The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Court orders suspected policemen’s killers to defend selves

    Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday directed 20 suspected pipeline vandals who allegedly killed nine policemen in Arepo, Ogun State, last year to defend themselves.

    He gave the order following his dismissal of their no-case submission.

    The defendants prayed the court to free them because the police failed to establish a prima facie case against them.

    The judge compulsorily closed the prosecution’s case when it called no more witnesses after the first two.

    Dissatisfied, the police appealed the ruling and asked for a stay of proceedings.

    Justice Abang dismissed the no-case submission and the application for stay.

    He said the defendants must respond to the evidence of the witnesses, who claimed they saw them chanting war songs while killing the policemen who tried to stop them from stealing petrol from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) pipeline.

    The judge struck out some of the defendants’ names from a kidnapping charge.

    The suspects allegedly killed the police officers last May 24, while attempting to escape with stolen oil.

    They are Felix Yayu, Ijo Ufaya, Yakubu Ebiwei, Augustine Ebiwei, Tamara Dembofa, Owei Atile, Agbara Tiewei, Rufus Godwin, Tiery Koiyetin, Ebis Sobijoh, Ibori Lawrence, Eberebu Ibori, Atinuke Odewale, Fatai Ishola, Ahmed Bashorun, Odewale Waheed, Susan Viana, Tuesday Filatei, Yeiyah Yellow and Ismail Abdullahi.

    They were arraigned last August 7 on a 14-count charge of conspiracy, pipeline vandalism, oil theft and unlawful killings. They pleaded not guilty and were denied bail because, according to the court, the offences are grave.

    The slain policemen are Assistant Superintendent Abdullahi Bature; Inspectors Raymond Oriere, Usman Mohammed, Tijani Jimoh, Oguntihemen Kolawole; Corporals Elogbamen Timothy, Yakubu Aliyu, Usman Abdukarim and Dauda Mohammed.

    The offences contravene Sections 3(6), 4(a), 7 (a) (b), 17 (a) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act Cap M17 and Section 319 of the Criminal Code, Laws of the Federation, 2004

    Trial resumes on March 10, 11 and 12.

  • Court battle continues as families fail to agree on new Ayangburen of Ikorodu

    The battle for the throne of Ayagburen of Ikorodu Kingdom in Lagos State between the princes of Lasunwon ruling house has taken a twist, ADEBISI ONANUGA; reports.

    The dispute among the princes of Ikorodu over the next Ayangburen is not about to end any time soon as the warring factions of the Adegorushen royal families have refused to shift ground on their opposition to Odofin Kabiru Shotobi.

    Odofin Shotobi was the choice of the kingmakers for the vacant stool of the Ayangbunren of Ikorodu, having been allegedly picked from a list of nine candidates from the Lasunwon ruling house.

    Counsels to the various royal houses told a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikorodu last week that a meeting of the families held at the instance of the Lagos State Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs failed to agree on the choice of Shotobi for the stool.

    The counsels told the court presided by Justice Akintunde Savage that they have forwarded their communiqué to the Commissioner informing him that their meeting was stalemated.

    Mathew Adetayo Shodipo, Omobo Sokelu, Shakiru Shodipo, Nurudeen Fakomaya and Albert Aina have, for themselves and on behalf of the Lambo arm of the Lasunwon ruling house of Ikorodu challenged the nomination of the Odofin of Ikorodu, Chief Kabiru Shotobi for the stool of the Ayangburen.

    The first to 12th respondents in the suit are Ezekiel Shodipo, Tajudeen Odofin for themselves and on behalf of the Adegorushen arm of Lasunwon ruling house.

    Other respondents include the Odofin, Chief Kabiru Shotobi; the Olisa and regent of Ikorodu, Chief Oludele Odusoga; Solomade of Ikorodu Chief Afolabi Adekayaoja; Apena of Ikorodu, Chief Karimu Ore; the Oponuwa, Chief Jacob Kolawole Adaraloye for themselves and the kingmakers of Ikorodu.

    Other respondents are the Ikorodu Local Government; Ikorodu Division of Council of Obas and Chiefs; Secretary, Ikorodu Chieftaincy Committee; Lagos State Ministry Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs and Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice.

    At the resumed hearing of the matter last week, counsel to the claimants, John Osighala told the court that the meeting of the various branches of the Lasunwon ruling house was deadlocked and that this was why they did not report back to the Ministry in charge of chieftaincy affairs on Tuesday, February 17, 2015 as expected.

