Tag: Court

…says it is gold-digging

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by the candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the past governorship election in Ebonyi State, Oko Eze.

In a judgment on Monday, Justice James Omotosho held among others, that the suit was hypothetical and that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain it.

Eze had, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1062/2023 accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of being responsible for his failure in the election by allegedly failing to publish his name as the LP candidate.

He prayed the court to, among others hold that INEC’s alleged failure to publish his name denied him the opportunity to participate in the election, resulting in irreparable injuries to his party and therefore, entitling him to damages and reparation.

Eze urged the court to order INEC to pay him N490 million as special damages and N50 billion as reparation for the time and resources he expended during his campaign for the election.

Listed as defendants in the suit are INEC and the LP.

While LP faulted the suit and urged the court to decline jurisdiction, INEC denied doing any wrong.

It claimed to have initially published Eze’s name on July 22, 2022, but was asked by the LP to replace him with

Nkwegu Edward Okereke whose particulars were published on October 4, 2022, for the election held on March 18, 2023, because the party claimed Eze had withdrawn his participation.

Eze challenged his replacement up to the Supreme Court and was, before the election, declared the rightful governorship candidate of the LP in Ebonyi State.

In his judgment on Monday, Justice James Omotosho held that since the Supreme Court held that he was the rightful governorship candidate of the LP for the election, his fresh suit before the Federal High Court was unnecessary.

Justice Omotosho held that INEC’s alleged non-publication of his name did not prevent him from participating in the election since it is the political party, whose logo appears on the ballot papers owns the votes cast in its favour.

He further held that the suit was of no utilitarian value since the LP did not win the election.

“The plaintiff claims that the non-publication of his name denied him the right to contest the election and thus he seeks damages for the financial loss incurred in the processes leading up to the election.

“There is no doubt that the major event in which the plaintiff intends to participate in the governorship elections which were held on 18th March, 2023.

Read Also: JUST IN: Alleged right violation: Court dismisses Nnamdi Kanu’s N1b suit against FRN, AGF, DSS

“As at the time the suit was filed, the election had been conducted and a winner announced almost five months earlier.

“The suit from the facts before this court is purely hypothetical as it has no live questions to be determined by the court.

“Perhaps the suit of the plaintiff would have been more credible if the 2nd Defendant had won the election.

“In that case, he would have a legitimate claim to be declared the winner and the elected governor.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that the 2nd defendant won the election and it would amount to a waste of precious judicial time to make orders that have no effect.

“Making a declaration that the plaintiff is indeed the candidate of the second defendant (LP) and for his name to be published will be extremely futile as such orders have no effect whatsoever.

“In fact, making such orders would not disturb the elections neither will it affect the emergence of the person who was declared the winner of the poll.

“The ancillary claims for damages rests heavily on the principal reliefs and where the principal relies are ungrantable, the ancillary reliefs would suffer.

“The plaintiff obviously knew that he was the candidate of the second defendant and campaigned accordingly, even though his name was not published by first defendant.

“The plaintiff has not shown that his name being published would have resulted in the second defendant winning the election or that his name would have appeared on the ballot papers.

“It is a known fact that only the names and logos of political parties appear on ballot papers as it is believed that it is the political party that is voted for and not the individual candidates.

“This court rightly agrees with the first defendant’s counsel that this suit is merely a gold-digging exercise and nothing more.

“The plaintiff, having realized that the second defendant lost the elections, is intent on recovering the money he lost in contesting in the election.

“This is no doubt an attempt to pass on liability to the first defendant because it failed to publish his name.

“Granting this kind of suit would open the floodgates for all candidates who lost in the elections to sue the first defendant to recover the monies lost in the election process.

“That would be a disaster and would destroy the electoral system in Nigeria.

“The plaintiff and his party lost the election and instead of strategizing on how to improve their performance in the next election the Plaintiff here is greedily claiming damages for money spent.

“This court is appalled by this action and this court will not hesitate to dispose of this suit in the dustbin of history.

“In the final analysis, this suit is infected by several defects that rob this court of its jurisdiction.

“Even if the defects were not enough to kill the suit, the reliefs claimed cannot be granted and the suit itself lacks any merit. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Omotosho held.

• Conflicting PDP legal representation stalls hearing

Two cases challenging the defection of 25 Speaker Martins Amaewhule-led Rivers State lawmakers from the Peoples democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) took a new turn yesterday with the decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, to order the transfer of the cases from Federal High Court 4, Port Harcourt to Court 2.

