Tag: Court

  • Court dismisses senior lawyers’ suit challenging appointment of judges in Kogi

    Court dismisses senior lawyers’ suit challenging appointment of judges in Kogi

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by seven Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), against the National Judicial Council (NJC) and others, over the alleged unlawful appointment of judges in Kogi.

    Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to institute the action and that the suit itself lacked merit.

     The seven aggrieved lawyers, who also hail from Kogi are Yunus Usman, SAN; Jibrin Okutepa, SAN; Patrick Okolo, SAN; Abdullahi Haruna, SAN; Reuben Atabo, SAN; Shaibu Aruwa, SAN and Johnson Usman, SAN.

     The plaintiffs, in the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/05/2024, sued the NJC, Kogi State Judicial Service Commission (KSJSC), Governor of Kogi and Attorney-General (A-G) and Commissioner for Justice in the state as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.

     They sought a mandatory order restraining the defendants from appointing new judicial officers until there is strict compliance with the laws.

    Read Also: Tinubu appoints new Board for NAICOM

     In the originating summons dated Jan. 4 but filed Jan. 8, they sought a declaration that the selected candidates for onward transmission to NJC for appointment as judges were not “totally based on merits, competence, sound knowledge of the law, professional expertise and skill, seniority, fairness, equity, and equality.”

     They argued that the same was marred by political and ethnic influence contrary to the provisions of Rule 3 (6)(i)-(iv) and Rule 4(4)(a) of the NJC Guidelines and Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers of all Superior Courts of Records in Nigeria, 2014 and Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

     They also alleged that the KSJS was doing the bidding of the governor.

     The NJC, in its counter affidavit, urged the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

     The application was based on the grounds that the suit did not disclose a course of action against the NJC and that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to file the matter

     The 2nd to 4th, in their counter affidavit and a preliminary objection, prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

     It will be recalled that the Chief Judge of the state, in a letter to the Lokoja Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), shortlisted some judicial officers to be appointed into the state’s High Court, Sharia Court of Appeal and Customary Court of Appeal.

     NAN reports that the NJC had suspended the process of the appointment of judges and kadis into the state’s judiciary, saying the development was to maintain a fair and just judicial system following a letter by the seven senior lawyers intimating it on a suit instituted against the appointment.

     Delivering the judgment, Justice Omotosho noted that though the plaintiffs brought the suit on their own behalf and the marginalised people of Okun origin and Ibaji Local Government Area (LGA) of Kogi, he said: “interestingly, none of the plaintiffs were in consideration for appointment as Judicial officers.

     “In fact, they are senior legal practitioners who are uninterested in becoming judges in Kogi State.

     “In fact it has not shown that the acts of the defendants injured the interests of any of the plaintiffs in any way.

  • Court dismisses senior lawyers’ suit challenging appointment of judges in Kogi

    Court dismisses senior lawyers’ suit challenging appointment of judges in Kogi

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by seven senior advocates of Nigeria against National Judicial Council (NJC) and others over alleged unlawful appointment of judges in Kogi.

    Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to institute the action and that the suit itself lacked merit.

    The seven aggrieved lawyers, who also hail from Kogi are Yunus Usman, SAN; Jibrin Okutepa, SAN; Patrick Okolo, SAN; Abdullahi Haruna, SAN; Reuben Atabo, SAN; Shaibu Aruwa, SAN and Johnson Usman, SAN.

    The plaintiffs, in the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/05/2024, sued the NJC, Kogi State Judicial Service Commission (KSJSC), Governor of Kogi and Attorney-General (A-G) and Commissioner for Justice in the state as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.

    They sought a mandatory order restraining the defendants from appointing new judicial officers until there is strict compliance with the laws.

    In the originating summons dated Jan. 4 but filed Jan. 8, they sought a declaration that the selected candidates for onward transmission to NJC for appointment as judges was not “totally based on merits, competence, sound knowledge of the law, professional expertise and skill, seniority, fairness, equity and equality.”

    They argued that the same was marred by political and ethnic influence contrary to the provisions of Rule 3 (6)(i)-(iv) and Rule 4(4)(a) of the NJC Guidelines and Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers of all superior Courts of Records in Nigeria, 2014 and Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    They also alleged that the KSJS was doing the bidding of the Governor.

    The NJC, in its counter affidavit, urged the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

    The application was based on the grounds that the suit did not disclose a course of action against the NJC and that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to file the matter

    The 2nd to 4th, in their counter affidavit and a preliminary objection, prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

    The chief judge of the state, in a letter to the Lokoja Branch of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), shortlisted some judicial officers to be appointed into the state’s High Court, Sharia Court of Appeal and Customary Court of Appeal.

    NAN reports that the NJC had suspended the process of the appointment of judges and kadis into the state’s judiciary, saying the development was to maintain a fair and just judicial system following a letter by the seven senior lawyers intimating it on a suit instituted against the appointment.