    “Every family division refused to shift ground”, Osighala told the court.  Counsel to first and third respondents, Gbenga Hassan supported the views of Osighala as he also told the court that parties were unable to agree on the Obaship tussle.

    Hassan said they had written a letter to the Ministries of Local Government, Justice and the Solicitor General informing them of the development.

    “The claimants said since the matter is in court, they are opposed to settlement”, when asked by the trial judge why the families failed to agree.                                                                      Kazeem Adebanjo, counsel to the second respondent, Tajudeen Odofin also told the court that his client was not informed of all that has been happening within the royal families especially the meeting that was supposedly held that stalemated and the one with the government.

    Adebanjo told the court that two persons, Prince Owolabi Sunday Ogede and Prince Adegboyega Odofin, said to be representing the Adegorushen royal family and who signed the communiqué sent to the government on the stalemated meeting of the families are not parties to the suit.

    “My Lord, the area I am concerned with is that there is a plan to keep my client in the dark on this matter…I am aware there is no application to substitute my client before the court. The two persons that signed the communiqué and claimed to be representing Adegorushen are not parties to the suit. It justifies my earlier position that there is an attempt to keep the second respondents out of the happenings on the matter”, he stated.

    Counsel to the government representatives, the 11th and 12th respondents, Mrs. Tola Akinsanya told the court that at a meeting held February 3, 2015, the ruling houses were directed to go and meet and discuss the issue.

    “They were to meet again at a meeting scheduled for February 17, 2015 but nobody showed up. So the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Local Government and others are still expecting them”, she said.

    Reading from the letter (communiqué) sent by the warring families to government, she said, “the message is that they have been unable to reach an agreement; that they wish to continue with the hearing of the case. But I believe the Commissioner and Permanent Secretary can still play a role”, she said.

    Mr. O. Fabunmi, representing the fourth to the seventh respondents (king makers) said his clients are unbiased umpires. According to him, “they deliberated on the candidates submitted and they chose the third respondent. So, they had to stand by the candidate they have chosen”, he stated.”

    The trial judge, Justice Savage said he still wants the Ministries of Local Government, Justice and the Permanent Secretary to play a role in the matter.  He therefore directed the counsel to the government, Mrs. Akinsanya to tell the parties concerned that the court instructed them to still play a role in the matter before the next adjourned date of March 5, 2015 and to report back to the court.

    In their originating summon, which was supported by a 22-point affidavit and filed through their lawyer, John Osighala, the claimants asked for six issues to be determined by the court. They want the court to determine “whether the consent judgment of a Lagos High Court, Ikorodu division in suit IKD/57/2007 (Mathew Adetayo Shodipo and others versus Ezekiel Shodipo and others) is subsisting and valid; whether parties and privies are bound by the aforesaid judgment until same is set aside on appeal; whether fourth to eighth respondents-kingmakers are bound by the aforesaid judgment being parties in suit no IKD/57/2007 and whether eighth and ninth respondents are not bound as well being parties/ privies thereon”.

    They also prayed the court to determine “whether third defendant/respondent is not bound and stopped from being presented, nominated and selected as a candidate from Lasunwon Ruling House to any future chieftaincy title” and “whether indeed the Adegorushen Branch of the Lasunwon Royal Ruling House is not precluded by the decision in IKD/57/2007 from presenting a candidate for the now vacant title of Ayangburen of Ikorodu?”

    The claimants also sought five reliefs which were hinged on the affirmation of the six issues raised before the court. They sought a declaration that the consent judgment of the Lagos High Court dated April 1, 2009 in suit IKD/57/2007 is subsisting, binding and in force; a declaration that by clause 2 of the consent judgment, the first, second and third respondents conceded the right to the claimants in future to the next chieftaincy title that is due and available to the Lasunwon Ruling House.

    They also sought a declaration that the kingmakers, fourth to seventh respondents were bound by the decision in suit IKD/57/2007 as the seventh to tenth defendants and that they cannot now consider any candidate from the Adegorushen branch of the Lasunwon ruling house and a further declaration that the third respondent, having by the aforesaid judgment, been installed as Odofin of Ikorodu cannot in defiance of the judgment, present himself as a candidate for the vacant Ayangburen Royal Chieftaincy title “and he is thereby stopped from contesting any other vacant Chieftaincy title available to the Lasunwon family.

