The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Court declines arraignment of Mercy Chinwo’s ex-manager 

    Court declines arraignment of Mercy Chinwo’s ex-manager 

    A Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday, declined the arraignment of Ezekiel Onyedikachukwu, a former manager of gospel singer, Mercy Chinwo.

    Justice Alexander Owoeye held that the court would not proceed with the case until an ongoing administrative process was concluded.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged Onyedikachukwu and his company, Eezee Tee, with money laundering and dishonest conversion of $340,000.

    During Thursday’s proceedings, prosecutor Mrs Bilikisu Buhari appeared for the EFCC, while Mr Chikaosolu Ojukwu (SAN), and Dr Monday Ubani represented the defence.

    Buhari informed the court that the matter was set for arraignment, and the defence confirmed their readiness to proceed. However, Justice Owoeye clarified that he could not take the arraignment due to ongoing administrative procedures.

    Defence counsel Ojukwu then sought confirmation on whether parties should maintain the status quo. The court, howerver,  reiterated that no pronouncement would be made until the administrative process was completed.

    Read Also: Gospel musician Mercy Chinwo sues VDM for alleged defamation

    Ubani reminded the court that he had previously undertaken to present the defendant, which he had now fulfilled. The court acknowledged this but maintained its position.

    Following mutual agreement, the court adjourned the case until May 14.

    The charges allege that Onyedikachukwu withheld funds from Chinwo’s digital platforms and events.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls that the EFCC secured an arrest warrant for Onyedikachukwu on Jan. 16 but withdrew it on Jan. 24. On Feb. 17, the court ordered his appearance for arraignment.

    Meanwhile, the defence has filed a preliminary objection, arguing that the matter was a contractual dispute rather than a criminal case.

    (NAN)

  • UPDATED: Court orders INEC to recognise NRM’s leadership led by Edozie Njoku 

    UPDATED: Court orders INEC to recognise NRM’s leadership led by Edozie Njoku 

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise the leadership of the National Rescue Movement (NRM) that emerged from the party emergency national convention held in Abuja on January 17.

    The emergency convention held to fill vacant positions in the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) and correct lopsidedness in its composition, produced Chief Edozie Njoku as NRM’s national chairman.

    Since the convention was held, INEC refused to accept the outcome of the convention on the grounds that it did not monitor the exercise, a position Justice Obiora Egwuatu faulted in a judgment delivered on Wednesday.

    The judgment was on a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/45/2025 filed by the NRM, with INEC as sole respondent.

    Justice Egwuatu held that there was evidence that NRM served on INEC a valid notice of its emergency national convention and that it was wrong for the electoral body to have refused to monitor the exercise as the law mandates it to do.

    The judge further held that the notice from the NRM, not being short of the required 21 days, INEC had no reason not to have monitored the emergency convention.

    The judge said he was convinced that the NRM effectively made out a case to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought.

    Justice Egwuatu declared that, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 82(1)} and 83 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the respondent is under a constitutional obligation to accept and monitor the emergency convention of the applicant (NRM) to fill vacancy and correct lopsidedness in its National Executive Committee (NEC).

    Read Also: JUST IN: Court orders INEC to recognise NRM’s leadership led by Edozie Njoku

    He also declared that the failure of the respondent (INEC) to accept and monitor the emergency convention of the applicant to fill vacancy and correct lopsidedness in its NEC amounted to a refusal/failure to discharge its constitutional and/or public duty contrary to the provisions of Sections 82(1) and 83 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and therefore unconstitutional and unlawful. 

    The judge proceeded to issue and order of mandamus compelling INEC “to accept and monitor the emergency convention of the applicant to fill vacancy and correct lopsidedness in its NEC and recognize the decision or outcome of the convention.”

    Reacting to the judgment, Chief Njoku commended the court for uphold the truth and urged INEC to abide by the court’s decision on the issue.

    He said: “Today, the court has made it abundantly clear that INEC had no reason not to monitor our convention and that everything thing that came out of that convention is legal and binding on INE .

    “We beg INEC to please abide by the order of mandamus which the court issued against it today, ordering it to immediately accept the outcome of our convention,” Chief Njoku said.