The cases instituted by the BOOT party and the Civil Society Organisation are challenging the controversial defections of Amaewhule and 24 other lawmakers from PDP to APC.

Amaewhule had in a petition to Justice Tsoho demanded that the matter should be transferred to another court, alleging bias.

The Court 4 presided over by Justice Stephen Daylop Pam was on Monday confronted with the petition that was signed by Amaewhule.

Justice Pam read the letter in an open court, provoking reactions from lawyers representing all the parties in the case.

The lawyer to the plaintiff, BOOT Party, Mr Reuben Wanogho, had expressed his reservation, saying the petition was aimed at arresting the ongoing cases and urged the court to ignore it.

But the lawyer to the 1st to 25th defendants in the suit, Ferdinand Orbi, denied knowledge of the petition by his client and prayed the court to adhere to it and stop further proceeding since it was addressed to the Chief Judge.

Justice Pam, who however, observed that the petitioner, Amaewhule, had not filed any motion, or counter affidavit before him decided to continue with the hearing.

But on Friday’s adjourned date when the parties appeared at Pam’s Court to continue with the hearing, they were told that the matter had been moved by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Tsoho, to Court 2 presided over by Justice E. O. Obele.

The parties, journalists and other stakeholders who came for the case were compelled to go to the new court located in the same complex.

But the PDP internal wrangling stalled hearing on the matter as two lawyers announced conflicting appearances for the party.

The PDP, which is seeking to be joined in the matter as interested parties, had two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) dragging rights to the assignment of the case.

Joshua Musa, SAN, told the court that he was directed by the State Legal Adviser of PDP to handle the mater, citing a Federal High Court judgment as the judicial precedent.

Read Also: 2,659 jostles for NNPC foundation opportunities

He insisted the state legal adviser of the party reserved the power to appoint legal representatives for matters at the state level.

But Rashq Gold, SAN, in his own submission, told the court that he was briefed by the National Legal Adviser of PDP to stand in for the party.

He argued that the same Federal High Court judge had in another case interpreted the constitution of the party in favour of the National Legal Adviser of PDP.

Gold said that the court in that judgment held that only the National Legal Adviser of PDP could instruct, defend and represent the party in any legal matter.

The Presiding judge, Justice E. O. Obele, after much debate, adjourned the matter to the 17th of July, 2024, to commence hearing, and directed the two lawyers of PDP to resolve their issues internally before returning to the court.

Women call for ceasefire, sue for peace

Some concerned stakeholders under the auspices of Rivers Women Unite for SIM (RWUS) have called on parties in the ongoing political crisis in Rivers State to cease fire and embrace the peace.

The women spoke during a prayer session they held at the hall of the Ministry of Women Affairs, Marine Base, Port Harcourt to seek peace in the state.

Drawn from the 23 local government areas of the state, the women prayed for an end to the political tension and chaos perpetrated by detractors of the state and hired hoodlums.

They said they were deeply disturbed by the current political turmoil and called on God to heal Rivers and bring an end to all forms of political disputes created by some political actors.

Some of the women, who spoke at the event, condemned the attempt to tarnish the reputation of the state and disrupt the prevailing peace and harmony amongst its people.

According to them women and children were usually worst hit in times of crisis.

Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice, Sokoto state, Nasiru Binji, on Friday, June 28, said the deposed district heads in the state have lost their royal and traditional status indefinitely, as the court order on them has been vacated.

Briefing reporters, Binji explained that the district heads remain deposed, because the court order had ceased to exist seven days after it was granted.

He cited Order 13 Rule 3(3) of the High Court of Sokoto State Civil Procedure Rules 2015 to buttress his submission on the matter.

Two deposed district heads -of Tambuwal and Kebbe, Alhaji Buhari Dahiru Tambuwal and Alhaji Abubakar Kassim had gone to court to obtain order restraining any action against them by Governor Ahmed Aliyu, Attorney General of the state and the Sultanate Council.

Read Also: JUST IN: Sokoto govt reacts over alleged move to dethrone Sultan

The Sokoto State High Court on June 13, 2024 then ordered a stay of all actions and or further actions in connection with all matters dealing with and or pertaining to the removal and or dethronement of the district heads in Sokoto State.

While ruling on the exparte applications in a suit filed by the deposed district heads, the presiding Judge, Justice Kabiru Ahmed, ordered the parties involved in the case to maintain status quo pending the determination of the suit.