    They therefore prayed the court for an injunction restraining the fifth to tenth respondents by themselves, agents, privies from considering the third respondent nor any candidate from the Adegorushen branch of the Lasunwon Chieftaincy family for the candidature of the vacant Ayangburen.

    But in their counter affidavit to the originating summon, the deponent Prince Odofin Adegboyega Aliu, averred that contrary to paragraph 17 of the affidavit in support of the originating summon, the first to the  third respondents and all other defendants are not in breach of the judgment in  exhibit A, paragraph 2, the first to fourth defendants conceded the right to the next chieftaincy title that is due and available to Lasunwon ruling house to the claimants and listed the titles available as Otunba of Ikorodu.

    He said that contrary to paragraph 18 of the affidavit in support of the originating summon, the defendants ought not to be restrained as they have not breached the order of the court.

    He said counsel to third to seventh defendants informed him that judgment in suit IKD/57/2007 relates to chieftaincy title and not an Obaship stool or position; that a chieftaincy title is different from Obaship stool or position and that the nomination/selection of the third defendant by the family and kingmakers is not a breach of the judgment in suit IKD/57/2007.

    He urged the court to dismiss the claimants’ originating summon.

     

  • Court nullifies surveyors’ expulsion

    Court nullifies surveyors’ expulsion

    THE Federal High Court, Kaduna, has nullified the expulsion of Mr. Emmanuel Osita Okoli as a member of the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV). Justice Evelyn Anyadike held that Okoli and Mr. Daramola Olutoye could only be expelled by NIESV Council and not by its Annual General Meeting (AGM).

    She was delivering judgment on a suit brought by Okoli, Mrs. Cecilia Bola Okoli and Olutoye, against  registered trustees of NIESV, Estate Surveyors and Valuers Registration Board of Nigeria, Mr. Bode Adediji and Mr. Rowland Abonta.

    The plaintiffs were members of the NIESV until March 12, 2011, when Okoli and Olutoye were expelled at the AGM of NIESV. Before the action, Olutoye had sued Adediji at the Magistrate and High Courts, but Okoli was not a party to the matter.

    At NIESV’s AGM on March 12, 2011, one Samuel Ukpong was said to have moved a motion seeking to expel Okoli and Olutoye because they filed several suits against the institution.The men were allegedly not given the opportunity to defend themselves, paving the way for their expulsion.

    The plaintiffs sought these reliefs: A declaration that the purported expulsion of Okoli and Olutoye is null and void; a declaration that the NIESV’s AGM acted in excess of its constitutional power when it purported to expel the duo; a declaration that only NIESV’s council is empowered by the constitution of the institution to discipline and/or expel members of the institution; a declaration that the motion moved by Ukpong for the expulsion of Okoli and Olutoye not having been brought within the contemplation of NIESV is null and void and could not have been the basis for the expulsion from the institution of the first and third Plaintiffs; a declaration that the failure of the AGM of NIESV to afford the first and Third Plaintiffs the opportunity to be heard before their expulsion from the institution goes contrary to the spirit of the constitution of the institution and the right of the first and third plaintiffs to fair hearing guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution; a declaration that the act of the defendants of ordering the closure of the premises of business of the first and second plaintiffs wherein the second plaintiff was never expelled or suspended by the institution for any act whatsoever is a gross violation of the his right to practice as an Estate Surveyor and is hence null and void.

    They also sought an order setting aside their purported expulsion; an order restraining the surveyors board from withdrawing their licence as estate surveyors and valuers and/or closing down their offices.

    In her judgment, Hon. Justice  Anyadike noted that the disciplinary power of NIESV is vested in its council, adding that its AGM does not have the power to investigate and/or penalise any member for professional misconduct. Even if the AGM has such power, she held, the procedure followed by them in Okoli and Olukoye’s expulsion is not in the spirit of its constitution.

    Justice Anyadike lampooned the defence counsel for “acting in concert to frustrate the hearing of this case from inception till now … no wonder they refused to file any written addresses because honestly they have nothing to canvass.” NIESV’s AGM acted in excess of its constitutional powers in expelling Okoli and Olutoye, adding that only the council of NIESV is empowered to discipline and/or expel members.

    The purported expulsion of Okoli and Olutoye from the institution, she declared, is null and void because due process was not followed.

