The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Court directs Jonathan to produce disability law

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has directed President Goodluck Jonathan and the National Assembly to produce any law which protects the rights of persons with disabilities.

    A physically challenged lawyer, Mr Daniel Onwe, is seeking an order mandating them to enact forthwith the necessary laws to protect persons with disabilities.

    Onwe, in the suit numbered FHC/L/CS/1766/13, claimed that the non-existence of any federal disability legislation violated the fundamental rights of over 20 million people with disabilities.

    The respondents, in their counter affidavit, said contrary to Onwe’s claim, there exists a law which protects the rights of persons with disabilities.

    Onwe said the law, if indeed it truly exists, should be exhibited before the court. He prayed Justice Mohammed Yunusa to direct the respondents to produce the law.

    The judge then directed counsel for the respondents, Mrs Uzoamaka Onugu, to produce the gazetted copy of the law at the next adjourned date.

    Onwe also adopted his written address on the issue of whether he can sit in the bar and argue his case as both the litigant and lawyer.

    Justice Yunusa had urged counsel to address the court on the propriety of Onwe representing himself from the bar fully robed. He will rule on their submissions on December 19.

    Onwe, a notary public, prayed the court to hold that the inaccessibility of public buildings and the environment to persons with disability as a result of architectural barriers violated their freedom of movement, freedom of association and the right to dignity of human person.

    Besides, he said the non-use of sign language at national public functions and on national television programmes was a violation of the freedom of expression of persons with hearing disability (the deaf) guaranteed under Section 39 of the Constitution.

    Onwe noted that the non-use of Braille materials at national public functions was a violation of the freedom of expression of persons with visual disability (the blind) guaranteed under Section 39 of the constitution.

    In a supporting affidavit to the fundamental rights action, Onwe said he was suing as a person with a physical disability having suffered polio myelitis at the age of one, which had left him with partial paralysis and deformity of the lower limbs.

    He said he had been dependent on crutches to move about and was impeded by architectural barriers in public buildings, such as the Federal High Court.

    The lawyer said there abound other persons with physical challenges, such as visual, speech, hearing and intellectual disabilities, adding that the 2011 World Disability Report states that persons with disabilities constitute about 15 per cent of the population of each country of the world.

    According to him, since the Nigerian population has been estimated by the National Population Commission to be over 160 million, by extrapolation, there are over 20 million Nigerians with one type of disability or the other.

    The President said besides the existence of the law, the Federal Government has set up institutions and special schools to cater for the needs of persons with disabilities.

    The President said even the Constitution, such as Chapter 2 of it, contains provisions which protect the rights of persons with disabilities.

    He denied the plaintiff’s claims, and is urging the court to dismiss the suit.

     

  • Court stops PDP from dissolving Ogun exco

    Court stops PDP from dissolving Ogun exco

    The Federal High Court in Lagos barred yesterday the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from dissolving the Adebayo Dayo-led executive in Ogun State.

    Justice Okon Abang ordered parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum.

    He warned PDP not to do anything that would amount to contempt of court.

    The PDP national chairman and other officers, he said, could be jailed, if they failed to heed the warning.

    The judge said the status quo should be maintained, until a contempt suit filed by the state executive office was heard and determined.

    The Ogun PDP executives initiated the contempt proceedings against former House of Representatives Speaker Dimeji Bankole and former Governor Gbenga Daniel for allegedly disobeying a court order.

    The plaintiffs, Adebayo Dayo and Semiu Sodipo, alleged that the respondents had been attempting to remove them from office, despite two Federal High Court judgments affirming the legality of their positions.

    Yesterday, of the three alleged contemnors, including a former House of Representatives member Dave Salako, only Bankole was represented in court by his lawyer, Afolabi Fashanu (SAN).

    The court heard that the others were yet to be served with the processes.

    Fashanu sought an adjournment because the others have not received the court papers.

    The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Ajibola Oluyede, urged the court to preserve the res (subject matter) of the case by ordering parties to maintain the status quo.