  • Ondo monarchs reject Appeal Court Judgment, vow to challenge at Supreme Court

    Ondo monarchs reject Appeal Court Judgment, vow to challenge at Supreme Court

    …say they are not under Deji of Akure

    Some traditional rulers in Akure North local government have rejected an Appeal Court judgment confirming the Deji of Akure, Oba Aladetoyinbo Ogunlade Aladelusi, as the Prescribed Authority on chieftaincy matters in Akure North and Akure South local governments.

    The monarchs, including the Oloba of Obaile, the Okiti of Iju, and the Ogbolu of Itaogbolu, vowed to challenge the verdict at the Supreme Court.

    They lamented the delay in the release of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Appeal Court judgment, which is necessary for them to proceed to the Supreme Court. In a statement issued in Akure, the monarchs appealed to the President of the Appeal Court to release the CTC within the stipulated time allowed by law.

    Their counsel, headed by Chief Akin Olujimi and represented by Barr. Femi Emodamori has written a letter of reminder to demand the release of the judgment copy.

    Read Also: Supreme Court judgement: Rivers sacked LG chairmen hand over to councils’ heads

    According to the statement, “The refusal of the Court of Appeal to release the CTC of the Judgment to our lawyers has frustrated their intention to file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

    “It is now 19 days since the judgment was delivered by the Court of Appeal, while the law said the verdict CTC shall be released within seven days.

    “The appeal was dismissed in a judgment delivered on 14th February 2025. Regrettably, till date, eleven days after the delivery of the judgment, we have not been given a copy of the judgment, despite series of telephone calls by the undersigned Counsel to the Head of Litigation of the Court to demand for same and his initial assurance that it would be available within the constitutionally-stipulated period of seven days.

    “Our inability to obtain a copy of the judgment has been preventing us from perfecting the instruction of our clients to take some immediate steps concerning the matter.

    “We would therefore appreciate if a Certified True Copy of the judgment is released to us to enable us to activate our clients’ instruction.”

  • Firm seeks leave of court to enforce final arbitration award

    Firm seeks leave of court to enforce final arbitration award

    A real estate firm has filed an application before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) seeking permission to enforce the final judgment of an arbitration against an individual, Ashiekaa Teryila.

    The firm wants the court to recognize and adopt the arbitration decision as its ruling to resolve the ongoing dispute.

    According to the applicants, Fervent Brothers Limited and Mr Lewis Innih, the request aligned with a precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Okey Jim Nwagbara v. Jadcom Limited (2021), where the apex court ruled that an arbitral award is a final and conclusive judgment.

    The court emphasized that arbitration, being a voluntary dispute resolution mechanism, should be upheld and enforced by courts.

    The motion, registered as M/867/2025, was filed to help the claimants recover vacant possession of a disputed property, secure profits accruing from it, and obtain damages for an alleged breach of contract by the respondent.

    The property in question is situated at 12, Bujumbura Street, Wuse 2, Abuja. It was leased to the respondent for a period of two years, from May 1, 2019, to April 30, 2021, at an annual rent of ₦13 million.

    The claimants, Fervent Brothers Limited and Mr. Lewis Innih, allege that the respondent, Mr. Ashiekaa Daniel Teryila, failed to renew the lease after its expiration. Despite this, he refused to vacate the premises, leading to the legal dispute.

    Upon discovering an arbitration clause in the lease agreement, the FCT High Court directed both parties to resolve the matter through arbitration. The dispute was then referred to the Abuja Multi-Door Courthouse, where the parties mutually appointed a sole arbitrator, Miriam S. Kombo-Ezeh.

    Read Also: Dikko to chair Newstap/ SWAN Five Star Sports Award

    In a 15-paragraph affidavit submitted in support of their enforcement application, the claimants affirmed that the arbitration process was duly followed. They stated that a final award was issued on January 15, 2025, ruling in their favor.

    The arbitration decision found the respondent liable and ordered him to settle all outstanding bills related to the property. Additionally, he was directed to vacate the premises and surrender possession to the claimants within a month of the award’s publication.