     

  • Court orders bank to pay lawyer N10.5m

    Court orders bank to pay lawyer N10.5m

    Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja, has issued a garnishee order compelling Zenith Bank Plc to pay the judgment sum of N10.5million from the account of People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to a lawyer, Mr. Debo Adeleke.

    The amount represented his professional fees for various court cases handled by the lawyer for the Lagos PDP.

    Justice Ipaye issued the order last week following the refusal of the PDP to pay Mr. Adeleke his professional fees after the court had initially delivered a judgment against the party.

    In her ruling, Justice Ipaye upheld the arguments of the claimant and his request for a garnishee order  to compel Zenith Bank Plc pay Mr Adeleke from the PDP’s account domicile with the bank.

    The judge ordered Zenith Bank Plc to issue a N10.5 million Cheque to Mr Adeleke from the PDP account within the next three days.

    Justice Ipaye regretted that it was very unfortunate that a lawyer would have to drag his client to court for payment after rendering legal services to the client.

    Adeleke had sued both the national headquarters and Lagos State branch of the PDP over their failure to pay him his outstanding legal fees after he had made over 180 representations in court for the party in its election petition matters.

    Adeleke contended that he handled seven cases for the PDP at the Lagos State Local Government Elections Petitions Tribunal between November 2011 and August 2012, saying that the party only paid him N1.45 million out of the N12 million agreed for handling the cases.

    Delivering judgment last November, Justice Ipaye upheld the argument of Mr Adeleke and  ordered the Lagos State chapter of the PDP to pay him N10.5 million as his outstanding legal fee.

    Ipaye had also asked the Lagos State PDP to pay a N50,000 cost in favour of the claimant.

    The Lagos PDP, the judge noted, breached the provisions of Order 11 Rule 4 of the High Court of Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules.

    According to the judge, proof of service before the court showed that the party was served with the court processes, but refused to file its response to the claimant’s affidavit.

    Ipaye posited that the failure of the party to comply with the court rules had shown that the party was not interested in defending the suit.

    She had said then that the court was more than satisfied with the totality of the unchallenged facts of the claimant and therefore, entered judgment in his favour.

    At the resumed hearing last week, counsel to PDP, Mr. Chukwuma Nmesirionye had filed a motion challenging the judgment of the court.

    Moving the application to set aside the judgment, Nmesirionye said the order was against the account of the 2nd defendant (Lagos PDP) and not account of the 1st defendant (the national PDP).

    He argued that the attempt by the judgment creditor to attach the account of the national PDP domicile in Abuja is against the order of the court.

    But counsel to Adeleke, Thankgod, opposed the application.

    Thankgod had argued that the summary judgment gave his client the right to recover his money from the Lagos PDP’s account from anywhere in the country.

    Thankgod said Zenith Bank had confirmed that PDP’s account with them has  enough funds to satisfy the judgment sum.

    He had subsequently  urged the court to dismiss PDP’s application seeking to set the judgment aside.

     

     

  • Court rejects PDP’s application to void Osun poll

    Court rejects PDP’s application to void Osun poll

    The Federal High Court sitting in Osogbo, the Osun State capital, has dismissed the application by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) seeking for a mandatory order to nullify the elections conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission in Osun State in April 2011.

    Justice Babs Kuewumi dismissed the application yesterday in the ruling he read based on the application by the PDP.

    The PDP sued the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and former Resident Electoral Commissioner Rufus Akeju, seeking a reversal of all actions taken by Akeju as REC after an earlier order of March 28, 2011 given by the same court, which restrained him from conducting the 2011 National Assembly and House of Assembly elections.

    INEC conducted the April 2011 polls and all the seats were won by the candidates of the All Progressives Congress.

    The PDP represented by Moses Ojo, sought four reliefs in the motion and they are: a mandatory order for reversal of all steps taken by the first defendant and second defendant; an order to declare the National Assembly and House of Assembly elections null; an order directing INEC to withdraw the certificate of return given to the winners of the elections and an order compelling INEC to conduct by- elections to fill the seats.

    But Justice Kuewumi held that “only Election Petitions Tribunal can give such orders. The application is hereby dismissed”.

    INEC’s counsel Mrs. Faith Okoli hailed the ruling, describing it as erudite.

    Although PDP counsel Kehinde Adesiyan thanked the judge for the ruling, he said the party would appeal the ruling.

    Adesiyan said: “There was an order of this same court on March 28, 2011 which restrained Akeju from conducting the April 2011 elections but he went ahead and violated the order.