    He said the alleged contemnors, despite the suit still pending, could foist a state of fait accompli (helplessness) on the court by going ahead to dissolve the executive.

    The court, on October 29, granted the applicants leave to serve the charge on the alleged contemnors.

    The applicants said just as Ondo State PDP executive was dissolved, the respondents were making moves to dissolve the Ogun executive, with the alleged aim of installing their loyalists.

    They alleged that because of Bankole’s political ambition, he was not comfortable with the present PDP executive, and had been attempting to get them sacked through the PDP’s National Integration Committee.

    The applicants said the respondents perceived them as working against their political interest.

    Justice Abang ordered that the notice of committal and accompanying processes be served on the alleged contemnors in Abuja and Ogun State, while copies should be pasted in a conspicuous part of the Ogun PDP secretariat.

    He also warned that he would reverse any steps taken before the determination of the committal proceedings, adding that status quo must be maintained.

    “He who has ears should heed the directive,” the judge said.

    Justice Abang adjourned till November 25.

  • Court hears Braithwaite’s N10b suit against bank today

    Court hears Braithwaite’s N10b suit against bank today

    Hearing will resume today in a N10billion suit filed by elder statesman, Dr. Tunji Braithwaite against a bank at the Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja.

    The court presided by Justice Doris Okuwobi would decide whether to allow the claimant lead his witness with the presentation of a video evidence in the matter.

    Dr. Braithwaite had approached the court, seeking an order declaring as illegal, the erecting of a 14-storey commercial building and multi-level car park by Standard Chartered Bank in Victoria Island, Lagos.

    The claimant had told the court that he is uncomfortable with the bank’s installation of giant industrial generators directly opposite his house with the fumes and noise shattering the serenity.

    At the last hearing, Braithwaite, through one of his witnesses, had wanted to use an electronic devise to demonstrate the hazards associated with the 14 storey structure, with giant generators on upper floors and a multilevel car park, being constructed by the bank, opposite his residence in Victoria Island, Lagos.

    Counsel to the bank, Adeniyi Adegbomire  objected to the move to use an electronic devise to lead the witness in evidence.

    The expert witness, who is an associate professor in the department of Urban and Regional Planning of the University of Lagos, Dr. Tunji Adejumo, had wanted to give evidence in support of the claimant, using a visual aid.

    But Adegbomire had argued that the witness cannot make the video presentation because he was not subpoenaed to the court.

    The applicant, according to him, did not apply to rely on  video evidence during the trial.

    He claimed also that the device has not been served to them, and that they are not privy to the content of the video.

    Adegbomire insisted that allowing the witness would impede their ability to cross-examine him.

    “They did not serve us nor frontloaded it so that we can see the document. How am I expected to cross-examine in this matter? I urge your lordship to direct them to serve us the copies of what they want to show us so we can study it,” he prayed.

    But Braithwaite in his response, said the video evidence which his witness sought to demonstrate in the open court, is already in evidence.

    He explained that paragraph 30 of the statement of claim had indicated that they would be relying on video evidence on technical report.

    The lawyer denied the defendants claim that they were not served a copy of the electronic device.

    He told the court that one of his lawyers went to the office of the defendant’s counsel  to deliver a copy of the electronic evidence a day before the sitting of the court.

    He tendered before the court the  proof of acknowledgment of the electronic device.

    He, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the objection as lacking in substance.

    “Paragraph 30 of the statement of claim gave notice and indicated that we would be relying on video evidence on technical report which is already in evidence.  “If they said they needed a copy, they were already given. A lawyer delivered a copy of the tape to their office yesterday. They were served a copy of what had already been pleaded.

    “I urge your lordship to dismiss his objection as lacking in substance.”

    Adegbomire, having seen the acknowledgment of the video,  pleaded for short adjournment.

    He argued  that notwithstanding  the service of the device to his office, they would need time to study it and  require an expert advice before they could file a response.

    The plaintiff is praying the court to grant him N10billion in damages and for a demolition of the building.( The Court of Appeal, Lagos had earlier stopped further construction of the building at level two.