    The claimants argue that a court order is now necessary to recognize and enforce the arbitration ruling, which they believe will bring an end to the prolonged dispute.

    The lease agreement included an arbitration clause—Clause 27—stipulating that any dispute arising from the lease, including breaches, terminations, or invalidity, should be resolved through arbitration if not settled amicably.

    As per the agreement, the arbitration was governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. The arbitrator was to be approved by the Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Nigeria Branch, and their decision would be final and binding.

    The dispute arose after the lease expired on April 30, 2021. The respondent neither vacated the property nor renewed the lease, effectively becoming a tenant-at-will. This entitled him to only a seven-day notice to quit, followed by another seven-day notice indicating the landlord’s intention to seek legal recovery.

    Despite being served with the required notices, the respondent continued to occupy the property unlawfully for over three years. The claimants also allege that he violated other terms of the lease agreement.

    Given these circumstances, the applicants are requesting the court to formally recognize the final arbitration award dated January 15. They seek an order enforcing the award as a judgment of the court.

    The applicants specifically asked for court approval to enforce the decision issued by Arbitrator Miriam S. Kombo-Ezeh at the Abuja Multi-Door Courthouse, arguing that this step was crucial in resolving the matter conclusively.

  • Court adjourns FIRS $79.5b suit against Binance till April 7

    Court adjourns FIRS $79.5b suit against Binance till April 7

    The Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday adjourned till April 7 the suit filed by the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS) against Binance Holdings Limited, demanding $79.5 billion over economic losses allegedly caused by its operations in Nigeria.

    The matter, which was the number nine on the cause list, could not proceed before Justice Inyang Ekwo.

    The development occurred after the judge had heard some cases before he went on recess.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the FIRS sued Binance, Tigran Gambaryan, and Nadeem Anjarwalla for alleged causing Nigeria a huge economic loss.

    In the originating summons dated and filed on September 30, 2024, by Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), the country’s tax regulatory body sought four questions for determination.

    The FIRS prayed the court to determine “whether pursuant to Section 13(2) of the Companies Income Tax (CIT) Act Cap. C21, LFN, 2024 and Order (1)(a) and (c) of Companies Income Tax (Significant Economic Presence) Order 2020, the defendants are not liable to pay annual corporate income tax to the Federal Republic of Nigeria for having had significant economic presence in Nigeria from 2022 to 2023, among others.

    The agency sought nine reliefs should the court answered its questions in the affirmative.

    It prayed the court to declare that pursuant to all relevant laws, the defendants are liable to pay annual corporate income tax to the Federal Government for having significant economic presence in the country.

    The FIRS also prayed the court to declare that Binance and its representatives are liable to file their income tax to the agency for the year 2022 and 2023 from the time they began to exercise significant economic presence in Nigeria.

    The agency also sought a declaration that it is entitled, under Section 87(1) of the CIT Act Cap. C21, LFN, 2004; sections 25(1) and 34(1) of the FIRS (Establishment) Act 2007, to recover from the defendants the cumulative sum of $2,001,000,000.00, being the amount due by way of income tax to the plaintiff from the defendants for 2022 and 2023.

    It also sought a declaration that pursuant to Section 85(1) of the CIT Act Cap. C21, LFN, 2004 and Section 32(1) of the FIRS (Establishment) Act 2007, the defendants are liable to additional payment of 10 per cent per annum on the tax due but not paid for 2022 and 2023.

    The FIRS sought an order mandating the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the sums of $2,001,000,000.00 for Year 2022 and for 2023, being the unpaid income tax due to the plaintiff from the defendants for the year 2022 and 2023.

    The plaintiff also sought “an order mandating the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the 10 per cent addition for non-payment of income tax for Year 2022 and 2023, respectively.

    Read Also: Customs boss accuses companies operating in Free Trade Zone of violating tax laws

    “An order mandating the defendants to pay 26.75% interest rate being the prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) lending interest per annum from the 1st January, 2023 and 1st January, 2024 respectively when the tax become due and payable until it is fully paid”.

    In the affidavit deposed to by a member of the Special Investigation Team from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), Jimada Yusuf, the agency official said he and other officials of FIRS and other regulatory agencies investigated Binance’s business activities in Nigeria.

