “maliciously and recklessly” publishing a letter titled: ‘Before it is too late’, addressed to ex-President Goodluck Jonathan in December 2013

    The PDP chieftain sued Obasanjo for libel in relation to the claims in the letter that he (Kashamu) is a fugitive wanted in the United States for drug-related offences.

    Trial had progressed in the case, with Kashamu calling two of his three intended witnesses.

    Haruna Rasheed and Omotayo  Alade-Fawole claimed that the publication of the ex-President’s letter in the media portrayed Kashamu in bad light.

    Proceedings were later stalled in the substantive case when Kashamu on December 5, last year, moved the court to grant a restraining order against Obasanjo.

    The senator sought to stop the former President from proceeding with the scheduled public launch of his book titled: “My Watch” on the ground that the subject of the libel suit was contained in the book.

    Despite the order of December 5, Obasanjo launched the book on December 9 in Lagos.

    Kashamu returned to  court the following day with the complaint that Obasanjo breached the December 5 order by proceeding to launch the book.

    Justice Ashi, in a ruling, held that Obasanjo was in contempt of court for flouting his orders restraining him from among others, publishing the book.

    The judge gave the former President 21 days (from the day of service of the court’s orders on him)  to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for going ahead to publish  the book despite the ex-parte interim order made by the court on December 5 and a pending libel suit involving him.

    The judge later lifted all orders against Obasanjo in a ruling delivered in April, following counter arguments by Obasanjo’s lawyer, Mahmud Magaji (SAN).

    Proceedings were to resume on the main libel case, which Kashamu brought an application for withdrawal last month.

    The PDP chieftain hinged his application on a purported “on going settlement moves” by parties.

    Although Obasanjo’s lawyer denied knowledge of any on-going settlement move, he did not oppose Kashamu’s application to withdraw, following which Justice Ashi struck out the case in a ruling given on May 26.

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja, will, next Thursday, open hearing in an extradition application filed against Kashamu.

    The application filed by  former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) Mohammed Adoke (SAN) sought the court’s permission to transfer Kashamu to the US for trial on drug-related offences.

    The extradition application filed on May 28 was said to have followed a request by the  US Embassy in April, urging the Federal Government to surrender Kashamu for trial in the US on  one count charge of conspiracy and unlawful importation of illicit drug before the United States District Court for the Northern Illinois, Eastern Division.

  • Lawyers: Let court decide Saraki’s fate

    Lawyers: Let court decide Saraki’s fate

    Did the emergence of Senator Bukola Saraki and Hon. Yakubu Dogara as Senate President and House Speaker violate the law? Yes, say some constitutional lawyers; no, argue others. They all agree that the matter be taken to court, writes Eric Ikhilae.

    Politricks was at its height in Abuja last week when,  against the plan of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC),  Senator Bukola Saraki (Kwara State) and Yakubu Dogara (Bauchi) emerged Senate President and House of Representatives Speaker.

    Its lawmakers-elect had, during a straw poll elected Senator Ahmed Lawan (Yobe State and Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila (Lagos) for the positions. But Saraki and his supporters boycotted the session;  Dogara’s loyalists protested Gbajabiamila’s choice.

    In the wee hours of June 8, the day set for the proclamation of the Eighth National Assembly, APC’s legislators-elect were invited to a meeting with  President Muhammadu Buhari at the International Conference Centre in Abuja. The meeting, it was learnt, was  intended to further educate them on the rationale behind the party’s decision.

    While loyal party members went for the meeting,  others headed for the National Assembly. It was at the meeting venue that Lawan and his group saw on television Saraki’s emergence as Senate President.

    When they raced to the National Assembly, it ws too late for them to do anything.They met Saraki wielding the gavel, the symbol of authority of his office. APC also lost the Deputy Senate President’s seat to Senator Ike Ekweremadu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    The dust is settling over the matter. The party has reversed its position to sanction Saraki and others; Gbajabiamila has put the episode behind him and expressed his willingness to work with the House leadership.

    Observers are blaming the development on multiple factors, including party leaders’ inability to sacrifice self-ambition/interest for national good, lack of internal democracy and APC’s inability to discard its opposition mentality. The party, they added, must overcome the euphoria of its electoral victory and come to terms with the reality of being in power.

    They argued that since last Tuesday’s legislative businesses  were conducted on the floors of both chambers and quorum met as required, the legality of Saraki’s and Dogara’s emergence may not be an issue. To them, what should concern all are issues of morality, the need to entrench internal party democracy and for political players  to subject themselves to party supremacy.

    Observers noted that APC’s near loss of the National Assembly leadership resulted mainly from membership indiscipline, caused by conflict in their understanding of party supremacy, party discipline and the need for legislative independence, within the context of the doctrine of separation of powers.