    Braithwaite told the court that in spite of the stop order of  the Court of Appeal,  the bank  went on to complete the structure.

  • Court restrains ALGON chiefs

    Justice Abdulkadir Abdulkafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja has restrained Nwabueze Okafor and Ibrahim Dikko, claiming to be National Chairman and Chairman, Board of Trustees of the Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON) to desist from parading themselves as such.

    Justice Abdulkafarati, while ruling on a suit filed by the Registered Incorporated Trustees of ALGON, Uthman Kassim Ibrahim (Chairman Board of Trustees of ALGON and Prince Cornelius Nnaji on behalf of all serving Local Government Chairmen, specifically ordered parties to maintain status quo ante bellum as at when the suit was filed.

    The order, which is to subsist until the determination of the suit, was informed by arguments by lawyers to parties in the case.

    Plaintiff’s lawyer, Ted Iseghohi-Edwards urged the court maintain status quo as at March last year. He drew the court’s attention to a subsisting judgment where it was held that Okafor and Dikko are not members of the Incorporated Trustees of ALGON and could not institute a case on their behalf.

    Iseghihi-Edwards also drew the court’s attention to two existing orders of the court; one for an order directing Okafor, Dikko and Shittu Bamaiyi Yakmut to show cause, and the other for parties to maintain status quo pending the determination.

    He urged the court to hold that the two orders made on October 15 this year subsists, a request the defendants’ lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) opposed, insisting the  preliminary objection raised by his cleints should be determined first.

    The plaintiffs are, by their suit, challenging the “continued flouting” of an earlier judgment in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/33/2014, dated March 28, 2014, where Justice Abdulkafarati dismissed the suit filed  by the defendants in this case, challenging the eligibility of the plaintiffs to be on the board of ALGON.

    Justice Abdulkafarati held, in the judgment attached to the fresh suit as exhibit: “The irresistible conclusion is that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiff (Okafor and Dikko) are not members of the Incorporated Trustees of ALGON and so, they do not have the locus standi to institute this action in their names and institute the action in the name of the 1st plaintiff (Incorporated Trustees).

    “Having come to conclusion, I hold that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring this action in their names on behalf of the 1st plaintiff. Secondly, they do not have the locus standi to authorize the institution of this action on behalf of the 1st plaintiff and in its name.

    “On the whole, I hold that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. This suit is an abuse of court process and same is hereby dismissed.”In the fresh suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/719/2014, the plaintiffs are of the view that the either the Registered Trustees led by Kassim Ibrahim or a duly elected Executive of serving Local government Chairmen, is the only body currently recognised by law to run the affairs of ALGON.

    The case has been adjourned to November 20 next yearfor hearing.

  • Court strikes out NFF case

    Court strikes out NFF case

    Following application for discontinuation of case, the Federal High Court in Jos has struck out the case challenging the Executive Committee of the Nigerian Football Federation (NFF) led by Amaju Pinnick.

    The court presided over by Justice Ambrose Allagoa struck out the case yesterday following a notice of discontinuation filed by counsels to the plaintiffs who said the notice of discontinuation led from appeals by well-meaning Nigerians who were concerned that further delay of the case could attract FIFA’s wrath.

    The court had fixed yesterday for a ruling on a stay-of-execution of its earlier ruling dismissing the election of the Pinnick-led NFF executive committee and a preliminary objection by the NFF insisting that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Justice Allagoa said: “I have prepared his ruling the previous night only to be confronted yesterday with the notice of discontinuation, but that because the rules say a plaintiff could request the  discontinuation of a case at any point, he had to strike out the case.”

    Counsel to the plaintiffs, Habila Arzard, who addressed journalists after the court proceedings, restated the reason for asking that the case be discontinued: “Since yesterday when we left court, several well-meaning Nigerians have called the plaintiffs and appealed to them to give greater consideration to the interest of this nation. The plaintiffs are Nigerians and they love football. So, in view of the appeals by the well-meaning Nigerians and the interest of the nation, they decided to terminate the proceedings. That’s why this morning (Thursday) we decided to file the notice of discontinuation.”

