Tag: Court

The Supreme Court yesterday reserved judgment in the suit filed for the Federal Government by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) against the states over the local government autonomy.

A seven-member panel, presided over by Justice  Mohammed Lawal Garba, said a date for the judgment will be communicated to parties and their counsel.

Justice Garba made the announcement on the reservation of the judgment, shortly after lawyers to parties adopted their final addresses and made final submissions.

In his final submission, Fagbemi urged the court to uphold the case of the plaintiff and grant all the prayers sought.

The 36 states, represented by their various lawyers, queried the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the court.

They prayed the court to either strike it out by allowing their preliminary objections or dismiss the suit by upholding their counter-affidavits.

Professor Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), Prof Yusuf Ali (SAN), Sebastine Hon (SAN) and Tijani Gazali (SAN), Director, Civil Appeals at the Federal Ministry of Justice, appeared with Fagbemi for the Federal Government.

The legal teams of the many states were led by their Attorneys General, while other states were represented by private lawyers.

In court were Attorneys-General-Shuaibu Labaran (Nasarawa State);  Ikechukwu Uwanna (Abia),l Afraimu Jingi (Adamawa); Uko Udom (Akwa Iom), Dayo Apata (Ekiti), Oluwole Osaze Uzzi (Edo),  Kingsley Udeh (Enugu), Olukayode Ajulo (Ondo),  Oluwole Jimi-Baba (Osun), Abiodun Aikomo (Oyo); Hameed Oyenuga, the Director Civil Litigation, Lagos State Ministry of Justice led Ade Ipaye and others for the state.

Private lawyers that led some states’ teams include Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (Anambra), Ahmed Raji ( Kano), Joseph Daudu (Kogi), Kehinde Ogunwumiju (Ogun), James Usman (Borno), Kamar Fagbemi (Katsina), and Olanrewaju Oshinaike (Kebbi).

The Federal Government, in the suit, marked: SC/CV/343/2024 is  praying the Apex Court for an order prohibiting  governors “from unilateral, arbitrary and unlawful dissolution of democratically elected leaders for Local Governments.”

It is also praying the Supreme Court for an order permitting the funds standing in the credits of Local Governments to be directly channelled to them from the Federation Account in line with the provisions of the Constitution, as against the alleged unlawful joint accounts created by governors.

The plaintiff wants an order stopping governors from constituting  Caretaker Committees to run the affairs of Local Governments as against the constitutionally recognized and guaranteed democratic system.

Read Also: Aiyedatiwa, Agboola, 15 others make final list of Ondo Gov candidates

Also, it wants  an order of injunction restraining the governors, their agents and privies from receiving, spending or tampering with funds released from the Federation Account for the benefits of local governments when no democratically elected local government system is put in place in the states.

The Fed Govt premised its prayers on 27 grounds, to include that the country is a creation of the constitution with President as Head of the Federal Executive arm of the Federation and has sworn to uphold and give effects to the provisions of the Constitution.

“The governors represent the component states of the Federation with Executive Governors who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution and to at all times, give effects to the Constitution and that the Constitution, being the supreme law, has binding force all over the Federation of Nigeria.

“The Constitution of Nigeria recognizes federal, states and local governments as three tiers of government and that the three recognized tiers of government draw funds for their operation and functioning from the Federation Account created by the Constitution.

“By the provisions of the Constitution, there must be a democratically elected local government system and that the Constitution has not made provisions for any other systems of governance at the local government level other than democratically elected local government system.

“In the face of the clear provisions of the Constitution, the governors have failed and refused to put in place a democratically elected local government system even where no state of emergency has been declared to warrant the suspension of democratic institutions in the state.

“The failure of the governors to put democratically elected local government system in place, is a deliberate subversion of the 1999 Constitution which they and the President have sworn to uphold.

“All efforts to make the governors comply with the dictates of the 1999 Constitution in terms of putting in place, a democratically elected local government system, has not yielded any result and that to continue to disburse funds from the Federation Account to governors for non existing democratically elected local government is to undermine the sanctity of the 1999 Constitution.

“In the face of the violations of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal Government is not obligated under Section 162 of the Constitution to pay any state, funds standing to the credit of Local Governments where no democratically elected local government is in place.”

The Fed Govt is praying the Supreme Court to invoke sections 1, 4, 5, 7 and 14 of the Constitution to declare that the state governors and state Houses of Assembly are under obligation to ensure democratic system at the third tier of government in Nigeria and to also invoke the same sections to hold that the governors cannot lawfully dissolve democratically elected local government councils.