Binji on Friday said, the order issued on June 13 has been vacated and the district heads remain deposed, contrary to reports favouring them.

“By the operation of Order 13 Rule 3 (3) of the High Court of Sokoto State Civil Procedure Rules 2015, the Order has elapsed (vacated) automatically, because the Order was made exparte.

“The duration of the order is seven days, and the order was given on 13th of June 2024, therefore it has elapsed on the 20th June,” the commissioner said.

Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Thursday, June 27, affirmed Prince Yusuf Asamah Kadiri, as the deputy governorship candidate of the Labour Party for the upcoming Edo State gubernatorial election.

The case, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/556/2024, was brought before the court by the Labour Party and three others against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The court’s ruling confirmed that the nomination process of Alhaji Prince Yusuf Asamah Kadiri SAN adhered strictly to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Electoral Act, and subsidiary guidelines, as well as the Labour Party’s constitution.

Read Also: Transfer my EFCC case to Kogi, Yahaya Bello urges court

The judge stated that the Labour Party had “over-complied” with all relevant legal and regulatory frameworks in nominating Alhaji Prince Yusuf Asamah Kadiri SAN.

Consequently, the court ordered INEC to accept and process the substitution of Kadiri as the Labour Party’s Deputy Governorship candidate and to publish his name on the list of candidates for the forthcoming election.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a 24-count amended money laundering charge brought against Abiodun Agbele, an aide to the former governor of Ekiti state, Ayodele Fayose.

Agbele was tried with three others, in a charge filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

In an initial 11-count charge, the EFCC alleged among others, that Agbele, between April 4 and November 13, 2014, conspired with others at large to commit an illegal act to wit: laundering the sum of N4,685,723,000,000.00 being sum transferred from the Office of the National Security Adviser with Central Bank of Nigeria by Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki (rtd), which he knew or reasonably ought to have known that the said funds formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity of Col. Dasuki (rtd), the then National Security Adviser, and thereby committed the offence said to be contrary to the provisions of the Money Laundering Act, 2011.

It also alleged that Agbele with others at large, on or about the 17th day of June 2015, directly took possession of the sum of N1,219,000,000.00 being part of the N4,685,723,000,000.00 transferred from the Office of the National Security Adviser with Central Bank of Nigeria, when he knew or ought reasonably to know that the funds formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity of Col.

Mohammed Sambo Dasuki, the then National Security Adviser, and Musiliu Obanikoro (then Minister of Defence for State) to wit: theft and corruption and thereby committed the offence said to be contrary to the provisions of the Money Laundering Act, 2011.

In the course of the trial, the prosecution amended the charge and raised the counts to 24.

Part of the allegations in the amended charge was that Agbele indirectly accepted N1.219 billion in cash through an official of Zenith Bank in Akure, Ondo State, from the then Minister of State for Defence, Senator Musiliu Obanikoro, on behalf of Ayodele Fayose in June 2014.

The EFCC also accused Agbele of aiding a company, De Privateer Ltd to take possession of N200 million which was said to be part of the N1.219 billion on behalf of Fayose, contrary to section 18 (a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.

At trial, the prosecution, represented by Wahab Shittu (SAN) called 16 witnesses and closed its case, following which lawyer to Agbele, Prof. Mike Ozekhome (SAN) made a no-case submission.

In a ruling on the no-case submission on Friday (June 21), Justice Nnamdi Dimgba upheld the argument by Ozekhome that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against Agbele to require the court to call on him to enter a defence.

Justice Dimgba held that the prosecutor failed to prove the essential elements of the offences with which Agbele was charged.

The judge found that the case, as put forward by the prosecution, was simply a case of cash-in-transit between bank officials.

He noted that, notwithstanding that Agbele (listed in the charge as the first defendant) was physically present when the cash was being moved in Akure, Ondo State, the prosecution presented no evidence to show that he knew that the cash was proceeds of an illegal act.

Read Also: UPDATED: Court acquits ex-Lagos speaker Ikuforiji, aide of money laundering charge

Justice Dimgba found that none of the prosecution’s witnesses knew the source of the fund.

He noted that Senator Musiliu Obanikoro, whose name appeared on the charge and who testified for the prosecution, gave evidence that was in favour of the defence when he stated that only the then NSA (Dassuki) and  Fayose could speak about the source of the money.