    Defense counsel Damon Dashe who expained the implication of the court proceeding of Thursday, said: “Now that the matter has been struck out, it means the order of October 23 (dismissing the Pinnick executive committee) has no life now and there are no more restrictions. The entire NFF execo elected on the 30th of September 2014 is the substantive exco of the NFF. That is the position of the law now.”

  • A court official’s ‘sin’ cannot be visited on a litigant

    This is an appeal against the judgment  of the National Industrial Court, Ikoyi Lagos refusing to relist the Appellant’s suit struck out for non-appearance of all the parties in the suit. The facts of the case are as follows:

    The Appellant filed an action at the National Industrial Court Lagos on 20/4/11. His Claim in the action essentially related to non-confirmation of his employment despite satisfactory compliance with the requirements for his confirmation as contained in his letter of employment. The suit was on the Court’s cause list scheduled for hearing on 13/10/11 before the scheduled date, the Appellant’s counsel on 5/10/11 wrote and delivered to the Court through its Registrar a letter indicating that the Appellant’s Counsel would be unable to attend Court on that 13/10/11 on grounds of bereavement. From the Court’s records, that was the first time the Appellant’s Counsel would be absent from Court. A copy of the letter was acknowledged as received by both the Registrar of the Lower Court and Counsel to the Respondents in the suit. Consequently, the parties and their counsel were all absent when the case was called up on 13/10/11.

    The Registrar of the Court failed to call the attention of the court to the Appellant counsel’s letter. The Court then struck out the Appellant’s suit from the cause list in its Ruling for non-appearance of all parties pursuant to Order 19 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. Upon discovering that the suit had been struck out, the Appellant promptly filed an application on 19/10/11 to re-list the Suit pursuant to Order 19 Rule 6 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007.  The Respondent did not file any counter-affidavit in opposition and on 29/11/11 when the application to re-list the Suit came up for hearing, the Respondents’ Counsel informed the Court that he had no objection to the Application. Notwithstanding the lack of opposition from Respondent’s counsel, the learned trial Judge refused to re-list the suit. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the refusal appealed against the ruling by a Notice of Appeal filed at the Court of Appeal. The Appellants formulated three issues out of the three grounds of appeal viz:

    1. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, did the Lower Court exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously in refusing the Appellant’s Motion to Re-list?

    2. Whether the Lower Court was right to have made conjecture of facts not placed before it suo motu as reason for refusing the Appellant’s Application for re-listing without giving Counsel the opportunity to address it on the point so raised thereby violating the Appellant’s right to fair hearing guaranteed under Section 36 of the Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution?

    3. Was the Lower Court right to have neglected and or failed to act on the unchallenged affidavit evidence attached to the Appellants Motion dated 19th October, 2011 which the Respondents’ Counsel expressly stated that they were not opposing? This issue is distilled from Ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal.

    The Respondents did not file any brief of argument. Learned counsel for the Respondent informed the Court that it filed a notice of intention not to contest the appeal. The Court stated that it was satisfied that the discretionary power of the lower Court to relist the suit was not exercised judicially and judiciously.

    The Court stated that it is trite law as submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that when a Court is exercising its discretion, it must be exercised judicially and judiciously. See University of Lagos v Aigoro (1985) NWLR (Pt.1) 143. The Court stated further that an Appeal Court may interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion if it is shown that there has been a wrongful exercise of the discretion such as where the tribunal acted under misconception of law or unproved matters or it omitted to take into account matters that are relevant or where it exercised or failed to exercise the discretion on wrong or inadequate materials and in all other cases where it in the interest of justice to interfere: See Enekebe v. Enkebe (1964) 1 All NLR 102 at 106, Demuren v. Asuni (1967) 1 All NLR 94 at 101. The Court held that a Court must balance its discretionary power to grant or refuse an adjournment with its duty to endeavour to give an Appellant the opportunity of obtaining substantial justice and where the Court errs in its balancing exercise an Appeal Court is at liberty to interfere. See University of Lagos v Aigoro 1985 NWLR pt.1 p.143.