It equally seeks the court’s  invocation of sections 1, 4,  5,  7 and 14 of the Constitution to declare that the dissolution of democratically elected local government Councils by the Governors or anyone using the State powers derivable from laws enacted by the State Houses of Assembly or any Executive Order is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.

Ondo State, like the other states, faulted the competence of the suit in a notice of preliminary objection filed by Ajulo.

The states argued that it is not within the constitutional powers of the AGF, who filed the suit in the name of the Federal Government, to query how a state runs its local government or administers their funds.

Ajulo said it is only either the National Assembly or the state House of Assembly that can query the manner Local Governments are being administered and how their funds are deployed.

While describing the Federal Government as a meddlesome interloper in the matter of local government administration, Ajulo also argued that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

He said the plaintiff has been unable to establish that a dispute exists between it and the 36 states to warrant the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as required under Section 232(1) of the Constitution.

Ondo State, listed as the 28th defendant in the suit,  urged the apex court to decline jurisdiction over the case.

In a separate motion, Ondo State equally faulted the averments contained in some paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of the originating summons and urged the court to strike them out.

It stated that the affected averments contravened the provision of Section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended).

In the preliminary objection, Ondo State is contending that the Supreme Court  “lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit, same having been filed in flagrant violation of Section 232(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (‘the Constitution’), Section 1(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (Additional Jurisdiction) Act. No. 3, 2002 and Order 3 Rule 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rules (as amended 2014).

“Section 232(1) of the Constitution only permits the invocation of the original jurisdiction of this honourable court where there is a dispute between the federation/plaintiff and the defendants/states which involves any question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of the legal right of either the federation or the defendants/states depends.”

• Appeal Court voids ex-Kogi governor’s contempt case against EFCC boss Olukoyede

A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday rescheduled the arraignment of the immediate past Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello on June 27.

Bello was to be arraigned on 19-count money laundering charge the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) filed against him, in which he is, among others, accused of laundering about N80.2 billion belonging to Kogi State.

Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the case yesterday due to the absence of the lead prosecution lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN).

At the mention of the case, a lawyer in Bello’s legal team, Adeola Adedipe (SAN), informed the court that Pinheiro had informed the defence team that he would not be available for the day’s sitting.

Adedipe, who said he was in court for another case, expressed surprise that another lawyer in the EFCC’s legal team, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), was in court.

The defence lawyer said counsel to both sides had agreed that they would send junior lawyers to get a new date from the court at the instance of Pinhero.

Adedipe averred that it appeared there was miscommunication between Pinhero and Oyedepo.

He said Pinheiro had approached the defence lead lawyer, Abdulwahab Mohammed (SAN), through a junior lawyer who also appeared in court alongside Oyedepo, that it would not be convenient for him to be in court for yesterday’s proceedings.  

Adedipe insisted that it was at Pinheiro’s instance that the case should be adjourned till June 27 for arraignment.

The lawyer noted that if not for the decision of the prosecution to seek an adjournment to a future date for the arraignment, the ex-governor was ready to appear in court yesterday.

Responding, Oyedepo faulted Adedipe’s position, saying he was not aware of any meeting slated between Pinheiro and the defence legal team.

Oyedepo said the order of the court at the last adjourned date was for the defendant to appear in court yesterday for arraignment.

Read Also: Aiyedatiwa, Agboola, 15 others make final list of Ondo Gov candidates

An argument ensued between the two lawyers, prompting the judge to intervene.

Adedipe apologised to the court and the prosecution team for Bello’s absence, which he blamed on the agreement between lawyers to both sides.

Oyedepo also apologised to the court for the altercation, saying the failure of the defence lawyer to produce the defendant should be documented in the court’s record.

Justice Nwite adjourned till June 27, as agreed by the lawyers and upon an undertaking that the defendant would appear on the next adjourned date for his arraignment.

Also, the Court of Appeal in Abuja has quashed Yahaya Bello’s contempt case against the EFCC Chairman Olanipekun Olukoyede.

Bello had premised the contempt case, which he filed at a High Court of Kogi State sitting in Lokoja, on an interim orders earlier granted by the court.

The High Court subsequently ordered Olukoyede to show cause why he should not be held for contempt, a decision the EFCC boss appealed.

In a judgment yesterday, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal held, among others, that the contempt case was premised on dead interim orders issued by the Kogi State High Court sitting in Lokoja.