The judge held that the prosecution ought to have invited two vital witnesses – Fayose and Dasuki – to testify as to the source of the money, as noted by Obanikoro during his testimony.

He noted that the prosecution’s failure to call Fayose and Dasuki was fatal to its case.

Justice Dimgba proceeded to discharge Agbele on the 23 counts relating to him but ordered the second defendant, Sylvan Mcnamara Ltd to enter its defence on the remaining count as it did not file a no-case submission.

The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has authorised the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) to extradite one Samuel Olasunkanmi Abiodun to the United States of America (USA) to face trial for alleged wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Both offences carry a maximum jail term of 20 years.

Justice Akintayo Aluko gave the order on June 14, 2024, following the AGF’s application filed and argued by Kehinde Adesola Fagbemi of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

Specifically, the federal government prayed for the surrender/extradition of Abiodun, the respondent, to face two counts:

“Wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C), and Section 1343, carrying a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years.

Abiodun was also charged with “Conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C), and Section 1956 (h), carrying a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years”.

Abiodun, through his counsel, Demola Adekoya denied the allegations, and challenged, among others, the court’s power to order his extradition.

But, evaluating the evidence against him, Justice Aluko found that the Federal Government provided sufficient evidence to show that Abiodun had a case to answer in America.

He reasoned that the respondent misconceived the issues of the Treaty between Nigeria and the United States authorising the court to grant an extradition request.

Justice Aluko held: “Leveraging on the decision of the apex court, the extradition Treaty between the United States of America and Great Britain signed in London on 22 December 1931 is recognized as binding on Nigeria and enforceable in the instant case.

“Against the background of the foregoing, the sole issue in this judgment is resolved in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent.

Read Also: JUST IN: Court discharges Bayelsa Senator Konbowei for alleged certificate forgery

“To this end, there is merit and substance in the instant application. Judgment is entered for the Applicant in the following terms:

“The application of the Hon. Attorney General of the Federation for the surrender and extradition of the Respondent, Samuel Olasunkanmi Abiodun to the United States of America is hereby granted.

“The Respondent is further committed to prison custody and shall remain in the facility of the Nigerian Correctional Service to await the decision of the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation for his surrender to the United States of America for the purpose of facing his trial.

“The Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria shall ensure and see to it that special arrangements are put in place for the Respondent’s fair trial and defence under the Laws of the Requesting country (USA) to the extent that the Respondent is not prejudiced on account of his race, religion, nationality and to ensure that his trial shall be limited to the extradition offence provable by the facts on which his surrender is granted devoid of any superficial sentiments considerations.”

According to a certified true copy of the judgment seen by our correspondent, the respondent denied the Applicant’s allegations while claiming that he lived all his life in Nigeria and that he had never travelled to the US.

He claimed neither had any business/romantic relationship with anyone in the US nor did he commit any offence either in Nigeria or in the US

He added that he did not co-conspire with anyone to commit money laundering or deal in wire fraud against one J. S., a student at the Kutztown University within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (now deceased as claimed by the Applicant).

The respondent said that he did not use Snapchat or have a persona of “ALICE_D013” allegedly used to demand money from J.S. and that he had never been tried or convicted by any Court in Nigeria for the offence being alleged against him.

Furthermore, he claimed that he was just a victim of persecution for being a friend to someone tagged as “a friend from WhatsApp” while conducting a lawful business operated by a registered cryptocurrency platform called Binance with which he is lawfully registered.

Ondo state government said it has requested a Certified True Copy of the court judgment which scrapped the 33 Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) created shortly before the demise of late former governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu.

It said a meticulous study and analysis would be undertaken, culminating to a comprehensive legal opinion.

Ondo Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Olukayode Ajulo, in a statement, said all necessary measures, in accordance with the laws, would be taken to safeguard the interests of the citizens and foster peaceful coexistence.

Read Also: Ondo 2024: Oke backs Aiyedatiwa

He said he remained steadfast in his commitment to prioritizing the well-being and welfare of Ondo citizens.

An Ondo High Court had on Thursday declared the creation of the 33 LCDAs as unconditional and illegal.

Justice Adegboyega Adebusoye, who delivered the judgment, said the creation of the LCDAs were inchoate, null and void, unconstitutional, and illegal.

He said the former administration did not comply with sections seven and eight of the 1999 constitution.

Justice Adebusoye upheld that there were no equitable distribution of the council areas among the 18 local governments saying that it was illegal for the late former governor to sign a law outside the state.