    Yusuf said the Federal Government discovered that Binance had been operating in Nigeria for over six years without registration.

    According to him, this was allegedly confirmed by Gambaryan and Anjarwalla during a meeting with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2024.

    The ONSA officer claimed that in a letter dated February 20, 2024, Binance admitted to having 386,256 active users from Nigeria on its platform with a trading volume of $21.6 billion and a net revenue of $35.4 million for the calendar Year 2023.

    He accused Binance and its executives of multiple infractions, including offering financial services without the necessary licences, operating without required permits, non-compliance with the Money Laundering Act, providing currency speculation services without proper authorisation, among others.

    Yusuf averred that Binance engaged in Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) activities in Nigeria, providing trading and custodial services to Nigerian users without proper registration with the relevant regulatory agencies, among others.

    NAN reports that the FIRS and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) are also prosecuting the cryptocurrency company in separate charges before Justice Emeka Nwite of the same court.

  • Court absolves businessman of retaining proceed of crime

    Court absolves businessman of retaining proceed of crime

    Justice Mojisola Dada of an Ikeja Special Offences Court, Ikeja has dismissed the criminal charge filed against businessman, Abayomi Kamaldeen Alaka by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The judge while discharging Alaka of the alleged offence of retention of proceed of crime held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.

    The EFCC had accused the  defendant of retention of proceed of crime in  a suit marked no ID/23789C/24.

    He was subsequently arraigned on three counts charge dated March 20,2024.

    The anti graft agency alleged that the defendant was aware of an existing order of forfeiture in respect of  a newly renovated storey building and that the defendant knew that the property was subject matter of forfeiture vide a court order in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/465/2021 at all-time material.

    Alaka had pleaded not guilty to all the counts charges brought against him by the prosecution.

    Consequently, the prosecuting counsel, Mr N. K Ukoha  commenced trial, called three witnesses.

    After the prosecution closed its case on December 10, 2024, the defendant lead counsel, Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN) told court of his intention to file a “No Case Submission”.

     Ukoha did not oppose the said application and the court adjourned the case as counsel agreed for January 20, 2025.

    However, in the defendant’s no case submission,  counsel argued that the principles governing a submission of no case and the duty of the trial court where there is no prima facie case has been made against the defendant at the close of the prosecution have been codified in section 239 of the Administration of the Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State 2015 (ACJL 2015).

    Read Also: NSCDC boss presents N188m cheques to families of deceased personnel

    He submitted that, “it is trite that criminal responsibility for the commission of a crime is premised in the satisfactory proof of the two pillars of actus reus and mens rea, the doing of the act that constitutes the offence and requisite mental capacity and the duty is always on the prosecution to prove the commission of a crime by providing the act done and the requisite guilty of the mind of accused.

    Ojo submitted that the prosecution must establish that the defendant sold or disposed of the newly renovated storey building situated at No. 22 PSSDS Road, Magodo Phase 2, Magodo, Lagos when there is an existing order of forfeiture.

    ‘‘ The prosecution didn’t tender any affidavit of service of interim forfeiture order to the defendant at all times or tender any document that defendant received service of forfeiture order and that the prosecution did not tender any evidence of publication of the said interim order of forfeiture in any national newspaper  before the court in suit no FHC/ABJ/CS /465/2021.”

    However, in the ruling, Justice Dada held the testimony of prosecution witness two (PW2) under cross examination wherein he stated that he conducted a necessary due diligence before advising his client to go ahead with the transaction.

     “It was only suspicious transactions he was trained to report and that he did not report this transaction because he had no suspicion concerning it. He inspected the property before its purchase and that he did not see any EFCC inscription on same.

    “He further stated that at all times preceding the sale of property, nobody showed him any order of court and nobody told him that there any order of court. He confirmed that the further enquiry from the EFCC that there was an exis court order on the said property took place after the sale had been completed.

    “He stated that it was after the sale that he saw the EFCC inscription on the wall of the property. He stated that they were given possession in August, 2021 but that he saw inscription in September, 2021.”