    “The court did not say anything on this but it is so clear that the order was disrespected. We will test the rulings we will challenge it before the Court of Appeal.

    “The sanctity and sacredness of the judiciary must be respected, Akeju violated the order of the same court.

    “It was a pre-election matter and the Election Petitions Tribunal has no power to hear pre-election matters. So we will challenge it.”

  • Court strikes out defendants’ names in Lagos land suit

    Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja has struck out the names of six defendants in a land suit brought against a Lagos businessman, Mutiu Okunola.

    The claimants, Prince Steven Ibitoye and Commander Fasasi Adebambo(rtd), are demanding N500 million damages for alleged trespass.

    When the matter came up for hearing, the claimant’s counsel Olajide Ajana  told Justice Mary Omeya,  that he had an application in which the claimants were seeking to discontinue the suit against six of the 22 defendants.

    He argued that the claimants’ decision to discontinue the suit against the six defendants was supported by decisions of the Supreme Court and cited a decided case between “Olayinka Rodsignes and others versus Public Trustees (1972) 4 SC @ 29” to buttress his submission.

    The six defendants are YDJ Investment Limited; H & H investment Limited; Garewa General Merchants; Aglow Company; SC Designs Limited and Unknown persons.

    A deponent , Joy Salako in a seven-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion on notice averred that  after filing the suit, they could not serve  the fourth to eighth and the 18th defendants the copies of the origination summon.

    She claimed that they have the instruction of the claimants to discontinue the suit against the six defendants.

    In her ruling, Justice Omeya granted leave to the claimants to discontinue the suit against the six defendants and adjourned hearing of the originating summon to March 17.

    The defendants were not in court neither were they represented by their counsels.

    Other defendants in the suit include Wasimi Creek Resort Estate, Guessimate Engineering Company, Pa Amida Akerele, Prince Taofeek Bashir, Prince Kayode Bankole, Pastor Paul Nasiru for themselves and the Kuyasi Awushe family.

    They also include Chief Wakilu Sodiq; Alhaji Tajudeen Irawo; Alhaji Taofeek Ganiyu; Mr. Kazeem Balogun; Hon. Ganiyu Sodiq for themselves and Iluobi branch of Kuyasi Awushe family. The other defendants are the governor of Lagos State, the state Attorney-General; the Director, Lagos State Lands Bureau and the Director, Lagos State Public-Private Partnership Office.

    In a 68-paragraph affidavit by Prince Ibitoye, the claimants asked the court for seven orders. They prayed the court to declare them as the rightful owners of a large parcel of land situated at Wasimi Maryland, Lagos, allegedly being trespassed on and sold by the defendants and that they are entitled to be granted statutory right of occupancy in respect of same and that any purported sale of any portion of the land be declared illegal, null and void.

    They urged the court to grant an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants,  from further trespassing on the land; from granting or registering  any title in respect of the land to anybody, except themselves;   an order restraining the  19th to the 22nd defendants from recognising or entering into partnership with anyone with respect to the property; an order of mandatory injunction for the removal of any structure on the said land.                                                         They also asked the court to award them a sum of N500 million jointly and severally against the defendants for trespassing on their land.

    The defendants, in their 40-paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by Chief Wakilu Sodiq, who claimed to be the head of the Iluobi family of Onigbongbo, urging the court to dismiss the claims of the claimants as frivolous and gold digging.

    They denied the averment of the claimants as contained in paragraphs nine to 67. They averred that the land upon which the claimant sued does not belong to the Kuyasi Awushe family, but to the Iluobi family. They averred further that the Iluobi as a whole did not at any time assign or sell their purported land to the second claimant and that he is not known to the family.

  • Eligibility: Court orders service of documents on Jonathan

    Eligibility: Court orders service of documents on Jonathan

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered that President Goodluck Jonathan be served with court documents in relation to a fresh suit challenging his eligibility to stand for re-election.

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed granted an ex-parte order directing the service of the court documents on the President either through the office of the Secretary to Government of the Federation (SGF) or the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    The judge made order for substituted service on the court documents on Jonathan in view of the complaint by the plaintiff, Nkemjika Nkemjika that it was impossible to effect personal service on the President, who resides in the well-fortified Aso Rock Villa, Abuja.

    Nkemjika, in the suit is urging the court to determine whether, having regard to the provisions of sections 135(1)(b) and 135(2)(b) of the Constitution, President Jonathan was qualified  to contest this year’s presidential election.