The appellate court held that as at the time Bello initiated the contempt case, the interim orders on which the contempt case was built, had expired because the High Court had delivered its judgment on the substantive fundamental human rights enforcement suit filed by Bello.

In the lead judgment, Justice Joseph Oyewole held that the trial judge failed to extend the interim orders of February 9 in its final judgment of April 17.

The court awarded N1 million cost against Bello.

A Federal High Court in Abuja ruled on Thursday, June 13, that it will hear on June 26 the suit seeking to sack the national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Abdullahi Ganduje along with the objection raised against the competence of the suit.

Justice Inyang Ekwo gave the ruling following the request by the lawyer to the plaintiff – the North Central APC Forum – Benjamin Favour to be allowed time to reply to the responses filed by Ganduje.

The North Central APC Forum, led by Saleh Zazzaga, is in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/599/2024 querying the propriety of Ganduje’s appointment as the Chairman of the APC when he is not from the North Central geo-political zone.

Listed as defendants in the case are Ganduje, the APC, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

At the mention of the case on Thursday, Davou said although the suit was slated for hearing, it would not be possible because Ganduje’s lawyer, Raymond Asikeni just served him the notice of preliminary objection and counter affidavit filed by the first defendant.

Davou promised to file his reply to the two sets of documents files by Ganduje first thing on Wednesday after the public holiday.

Justice Ekwo then adjourned till June 26 for hearing, adding: “On the date of hearing, the preliminary objection will be taken together with the substantive suit.”

The judge added: “The processes of any party that is absent from court shall be deemed as adopted.”

The plaintiff, in the main suit, wants the court to, among others, restrain Ganduje from further parading himself as the Chairman of the APC.

It also wants the court to issue an order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to accord recognition to all actions taken by the APC, including congresses, primaries, and nominations, since Ganduje became APC Chairman on August 3, 2023.

The plaintiff is contending among others, that Ganduje is occupying the office of the APC Chairman illegally, not being from a state in the North Central geo-political zone.

The plaintiffs argued that the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the APC breached the party’s constitution when it appointed Ganduje, from Kano State in the North West geo-political zone to replace Senator Abdullahi Adamu from Nasarawa State in the North Central geo-political zone.

It also argued that Ganduje’s appointment to replace Abdullahi was contrary to Article 31.5(1) f of the APC constitution and ultra vires the powers of the National Executive Committee of the party.

The plaintiff added that by the true interpretation of Article 31.5(1) of the APC. Constitution 2013 (as amended), the party is bound to comply with the procedure for the replacement of an officer in the event of a vacancy and ought to appoint a member from Nasarawa State in the North Central geo-political zone into the office of the Chairman of the party.

The plaintiff wants the court to among others, declare that by Article 20(1) of the APC constitution 2013, as amended, Ganduje cannot be appointed as the national chairman of the party other than through democratically conducted elections and that his current occupation of the office is illegal.

It equally seeks a declaration that by the provisions of Article 13 of the APC constitution 2013 (as amended), the party’s National Convention is the final authority of the party which has the power to elect or remove National Officers of the party including the National Chairman of the party.

The plaintiff also wants a declaration that the party’s National Executive Committee lacked the power to appoint any person to the office of the Chairman.

It is equally praying the court for the following orders:

*An order setting aside the appointment of the first defendant (Ganduje) as the Chairman of the second defendant (APC), same having not followed duly laid down procedures of the second defendant as enshrined in the second defendant’s constitution.

Read Also: Alleged N1.85bn fraud: Court sends two REA officials to prison

*An order directing the third defendant (INEC) not to recognize all actions taken (including, but not limited to party congresses, primaries and nominations) by the second defendant during the tenure of chairmanship of the first defendant, from August 3, 2023 till date, same being actions done under an illegal Chairman.

*An order directing the third defendant to compel the second defendant to conduct a fresh convention for the sake of electing a National Chairman or appoint another National Chairman from Nasarawa State from the North Central geo-political zone in line with Article 31.5(i) of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress, 2013 (as amended).

Explaining the rationale behind the case, Zazzaga, said it is intended to ensure fairness and justice because the party has continued to ignore his group’s members’ request that the right thing be done.

He said the progress of the APC is still their ultimate desire and urged the party to immediately do the needful to avoid any form of internal revolt that would give their opponents an advantage over them.

Zazzaga added that doing the needful would avert any undesirable uncertainty for the party in the near future, arguing that Ganduje’s occupation of the position of the party’s National Chairman was not in the interest of the APC.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered that two officials of the Account and Finance Department at the Rural Electrification Agency (REA), Umar Musa Karaye and Emmanuel Titus Pada, be remanded in Kuje prison pending the hearing of their bail application slated for June 20.