    The court held that, “On that date however, the prosecution was not only absent, but had not filed any response to the submission served on them since December 31, 2024 and even until now, February 26,2025.”

    Justice Dada held that the act is, “a tacit admission that the prosecution has not established a prima facie case against the defendant and what is admitted needs no further proof.

    “Essentially, the Prosecution admits that it could not prove the service of the order of court for the forfeiture of the property in contention on the defendant which is the fulcrum of the allegation of the 3 counts against the defendant in this case.

    “The law is firmly settled that a fact or matter which is admitted ceases to be a fact in issue. There was no evidence to prove an essential element of the alleged offence.and the evidence adduced has been so discred

  • Apex court brings closure to state crisis

    Apex court brings closure to state crisis

    The Supreme Court of Nigeria has finally put an end to the protracted political crisis rocking Rivers State. The imbroglio started with the bombing of the hallowed chambers of the House of Assembly in October 2023 and continued to unsettle the oil-rich state for over one year and six months.

    The crisis snowballed into multiple court judgments and conflicting court orders that created confusion, uncertainty and in most cases apprehension in Rivers. All efforts to politically reconcile the warring parties failed. The crisis seemed endless, intractable, irreconcilable and complicated.

    The Rivers impasse divided all stakeholders in the state. It split the elders, elderstatesmen and leaders into two antagonising groups. The youths and women chose the tents that best protected their interests. It was either you belonged to the camp of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, or you identified with that of the Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara.

    But the Supreme Court spoke yesterday. The verdicts were loud and clear. The judgments resolved the main disputes escalating the crisis.  One of them was the authenticity of Martins Amaewhule as the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly and the fate of the 26 other lawmakers led by him.

    Prior to the judgment, the camp of the governor and his lawyers had insisted that Amaewhule and 26 other lawmakers were no longer members of the House of Assembly.

    They hinged their petition and argument on allegations that the lawmakers had defected from their original platform, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The argument was the nucleus of all the actions of the governor and was the sole reason why he chose to conduct government’s legislative businesses with the Victor Oko-Jumbo-led House of Assembly consisting of three members. In fact, that interpretation was the live wire Fubara’s activities.

    But the Supreme Court in its wisdom ruled that Amaewhule is the authentic Speaker of the House of Assembly. The court said the 26 other lawmakers are the genuine members of the House. The court insisted that the only House of Assembly recognised by law in Rivers is the one led by him.

    The judgment clearly outlawed and invalidated the factional House of Assembly led by Oko-Jumbo. It also rendered invalid all the actions and decisions of the three lawmakers including the governor’s appointments that they screened and confirmed as commissioners, special advisers, members of boards and agencies of government. The governor may have to resend the names to the authentic House of Assembly as declared by the apex court.

    But all hope is not lost for Oko-Jumbo. The verdicts provided an opportunity for him and two other lawmakers to make peace with their friends in the House of Assembly and return to the hallowed chambers in the interest of the peace, progress and development of the state.

    Though Oko-Jumbo and other pro-Fubara lawmakers, such as Goodboy Sokari Goodboy and Adolphus Timothy, who formed the parallel Assembly were suspended by the House of Assembly, they can lobby their way back to the legislative chamber.

    Again with the Supreme Court judgment, it is obvious that the Rivers State Government has no budget. The court declared as illegal the budgets passed through the Oko-Jumbo-led Assembly and ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to stop releasing allocations to the state government pending when the governor would present the appropriation bill to the House of Assembly led by Amaewhule.

    Therefore, the Supreme Court gave Fubara an opportunity to re-present the appropriation Bill, which he had signed into law, to the House of Assembly. As a custodian of the law in Rivers and in the spirit of the rule of law, he should as a matter of urgency, lay the 2025 Appropriation Bill before the House of Assembly led by Speaker Amaewhule.

    Facing Amaewhule and the 26 other lawmakers with the appropriation bill may trigger a new beginning and provide a leeway for the governor to begin to mend fences with his former friends. Besides, heeding the judgment early could stop any financial adversity that may befall the state following non-release of allocations.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s judgment removed all the local government chairmen and councillors in the 23 local government areas of the state. The verdict cancelled the elections that brought them to office saying the poll failed the tests of due process and legality.