    They contended that in true democracy, the party, on whose platform every candidate rises to power, is supreme. Every member, having subscribed to the party’s ideology, is directed by the party’s interest. Its positions on issues are binding on all members, who have subscribed to its ideology and values. An act of disobedience, as exhibited by some APC members on June 8, is seen as betrayal and rebellion, and treated as such.

    Observers, however, noted that it is too early for anyone to seek strict adherence to the time tested principle of party supremacy among Nigerian politicians, in a political environment devoid of party ideology, and where political participation is driven solely by self-interest (with scant regard for national interest); avaricious tendencies (as against selflessness in service); individual good (as against the general good), among other crude philosophies.

    They also argued that because of the nation’s recent political history and the fact that the political amalgam called APC is still fragile, the party needs to tread softly and continue to accommodate members’ excesses.

    They warned that a rash application of the rod could result in inflamed disaffection, which could scare away members, capable of serving as the party’s assets. Democracy, they argued, thrives on the effective management of conflicting interests for the good of all.

    Lawyers have equally examined the legal and moral implications of the matter. Nigerian Bar Association, (NBA), President Augustine Alegeh (SAN), Prof Itse Sagay (SAN), Mahmud Magaji (SAN) and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa proffer divergent views.

    Alegeh argued that Saraki’s and Dogara’s emergence as leaders of both chambers of the National Asembly is not illegal. He said it is a moral issue and not a legal one.

    • Saraki
    • Saraki

    Alegeh said the 57 senators, who were in the chamber when the election of Saraki took place were enough to form a quorum, and that having formed a quorum; the decision taken at the time was binding on the Senate.

    He urged the APC to quickly resolve its internal conflict to avoid the kind of errors that resulted in PDP’s  implosion.

    “Inaugurating the National Assembly is considered as an ordinary business and for an ordinary business, the requirement of a quorum is one-third. So, legally, there was a quorum. You can argue from a moral perspective but legally, it is in order.”

    “The general election was held in March/April and we are in June. There was enough time for the party to meet with the lawmakers and agree on all these issues. Why wait till the last minute? We must understand that if a time had been fixed for the inauguration, one would expect that all those who want to be inaugurated, given the importance of that event, should have arrived on time.

    “The Clerk of the National Assembly, who is in charge of determining such, said there was a quorum. It will be difficult for me to fault that. We must understand that the National Assembly belongs to the entire country and parties from both sides are members of the Assembly.

    So, for a meeting of one of the parties to lead to the closure of the Assembly would be unfair. The issue that led to some PDP members joining the APC should not be quickly forgotten,” Alegeh said.

    Sagay argued that the process leading to Saraki’s emergence was fraudulent. He also queried Saraki’s moral credentials.

    “If you look at the moral point of view, that purported election was fraudulent. When you purport to hold an election deliberately in the absence of your opponent, knowing that he is absent, and intending to win at any cost unopposed by ensuring that absence, that constitutes fraud.

    “Not only that, I think it’s an act of gross indiscipline, not just against his party, but against the whole country because we are all stakeholders in the electoral process, in who becomes the Senate President and we all felt cheated because there was no proper election. Again, it’s also an act of gross impunity.

    “In effect, he was saying ‘I know my opponent is keenly interested in contesting, I know my opponent is not here yet, and therefore, I will rush an election in his absence in order to be certain of victory at any cost.’ It’s absolutely unacceptable in a decent democracy.

    “My opposition to his sitting illegitimately in that office is not because of his (Saraki’s) “baggage”; he may not be my first choice. But if he had won legitimately, in a fair, square and equitable way, I would have no objection. Yes, he has a huge baggage. Presently as far as I know, he’s under investigation and possibly a lot of inquiry by the EFCC. The matter has not been cleared.

    Normally, it would be better for the first arm of government – that is what the legislature is, and he is the third most senior political personality in the country – for that person to have a clear table; not to have any baggage hanging around his neck.

    “This is because if you have a heavy baggage like that hanging on your neck, and you’re presiding over such an important establishment, then that establishment is also going to carry that heavy weight of a burden along with you, and it will necessarily affect the respect and intergrity which his decisions will have and the whole process of operation of that institution will be impeded by that heavy load,” Sagay said.

    Magaji praised the party for the matured way it has chosen to handle the issue, and for not insisting on sanctioning Saraki and others.

    He said it was dangerous for the party, at this stage, to seek to be dictatorial. He urged the party to be magnanimous and learn to accommodate the interest of its members, particularly those who risked their all for its success.

    Adegboruwa, who contended that the issue of legitimacy was not in question here, noted that whether one goes by the simple majority of 55 Senators, as prescribed by the Constitution, or that of 38 Senators, as prescribed by the Rules of the Senate, the Senate leadership was properly and validly elected.