Justice Emeka Nwite ordered their remand after they were arraigned on two separate four-count charges in which they were accused of complicity in N1.853 billion fraud in REA.

They were alleged to have misappropriated public funds meant for the provision of electricity to rural communities across the country.

Both officials of the REA pleaded not guilty when the charge, filed by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), was read to them.

Justice Nwite had on June 6, issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Karaye, Pada, and Henrietta Onomen Okojie for their failure to appear in court for the arraignment earlier scheduled for that day.

Karaye and Pada however attended court on Thursday, following which they were arraigned and the arrest warrant vacated upon an application by the prosecuting lawyer, Osuobeni Akponimisingha.

Karaye is the sole defendant in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/202/24, while Pada is the only defendant on the second charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/204/24.

It was learnt that Okojie, named as the sole defendant in another charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/203/2024 will be arraigned on Friday.

Given Karaye and Pada’s plea of not guilty, Akponimisingha applied for a date for the commencement of trial.

Lawyer to Karaye and Pada, Idoko Alhassan told the court that he filed bail applications for his clients, which have since been served on the prosecution.

Read Also: Alleged N80.2b money laundering:  Court postpones Yahaya Bello’s arraignment till June 27

Akponimisingha however, told the court that he was yet to receive copies of the defendants’ bail applications

Justice Nwite noted that the prosecution was still waiting to respond to the applications.

The judge subsequently adjourned till June 20 for the hearing of the bail applications and to July 10 for the commencement of trial.

Another official of the REA, Usman Ahmed Kwakwa was earlier on June 6 arraigned on a similar four-count charge filed by the ICPC in respect of the alleged fraud in the REA.

Kwakwa pleaded not guilty to the charge and was later granted N50 million bail by Justice Nwite.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court in Lagos has vacated an interim forfeiture order placed on some assets which the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) linked to a former Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Director General, Dr. Patrick Akpobolokemi.

The judge also dismissed EFCC’s motion on notice for a final forfeiture order.

The court had, on April 3, 2023, ordered the interim forfeiture of a property at Plot J37A Close, 2nd Avenue, Banana Island, Ikoyi, Lagos, and N725,345,897.77, while granting a motion ex parte filed by the EFCC.

The properties were said to belong to Boloboloere Properties & Estates Limited, while the N725,345,897.77 is said to belong to Onyeinteke Global Network.

Granting the orders for interim forfeiture, the court ruled that the property “is reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activity” while the money, it said, “is reasonably suspected to be proceed of unlawful activity”.

Read Also; Group to Yahaya Bello: appear in court and defend your integrity

But the two firms, through their lawyer, A. Labi-Lawal, challenged the order through a motion on notice, dated April 11, 2023, praying the court to set aside the interim forfeiture.

The lawyer argued that the EFCC concealed material fact that Boloboloere had been discharged on all counts bordering on allegations of money laundering brought against the company in the suit: Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Dr. Parick Ziadeke Apobolokemi and 10 others.

He argued that the EFCC failed to show how Boloboloere’s property was purchased from the proceeds of unlawful activities.

Labi-Lawal prayed the court to grant an order setting aside and/or discharging the interim orders and to restrain the EFCC from advertising the order of interim forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has rejected an application by detained leader of the proscribed separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu seeking to be allowed to challenge the order proscribing the group.

In a judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the argument by lawyer to the federal government, Oyin Koleosho, that the application filed for Kanu by his lawyer, Alloy Ejimakor, was inappropriate.

Kanu had, in the application, sought to be allowed to appeal, as an interested party, the January 18,  2018 ruling by Justice Abdu Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja (now late) affirming his earlier ex-parte order of September 20, 2017 proscribing IPOB and designating it a terrorist group.

It was part of Kanu’s contention that, since the Fed Govt allegedly capitalised on the IPOB proscription order to charge him with belonging to, and leading a terrorist group, he was qualified as an interested party, who should be allowed to part of a pending appeal filed by IPOB against the order proscribing it.

In the judgment delivered on May 30, a certified true copy (CTC) of which The Nation saw on June 12, a three member panel of the Court of Appeal held that it was inappropriate for Kanu to have filed his application directly at the appellate court.

Justice Hamma Barka, in the lead judgment, held that, as an applicant seeking leave to appeal as an interested party, Kanu ought to first file his application before the Federal High Court, Abuja, whose decision he sought to appeal.