    With the ruling, the court averred that the current persons running local government councils as chairmen never existed in the eyes of the law. They were never local government chairmen and councillors and all the monies they had so far spent in their various councils were done illegally.

    The affected individuals must vacate their offices and stop parading themselves as local government chairmen and councillors if they truly loved the governor because doing so may lead to anarchy in the state.

    Read Also: Wike lands in Rivers after Supreme Court’s judgement 

    Obviously, the ruling had tied the hands of Fubara because a previous judgment of the apex court had ruled out running local government areas with caretaker committees.

    With the pronouncement of the court yesterday, the governor may likely hand over the local government areas to the Head of Administration in each council pending the conduct of a fresh poll at the grassroots.

    Indeed, the Supreme Court ruling may just present another opportunity for a fresh and new beginning between the governor and the House of Assembly. The governor’s handling of the situation will determine the kind of relationship he would have with the Amaewhule-led House of Assembly going forward. If he plays his cards well, the governor will end the existing cat-and-rat relationship between his government and the assembly.

    Since there is no other court to take the matter to after the Supreme Court, the governor must initiate a political solution to the ongoing crisis. He must stoop to conquer in the interest of the peace in Rivers State.

    Unless Fubara has unflinching hope on the matter at the Federal High Court of Appeal challenging the legality of Amaewhule as a Speaker and 26 others as members of the House of Assembly following their alleged defections, the governor should pursue a political settlement immediately.

    Therefore, the judgment is not a death sentence on the governor and his administration but an opportunity for a new beginning for a greater Rivers State.

  • Save me from my wife, police, businessman begs court

    Save me from my wife, police, businessman begs court

    The Federal High Court in Lagos State has granted an order directing the police to stop further arrest, harassment or intimidation of a businessman, Hamza Ejiofor, based on petitions by his estranged wife.

    Ejiofor had spent over three months in two police formations over a contractual dispute with his estranged wife.

    Justice Daniel Osiagor granted an ex-parte motion filed by the businessman’s lawyer, C. Achomadu, but moved by Evans Ajoku in suit FHC/L/CS//2025.

    Inspector-General of Police (care of Legal Department, Federal Force CID, Alagbon Close, Ikoyi), Commander IGP Monitoring Unit, Lagos; Mr Ojo Odion Charles (IPO), Assistant Inspector-General of Police (AIG) Zone 2, Ebenezer Democracy (Officer-in-Charge), Meks Vivian Lavita, and Mr. Oladimeji Ikotu are the respondents.

    Ejiofor, operator of Zulu Restaurant and Lounge in FESTAC, sought an order of interim injunction restraining the first to fifth respondents from continuing to detain and restrict his movement and from further inviting, arresting and detaining him pending the determination of the substantive suit.

    After granting the order, Justice Osiagor adjourned the substantive suit till April 29. In a supporting affidavit, the applicant’s younger brother, Chukwudi Ejiofor, said the plaintiff had been arrested and detained many times by the police based on petitions arising from the same facts by Lavita and Okotu.

    Read Also: DisCos failure to invest drawback to electricity supply, says minister

    He said the police on January 20, about 9 pm, based on a petition similar to others previously investigated by the police, invaded his business at FESTAC without a warrant and whisked him away to Ikoyi. He said on enquiry, he was told his brother was arrested over allegations of obtaining by false pretence, the same claim submitted in a petition on January 18, last year, that had been investigated by the police and a charge preferred against the applicant.

    The deponent said the police, on February 15, 2024, filed suit FHC/L/MISC/45/2024 and obtained a post-no-debit order blocking his account for four months, after which the police reported after an investigation that there was no case.

    Ejiofor said the IPO ordered the applicant back to the police cell where he has been detained since January 20 over the allegation that had been investigated and concluded by the AIG’s office.

    Urging the court to intervene, he said his brother has been very ill in police custody, adding: “I have been very worried about the applicant’s failing health. He is an asthmatic patient.”

    The applicant said he met his estranged wife in New York until their marriage crashed, with divorce proceedings ongoing.