    The Court stated that the learned counsel was right that the Appellant placed sufficient materials before the lower Court to guide it in reaching a just and fair decision. Five clear days before the suit was to come up for hearing, the Appellant’s Counsel had written to the Court of the inability of Counsel who was seized of all the facts in the suit to appear in Court on the next adjourned date. It was referred to the appropriate Court Official to take the necessary action. The letter was never brought to the attention of the Court as acknowledged by the Court in its ruling. Despite all the facts put forward before the lower Court and the Respondents’ Counsel’s unwillingness to oppose the application to relist the suit, the lower Court refused to re-list the suit. The Court noted that the lower Court was apparently more concerned with the fact that there were other counsel in the chambers who should have appeared, but this on its own the Court held cannot be a ground for denial of adjournment as it was also the first time an adjournment was sought in the case and on grounds of bereavement, a very compelling reason.

    The Court held that the learned counsel for the Appellant was again right that the Court shut its eyes to the obvious satisfaction of all the condition precedents as prescribed by the Rules and case-laws and this occasioned miscarriage of justice to the Appellant. The Court further held that allowing the lower Court’s decision refusing to relist the Appellant’s suit to stay would amount to visiting and blaming the inadequacy or inadvertence of Court’s official on the litigant which is contrary to the established principle of law that the sin of the Court or its official or that of his counsel cannot be visited on the litigant. The Court noted that the Appellant placed sufficient materials before the lower Court to enable it exercise its discretion in favour of the Appellant and by failing to re-list the suit, the learned trial Judge did not exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously.

    On the whole, the Court held that the appeal was bound to succeed and it was thereby allowed. The decision of the Lower Court refusing to relist the suit was set aside. In its place it was ordered that suit no. NIC/LA/24/11 be relisted on the cause list of the National Industrial Court for hearing.

     

    •Edited by LawPavilion

    LawPavilion Citation: (2014) LPELR-23742(CA)

     

  • Court hears contempt suit against CBN directors tomorrow

    The Federal High Court in Laos will hear a contempt charge against three Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) directors tomorrow.

    CBN pensioners, represented by James Jemilo, Thompson Edun, Jacob Amao, and Joachim Ajala are praying the court to commit the directors to prison for allegedly flouting a judgment.

    The alleged contemnors are CBN Deputy Governor, Corporate Services, Alhaji Suleiman Barau; Director Human Resources Ms Chizoba Mojekwu, and Director of Legal Services, Mr Simon Onekutu.

    The plaintiffs are also praying the court to compel CBN to comply with the Federal Government’s directive on pension harmonisation.

    The suit was earlier fixed for hearing on October 6, but was adjourned because the day fell on a holiday.

    The CBN directors have objected to the suit. Their preliminary objection will be heard on the next adjourned date.

    The plaintiffs had averred that the harmonisation policy was introduced in the public service with effect from Jan. 1, 1997.

    “The policy was designed to eliminate the disparities in the pensions of workers who retired on the same grade, with those who served the same number of years but retired at different times” they averred

    According to them, following CBN’s alleged failure to comply with the policy, they filed suit number FHC/L/CS524/99 before a Federal High Court in Lagos, seeking an order compelling it to abide by the directive.

    The CBN had however, in its defence, said that it could only pay the harmonised pension, subject to “affordability and sustainability” of pension funds.

    Meanwhile, in a judgment delivered on May 22, 2000, the court, presided by Justice Wilson Egbo-Egbo, (now retired), granted the pensioners’s prayers.

    Egbo-Egbo had directed CBN to pay the applicants all accrued pensions with effect from January 1 1997, on emoluments currently earned by their serving counterparts.