Justice Barka further held that Kanu’s failure to first file his application before the Federal High Court was a violation of Order 6 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021.

He said: “In the instant case, it is apparent that no such leave was sought from the court below, thus, an affront to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021. 

“This knocks off the present application as being incompetent, not capable of being granted. 

“The consideration of all other issues canvased to my mind will amount to an academic exercise for which courts are enjoined not to embark upon, and for this singular reason, the application being incompetent is accordingly struck out.”

Upon an ex-parte motion by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), marked: FHC/AB)/CS/871/2017, Justice Kafarati had, in a ruling on September 20, 2017 ordered as follows: 

*That an order declaring that the activities of the respondent (Indigenous People of Biafra) in any part of Nigeria, especially in the South east and South-South regions of Nigeria, either in groups or as individuals, amounts to acts of terrorism and illegality is granted. 

*That an order proscribing the existence of the respondent (Indigenous People of Biafra) in any part of Nigeria, especially in the South east and South-South regions of Nigeria, either in groups or as individuals by whatever name they are called and publishing same in the official gazette and two national dailies, is granted. 

*That an order restraining any person or group of persons from participating in any manner whatsoever in any form of activities involving or concerning the prosecution of the collective intention or otherwise of the respondent (Indigenous People of Biafra) under any other name or platform however called or described, is granted. 

IPOB later applied to the court for it to set aside the orders, and in a ruling on January 18, 2018, Justice Kafarati dismissed IPOB’s application and affirmed his earlier orders proscribing the group and designating it a terrorist organisation.

IPOB subsequently lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja against the January 18, 2018 ruling.

It is the appeal, marked: CA/A/214/2018 that Kanu applied to be given permission to join as an interested party.

The Federal High Court has announced plans to proceed on its 2024 annual vacation on July 23.

The court’s Assistant, Director Information/ICT, Dr. Catherine Oby Christopher, who disclosed this in a statement on Tuesday, June 11, said the vacation will end on September 13.

She said the court’s Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho approved the vacation in line with the provision of Order 46, Rule 4 (d) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.

Part of the statement reads: “By virtue of the provisions of Order 46, Rule 4 (d) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Honorable Justice John Terhemba Tsoho, announces its 2024 annual vacation and roster for vacation judges.

Read Also: Murder allegation: Court orders Kano to pay Doguwa N25m damages

“The vacation will commence from Tuesday, the 23rd day of July 2024 to Friday, the 13th day of September, 2024. The court sitting shall resume on Monday, the 16th day of September, 2024.

“This is in order for Hon. judges to enjoy their well- deserved rest and to prepare for the tasks and activities of the new legal year.”

The litigating public are to approach only the court’s divisions in Abuja, Lagos and Port-Harcourt, where some judges have been assigned to sit during the vacation in cases requiring extreme urgency.

For the Abuja division, Justices Emeka Nwite and Peter Lifu will serve as vacation judges.

Justices Akintayo Aluko and  Isaac D. Dipeolu are scheduled to sit in the Lagos division during the vacation, while Justices  A. T. Mohammed

and P. M. Ayua will sit in the Port-Harcourt division.

The High Court in Rivers State has scrapped section three of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission Law amended recently by the speaker Martins Amaewhule-led Assembly.

The Assembly bypassed Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s assent to enact the section, which transferred the power to appoint the chairman and members of the commission to the speaker of the House.

Irked by th  development, the Association of Legal Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALLDAP), a non-governmental organisation, filed a suit seeking the court’s interpretation of the new section and its conformity with the Nigerian Constitution.

The NGO prayed the court to determine whether section three of the amended House of Assembly Service Commission Law No. 3 of 2024 was in line with the Constitution.

Justice Kariba Dagogo-Jack, in his judgement, averred  that the amendment violated sections 5, 176, 197, and 198 of the Nigerian Constitution.

Read Also: Alleged N1.2b fraud: Why Supreme Court freed firm linked with Saraki

Dagogo-Jack explained that the Constitution gave the exclusive right to appoint members of boards, commissions, and institutions, including the States Assembly Service Commission, to the executive governors of the states.

But the judge said the appointments must be confirmed by the States Houses of Assembly asserting that the court would not permit such an amendment to stand.

She said the actions of the Martin Amaewhule-led House of Assembly was an attempt by the lawmakers to take over the responsibilities of the executive in violations of the  principle of separation of powers.

The judge struck out section three of the law and imposed a perpetual injunction preventing the enforcement of the section.