    Named as defendants with Jonathan, include the AGF, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the National Assembly.

    It is the plaintiff’s main contention that President Jonathan’s second term in office will end on May 29 this year, because Section 135(2)(b) of the Constitution that determines the tenure of office of the country’s President, did not make any provision for a Vice-President to complete the unexpired tenure of office or unexpired term of office  of a deceased President.

    He contended that President Jonathan would have been eligible to contest this year’s presidential election if he had won an election overseen by the Senate President in 2010 in accordance with the provision of Section 146(2) of the Constitution.

    Justice Mohammed has adjourned hearing in the case to February 26.

  • Court dismisses firm’s bid to restrain bank over assets

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed an application by Dana Group of Companies Plc seeking to restrain Sterling Bank Plc from enforcing court orders on the management of the company’s assets.

    The bank had appointed Mr Kunle Ogunba (SAN) as receiver/manager over Dana Group following the company’s alleged inability to pay its debt to it.

    But Dana had sought an order of injunction restraining the bank from enforcing or executing any of the interlocutory orders made by Justice James Tsoho on November 11, last year, pending the determination of its appeal.

    It also sought to restrain the police and other security agencies from enforcing the orders, as well as an order staying their execution.

    Dana Group said if the Sterling is allowed to execute the orders, “the over 5,000 staff of the defendant/applicant will be out of job, the business of the defendant/applicant will be irredeemably damaged and the defendant/applicant will become extinct.”

    Justice Tsoho had made interlocutory orders which allowed the receiver/manager to carry out his duties of managing Dana Group’s assets unhindered.

    Sterling Bank, through Ogunba, argued that Dana Group’s notice of appeal does not raise any substantial issue of law deserving the court’s exercise of discretion.

    “In line with the orders of this honourable court, the plaintiff executed the said order in company of some policemen so as to enable the receiver/manager carry out his duties unhindered and/or unimpeded in accordance with the interlocutory orders of this Honourable Court,” Sterling said.

    The bank said despite executing the receivership orders, the defendant through its representatives carted away over 100 cars which are part of the assets under the control of the receiver/manager.

    Besides, Sterling Bank said Dana Group has alleged turned down its overtures for a meeting with its receiver/manager over the company’s management.

    It, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the application.

    Ruling, Justice Tsoho held that Dana Group’s application is without merit. “The application is unfounded and is hereby refused,” he said.

    He said what Dana was asking him to do, in effect, was to reverse an already completed action.

    “The receiver/manager having already had execution of the interlocutory orders, it can be deemed completed,” he said.

    Dismissing the application, he said it seemed to be “an ingenious way to make this court reverse its orders.”

    Sterling Bank claimed that Dana Group is indebted to it.

  • Feb. 14 poll: Court urged to stop Jonathan from running

    Feb. 14 poll: Court urged to stop Jonathan from running

    Barely 12 days to the general elections, a suit has been filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja challenging the eligibility of President Goodluck Jonathan.

    The plaintiffs, who are Prof. Tunde Samuel, Dr. Junaid Mohammed, Mr. Razak Adeosun and Yahaya Ezemoo, are pleading with the court to restrain Dr. Jonathan from contesting, putting himself forward and or accepting to contest for the office of President, Federal Republic of Nigeria at the 2015 presidential election.

    The only defendant in the matter, which is already assigned to Court 7, is the President.

    No date has been fixed for the hearing of the application, which was filed by a team of crack lawyers mostly Senior Advocates.

    The counsel in the matter are Yusuf Ali (SAN), A. B. Mahmoud(SAN), Adebayo Adelodun(SAN), Sirajo Chedi (SAN), Dr. Tunji Abayomi, Prof. Wahab Egbewole, K.K. Eleja and A.O. Usman.

    Six more Senior Advocates will join the team whenever the legal fireworks begin because the plaintiffs have asked for two SANs from each of the six geopolitical zones.

    Relying on Sections 135 to 146 of the 1999 Constitution, the plaintiffs averred that Jonathan cannot take the oath of office more than twice as president.

    They also said under the constitution, any President of Nigeria cannot be in office beyond eight years of two terms.

    They said if Jonathan is allowed to contest and is sworn in as president, he would be spending 10 years in office contrary to the spirit and intendment of the 1999 Constitution.