    The judge held that this was as prescribed by the Federal Government’s policy on harmonisation of pensions, adding that such accrued pensions were to be paid subsequently, as and when due.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment, CBN had appealed at the Court of Appeal, and later the Supreme Court. Both appellate courts affirmed the lower court’s decision on December 5, 2006, and May 21, 2010 respectively.

  • Addressing the rate of disobedience to court orders

    Addressing the rate of disobedience to court orders

    In many occasions, concerned citizens in Nigeria have expressed worry about the spate of disobedience to court orders in spite of democratic governance.

    They observe that some elements saddled with the responsibility of protecting the law are somewhat found to be abetting disobedience to court orders in some cases.

    Justice Okon Abang of a Federal High Court, Lagos, in his opinion, said “disobedience to court order in the country has become an endemic disease which has eaten deep into the fabric of Nigerian society’’.

    According to him, the situation requires urgent attention to restore sanity in the Nigeria judicial system.

    Corroborating this viewpoint, Mr Femi Falana, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), recently called for the efforts of all stakeholders at checking the rate of disobedience to court orders.

    He insisted that the Bar has a great role to play in that regard, noting that in the past; it was the responsibility of lawyers to ensure that people complied with court orders.

    Falana recalled that when the late Mr Alao Aka-Bashorun was the president of the Bar, he directed Nigerian lawyers to protest the disobedience to a court order during a military regime.

    “Then, for the first time, Nigerian lawyers went on strike to protest the disobedience to court order; but this day, it has become part of our culture of impunity,’’ he said.

    Sharing similar opinion, Governor Adams Oshiomhole of Edo, challenged members of the Bar to fight against disobedience to court orders.

    He said at the opening ceremony of the 2014/2015 Edo Legal Year recently in Benin that disobedience to court orders constituted a threat to the rule of law.

    “Every lawyer must endeavour to uphold the law and those that live by the court must not be seen to aid and abet disobedience.

    “If senior advocates of Nigeria advise people to disobey court orders, it is a sad thing and if the Bar keeps quiet in the face of such disobedience, then it is a terrible thing for the rule of law.

    “If court bailiffs are assaulted in public view and senior advocates and other learned members of the community keep quiet, it is not the best.

    “This is because those who may not be affected today may be the people to be affected tomorrow, particularly where the rule of law operates on the basis of precedent.

    “The challenge of defending democracy demands that we have not just an independent judiciary, but a courageous judiciary with potent teeth to bite or  smile regardless of those appearing before us,’’ he said.

    Observers, however, note that Oshiomhole’s view represents the recent occurrence in Edo House of Assembly where members of the house refused to obey court order that barred them from entering the legislators’ quarters in Benin.

    They note that disobedience to court order by the members obviously escalated the crisis in the house.

    They recall that the crisis was preceded by the suspension of the Deputy Speaker of the house, Rep. Festus Ebea of All Progressives Congress (APC) and three other members who defected to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    They also observed that the house leadership secured a Benin High Court order, restraining the defected lawmakers from entering the assembly complex and legislative quarters in Benin but the orders was not obeyed.

    According to them, the fallout of the disobedience is that both parties are still in court, the House of Assembly has two speakers and the lawmakers are divided.

    Citing a similar example, observers recall that in spite of the order of Jos Federal High Court, barring the conduct of the election of the Nigeria Football Association (NFA), the association recently went ahead to conduct the election.

    They note that in disobeying the court order, the Aminu Maigari led faction of the association conducted the election that produced Mr Amaju Pinnick as the NFA chairman.

    Stakeholders insist that such practice is worrisome and can cause anarchy if not checked on time.

    Mr Sunday Ameh, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), stressed that court judgments should be obeyed always, until they are set aside, saying that “affected parties are under obligation to face the judgment being executed against them.’’

    Also, an Abuja-based lawyer, Mr Terkaa Aodoo, said there was no justification to disobey the orders of court.

    “ In fact, anybody or corporate organisations have no right to disobey court orders no matter how the order was given.

    “If the order was given in error, the only thing to do is to challenge the order in an appeal court to set it aside.