    He claimed his wife had allegedly been using the police and some family members to frustrate him and his business.

  • Man sentenced to death for killing wife, brother-in-law in Lagos

    Man sentenced to death for killing wife, brother-in-law in Lagos

    A Lagos State High Court, presided over by Justice Sherifat Sonaike, at Tafawa Balewa Square, has sentenced Benjamin Ogundero to death by hanging for the murder of his wife, Chinyere Ogundero, and her brother, Ifeanyi Joseph, in April  2022.  The court found Ogundero guilty of setting both victims on fire while they slept in their home in Abule-Ado, Lagos, following a domestic dispute.

    Delivering the judgment yesterday, Justice Sonaike ruled that the prosecution had proven beyond doubt that Ogundero planned and carried out the attack.

    Justice Sonaike said: “He devised, prepared, and executed the act. This is wickedness of the highest order,” the judge stated, condemning the defendant’s actions as one of the worst a person could inflict upon another.

    Read Also: DisCos failure to invest drawback to electricity supply, says minister

    In addition to the murder charge, Ogundero was also found guilty of arson and sentenced to life imprisonment, which will start from the date of conviction.

    The prosecution team, led by Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Mr. Martins Babajide, argued that the man had been angry over the fact that his wife owned the house they lived in, which she had bought while working in the bank.

    This anger, it was said, was a key factor in his decision to commit the crime.

  • Man sentenced to death for killing wife, brother-in-law

    Man sentenced to death for killing wife, brother-in-law

    A Lagos State High Court presided over by Justice Sherifat Sonaike at Tafawa Balewa Square has sentenced Benjamin Ogundero to death by hanging for the gruesome murder of his wife, Chinyere Ogundero, and her brother, Ifeanyi Joseph, in April 2022. 

    The court found Ogundero guilty of setting both victims on fire while they slept in their home in Abule Ado, Lagos following a heated domestic dispute.

    Delivering the judgment on Thursday, February 27, 2025, Justice Sonaike ruled that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ogundero deliberately planned and carried out the attack.

    Describing the act as “wickedness of the highest order,” the judge condemned his actions as one of the most heinous crimes a person could commit.

    The prosecution team, led by Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Mr. Martins Babajide, argued that the man had been angry over the fact that his wife owned the house they lived in, which she had purchased while working in the banking sector.

    This anger, it was said, was a key factor in his decision to commit the crime.

    Witnesses described the horrific scene, with one testifying that Chinyere’s body was so badly burned that her limbs fell off. 

    Ifeanyi Joseph died from severe burns that caused his body to stop circulating blood.

    The court also heard from a neighbor who saw Ogundero running from the burning house with a fuel gallon, further solidifying his involvement in the crime.

    Ogundero’s actions were deemed to be driven by personal grievances and anger, with the court finding no remorse throughout the trial.

    Justice Sonaike stated that the evidence before the court clearly showed that the defendant had indeed killed the deceased and deserved the maximum punishment.

    She affirmed that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.

    The court found Benjamin Ogundero guilty on four counts of murder and arson.

    Read Also: Nigeria, Saudi Arabia sign pact to tap into $7.7trn halal economy

    “For the charge of murder, Benjamin Ogundero, the sentence of this court is that you shall be hanged by the neck until you die,” the judge ruled.

    For the charge of arson, the court sentenced him to life imprisonment, which would commence from the date of his conviction.

    According to the court, the defendant showed no remorse throughout the proceedings.

    “The actions of the defendant are the worst things a person can do to another human being,” the judge stated.

    Ogundoro, 50, was arraigned on December 7, 2022, on a four-count charge of murder preferred against him by the Lagos State Government.

    He was alleged to have killed his wife, Chinyere, who had just returned from Scotland, and her brother, Ifeanyi, by setting them ablaze.

    The prosecution said the incident happened on April 1, 2022 around 3.30am at House 5, Zone 7, Oteyi Garden Estate Abule Ado, in the Amuwo Odofin area of Lagos state.

    The state alleged that the defendant poured petrol on the bodies of his wife and his brother-in-law, Ifeanyi, and the mattress and set them ablaze while asleep, which led to their death.