    They urged the court to determine three issues and sought for six reliefs in the originating summons.

    The plaintiffs’ prayers are as follows:

    *whether having regards to the intendment and general scheme of the Constitution, especially the provisions of  sections 1 (1) &(2), 135 (1)& (2), 137(1)(b), 140 (1) &(2),142 (1)&(2)  and 146(1)(3)(b)(c) thereof, it is constitutional, lawful, legal and permissible for a person to occupy the office of the president for a cumulative and or aggregate period of more than eight years;

    •whether having regards to the intendment and the general scheme of the Constitution, especially the provisions of Sections 1(1) & (2) and 135(1) thereof, the defendant is eligible to seek  re-election or contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for another term of four years, which will bring his cumulative and or aggregate period in office as president beyond the eight years maximum period allowable by the Constitution;

    •whether having regards to the intendment and the general scheme of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) especially section  1(1) & (2), 135 (1)&(2), 137 (1)(b), 140 (1) & (2), 142(1)& (2) and 146(1) (3) (b)& (c) thereof, the period the defendant served as President from May 6, 2010 to May 28, 2011, ought not to be reckoned with and taken into cognisance in computing  the total period he has spent and could spend in office as President of Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    The plaintiffs asked for these reliefs.

    •a declaration that having regards to the provisions of the Constitution, it is unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal and not permissible for any person to occupy the office of the President for more than a cumulative and or aggregate period of eight years when the country is not at war and it is practicable to hold election into the office of President;

    •a declaration that having regards to the Provisions of the Constitution, the defendant, is not eligible to seek re-election into the office of President for another term of four years from 2015, as that would have permitted him to occupy the office of President, for more than the eight years maximum period allowable by the Constitution for anyone to occupy the office of the President;

    •a declaration that in computing the period already spent in office as President by the defendant, the period from May 6, 2010 to May 28, 2011 should / ought to be reckoned with.

    •a declaration that having spent a period of more than four years in office as President reckoned from May 6, 2010, the defendant is without competence, eligibility, authority or entitlement to contest for the same office for another term of four years;

    •an order of injunction restraining the defendant from contesting, putting himself forward and or accepting to contest for the office of President at the 2015 presidential election;

    •and, for such further or other relief(s) to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled by the Honourable Court in consequence of the relief(s) earlier adumbrated on the Originating Summons.

    A member of the legal team, who spoke in confidence, explained why the latest suit is different from others before on the eligibility of Jonathan.

    The source said: “The suit is challenging the eligibility of Mr. President to spend beyond eight years in office in the light of constitutional provision that forbids any person to stay in office beyond eight years.

    “And also there is a court decision in an election petition case on Adamawa State, where it was held that no circumstances should warrant anyone to hold an elective office beyond eight years.

    “In Marwa and 1 other v. Admiral Murtala Nyako and others (SC 141/2011), the court held that ‘the constitution has no room for a cumulative tenure exceeding eight years.’

    “This suit is different from the previous ones challenging Mr. President because he had neither declared his intention nor was he confirmed as a presidential candidate for 2015 polls.

    “Thus, the previous suits were speculative. This suit is hinged on the fact that having spent six years in office, the president is seeking another term of four years. Yet the constitution says a President can hold office for two terms of eight years.”

  • Federal courts resume Monday

    The National Executive Council (NEC) of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) on Sunday agreed to a partial suspension of its over one week old strike.
    The JUSUN NEC which met at the Supreme Court complex in Abuja for several hours, agreed to allow court activities resume Monday in all federal court in the country.
    The meeting, which saw temper rose among members, lasted between 3 pm and 7.30pm.
    The state courts are to await the outcome of a meeting between representatives of the Executive (both at state and federal levels), the Judiciary, JUSUN and other stakeholders, scheduled to hold in Abuja from 12 noon Monday.
    The Federal courts include the Supreme Court,the Court of Appeal, the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court (NIC). Other affected institutions include the National JUDICIAL Council (NJC) and the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC).
    JUSUN President, Marwan Adamu confirmed the agreement. He said a formal statement will be issued later on the NEC’s resolution.
    He said the NEC decided to allow a partial resumption in the interest of the larger society.
    The strike by JUSUN is to compel the executive to obey a January 13 judgment by the Federal High Court, Abuja, which among other affirmed fiscal autonomy for the Judiciary and prohibited the piecemeal release of budgetary allocation to the Judiciary.y