    “But to disobey court order amounts to contempt of court and the court can carry out contempt proceedings against the disobedient person or group.

    “ So, disobeying court order is a very fundamental issue that should not be encouraged in our judicial system,’’ he said.

    Observers, nonetheless, insist that court orders are disobeyed with impunity in connivance with some elements in the judiciary.

    They say that the NBA, as suggested by Falana, should address arbitrary disobedience to court orders.

     

    •Ukoh is of the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)

  • APC Reps to challenge Jonathan’s eligibility in court

    APC Reps to challenge Jonathan’s eligibility in court

    Following the declaration of President Goodluck Jonathan to run for Presidency in 2015, a group of lawmakers from the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the House of Representatives have said they will challenge his eligibility in court.

    Jonathan, after declaring his intention to run last Thursday, set up a team, chaired by former Minister of Defence, Dr Bello Haliru, to handle his campaign.

    One of the lawmakers, Nasiru Sule Garo, representing Gwarzo/Ikabo Federal Constituency of Kano State, spoke on the pending action.

    He said: “People are ready to go (to court). We are just waiting for him to declare. For now, he is not a candidate. He is just being endorsed, like it happened during (the late Gen. Sani) Abacha’s regime, when selfish individuals were just coming out to say that Abacha was the sole candidate of every other party.”

    The lawmaker hinged the fresh agitation to contest Jonathan’s eligibility on the Supreme Court ruling on former Adamawa State Governor Boni Haruna, which quashed his re-election bid after completing the tenure of his predecessor and another four years.

    He said: “By the Constitution of Nigeria, I don’t think the President (Jonathan) has any right for now to contest. He has been sworn in twice and our constitution says that a person shall occupy the Office of the President for two terms of four years, which makes it eight years. This President has occupied this position for two years and he contested an election and he is occupying for four years, which makes it six.

    “If he seeks a re-election, it means he is going to be sworn-in for the third term. That one too can be contested. Is he going to serve for two years and then we do another election, or is he going to violate the constitution and serve for four years, which would make him the President of Nigeria for 10 years? So, there are a lot of questions that need to be clarified by the court before he even contest for that position.”

  • Multi-Door Court to settle over 200 cases

    Multi-Door Court to settle over 200 cases

    •Begins district settlement week tomorrow

    In line with its pilot district settlement week billed to start tomorrow, the Lagos State Multi-Door Court (LMDC) has said it would resolve about 200 cases from the Igbosere Magistrate’s Court.

    The week-long exercise is geared towards decongesting the courts by using Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism to solve issues emanating from contract disputes, debt recovery, property, tenancy, defamation as well as family matters.

    With 10 cases billed to be resolved per day, the LMDC Director, Mrs. Caroline Etuk, said seasoned mediators had been selected and lined up.

    “The exercise is aimed at bringing ADR to the grassroots as well as giving participants opportunity to explore settlement of their disputes by the intervention of skilled mediators.

    “The parties are not deprived of their day in court. In the event of a non-settlement, the matter is returned to the court’s docket and the parties are at liberty to continue with the case in court.

    “Since the mediation process is conducted confidentially and without prejudice, neither party is prejudiced by the mediation process”, she explained.

    Etuk assured that the exercise will be extended to other magistracies like Ikeja, Yaba and Ebute-Meta very soon? in order to aid the administration of justice.

    According to her, the LMDC provides services for disputants in various areas of law including commercial, employment, and contract, maritime, matrimonial, energy using ADR mechanism such as mediation, arbitration, conciliation, early neutral evaluation and hybrid process.

    The Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse (LMDC) was established on June 11, 2002, as a public-private partnership between the High Court of Justice, Lagos State and the Negotiation and Conflict Management Group (NCMG).

    Its objective is to facilitate dispute resolution within the Nigerian Justice System. It is the first court-connected Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre in Africa.

    Section 3(1) of the Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse empowered the Chief Judge of Lagos State to designate a week in which disputants, lawyers and neutrals would engage in the settlement of disputes through the deployment of ADR mechanisms.