    “It is indeed unfortunate, that some Senators chose not to be present at the inauguration, for whatever reasons. Their absence, without lawful excuse, will not invalidate the proceedings of the Senate of June 9, 2015.

    “Upon proclamation of the Senate by the President through the Clerk, the business of the Senate had commenced. There was then immediately a transition of power, from the President to the Clerk. The only duty of the Clerk was to proclaim.

    “The immediate assignment after that is the election of the principal officers, especially that of the Senate President and his Deputy. That could not be postponed to await the APC senators, whatever party assignment that they had secured for themselves temporarily.

    “The best option before APC presently, is not some specious or cloudy legal process, but rather a political solution, if it can muster enough will and support, to remove the principal officers already elected, on the floors of their respective Houses.

    “But that will be a needless distraction, as we need the Senate urgently, to settle down to appoint other principal officers, to constitute the committee members and most importantly, to approve the much awaited ministerial list, of the President.

    “APC as a political party cannot hold Nigeria to ransom, due purely to its own internal crisis. It precipitated this whole problem, through the illegal and sham mock elections that it arrogantly conducted, as a demonstration of its bogus prowess and political dominance, which was clearly unnecessary.

    “My very humble advice is that the APC should lie low and let Nigeria move forward. Nigerians voted for APC in order to depart from this feudalistic dominance of the political space, by some set of people, and we cannot seek to be going back to the PDP vomit, that we have all gloriously escaped from,” Adegboruwa said.

     

     

     

     

  • Court strikes out Agip’s objection against firm’s suit

    The Federal High Court in Port Harcourt has struck out a preliminary objection filed by Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear a suit by Arco Group Plc (formerly ARCO Petrochemical Engineering Company Plc).

    The plaintiff filed the suit by means of an originating summons and claimed several declaratory and injunctive reliefs.

    The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Conoco Philips Petroleum Nigeria Limited and National Petroleum Investment Management Services (NAPIMS) are the other defendants.

    After being served with the suit, the Agip’s counsel filed the preliminary objection on February 26, arguing that the court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the action.

    However, the plaintiff’s counsel Mr B. E. I. Nwofor (SAN) contended that the preliminary objection was filed in violation of the court’s rules as the defence counsel did not file a memorandum of appearance first, nor was the objection properly signed.

    Ruling, Justice Lambo Akanbi said the objection was duly signed. He however, held that the defendant’s lawyer did not file any memorandum of appearance before filing the objection.

    “The consequence is that they took that step in violation of the provisions of Order 29, Rules 1 and 2 of the Court’s rules. That is a defect, which, in my view, is fundamental to the defendant filing their notice of preliminary objection.

    “The end result is to strike out the preliminary objection for being incompetent. An order is accordingly made striking out the preliminary objection for being incompetent,” the judge ruled.

    He directed parties to address him on whether the court has the jurisdictional competence to entertain the plaintiff’s claim.

    “It is also trite that the issue of jurisdiction is a threshold one. Once same is raised, the court must decide whether or not it has jurisdiction to entertain the claim for, no matter how well conducted the proceedings are, if the court lacks jurisdiction, the entire proceedings will be a nullity,” Justice Akanbi added.

    The case has been adjourned till June 30.

  • Court declines to restrain IGP, DSS, EFCC over Nyako’s arrest

    Former Adamawa State Governor Murtala Nyako yesterday failed in a bid to restrain the Inspector- General of Police (IGP), the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from arresting him.

    Nyako had, by a motion ex-parte, sought an interim injunction restraining the three from arresting or detaining him in relation to a case of alleged financial malpractices pending, for which he suspected either the IGP, DSS or EFCC might arrest and prosecute him.

    His lawyer, O. E. Ogungbeje, moving the motion, urged the court to restrain the IGP, DSS and EFCC pending the determination of an origination motion he filed for the enforcement of his rights.

    Justice Ahmed Mohhammed refused the ex-governor’s prayer on the grounds that there was no sufficient reason for the court to restrain the IGP, DSS and EFCC, listed as respondents.

    “Having read through the supporting affidavit, particularly paragraphs 5 to 19, which contain facts relating to this case, this court is unable to accede to the request for the order of interim injunction sought,” the judge said.

    He ordered Nyako to put the respondents on notice about any application for injunction filed against them.

    Justice Mohammed also ordered Nyako to serve the originating motion he filed on May 28 on the respondents within seven days from yesterday and adjourned till July 1 for hearing.

    Nyako is, by the substantive suit, seeking to among others, restrain the respondents from arresting or detaining him in relation to the allegation of financial misconduct while in office as the governor.