    Delivering the judgment, Justice Omotosho noted that though the plaintiffs brought the suit on their own behalf and the marginalised people of Okun origin and Ibaji Local Government Area (LGA) of Kogi, he said: “interestingly, none of the plaintiffs were in consideration for appointment as Judicial officers.”

    “In fact, they are senior legal practitioners who are uninterested in becoming judges in Kogi State.

    “In fact it has not shown that the acts of the defendants injured the interests of any of the plaintiffs in any way.

    “They never participated in the recruitment process neither were they appointed by the marginalised people of Okun origin and Ibaji LGA to fight their cause for them if any,” he said

    He said while the court was aware that the courts had expanded the realms of locus standi in some cases to include public interest litigation, there are still limits to it.

    “For instance, Fundamental Rights Enforcement suits under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules have expanded locus standi to even non-governmental organisations to bring action on behalf of a person whose rights have been infringed.

    “This suit as far as this court knows is not a fundamental rights suit.

    “There must be some form of link between the actions of the defendants and the rights of the plaintiffs instituting an action.

    “Without any such link, it amounts to an academic suit which in the opinion of the court has no basis,” he said.

    The judge, who held that the plaintiffs had no peculiar rights to protect in the suit, said it was plainly obvious that the suit was speculative without any substance.

    “This court will not be used to answer any academic or hypothetical question which does not touch on real or threatened breach of rights.

    “The plaintiffs cannot arrogate to themselves the powers they lack.

    “The plaintiffs, even though are indigenes of Kogi State, cannot take the place of the people of Okun origin and Ibaji LGA, as they are the ones who have supposedly suffered the said injury.

    “Therefore, this suit is bound to be dismissed for lack of locus standi of the plaintiffs,” he said.

    Justice Omotosho further held that assuming without conceding that the plaintiffs had locus standi, he wondered if instituting the action was the right course of action.

    “The opinion of this court on this issue stems from the fact that the plaintiffs are ably represented in the 1st defendant (NJC) and in fact, are deemed to be members of the 1st defendant through their representatives in the body,” he said.

    He said Section 20 to the Third Schedule of the Constitution 1999 (as amended) provides that five members of the NBA who have been qualified to practise for a period of not less than 15 years and at least, one of whom must be a senior advocate, are members of NJC.

    “It is crystal clear from the above composition of the 1st defendant that the plaintiffs, who are members of the Nigerian Bar Association by virtue of the Legal Practitioners Act, are represented in the body.

    “The plaintiffs ought to have exhausted the avenue of going through their representatives in the 1st defendant before it can ripen into a suit before this court if they have locus standi at all, having assumed being members of the 1st defendant by representation.

    “This is the essence of the doctrine of ripeness and exhaustion,” he declared.

    Besides, the judge said he also took judicial notice of the fact that NBA president is a member of the appointment committee of the NJC and participates in interviewing candidates for the bench.

    According to him, the intention and purpose of this is to bring all the complaints of the different branches of NBA to the notice of NJC through the president.

    He said similarly, the judicial service commissions of states also have representation of NBA as part of the members.

    “The appointment of qualified persons to the bench of the High Court of Kogi State is done on the recommendation of NJC.

    “And where the persons fulfill all the requirements of NJC, their names are sent to the governor for appointment.

    “The recommendation of the NJC is upon the advice by the Kogi State Judicial Service Committee,” he said

    The judge said that based on Section 158 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, NJC cannot be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person.

    According to him, the import of the above provision is that the 1st defendant has unfettered discretion and powers in the recommendation of persons to be appointed as judges of High Court, Kadis of Sharia Court of Appeal and judges of Customary Court of Appeal.

    “Thus this court cannot interfere with such discretion as this provision serve as some form of ouster clause for which the court lacks the powers to look into.

    “Thus allegations of bias made against the defendants holds no water in the light of the facts put forward by the defendants.

    “This suit has no legs to stand on and will accordingly be dismissed,” he said.

    Justice Omotosho equally held that though the plaintiffs alleged that most of the courtrooms of the High Court of Kogi had been neglected and were in a state of disrepair, he said that Okutepa, 2nd plaintiff in the suit, during oral examination as 1st prosection witness, admitted that he was not the maker of the video evidence or the photographs.

    “That it was made by someone else and they (plaintiffs) simply downloaded the video and photographs and attached same as exhibits in the further affidavit,” he said.

    According to Justice Omotosho, the general principle of tendering a document before a court is that such document must be tendered by the maker of the said document.

    “This is to allow the adverse party the opportunity to cross examine the maker,” he added.

    He said the two exceptions to the principle are if the maker is dead or the maker can only be procured by involving the party in so much expenses that could be outrageous in the circumstances of the case.

    “From the above holding, it is clear that where a document is tendered which is not tendered by the maker, it loses its probative value and it is deemed as a mere paper.

    “The Video CD and the photographs even though frontloaded by the plaintiffs are still liable to be expunged by the Court for being hearsay evidence.

    Read Also: JUST IN: Court dismisses money laundering charge against ex-AGF Adoke

    “The said documents having not been tendered in evidence by the maker of the documents are hereby expunged from evidence.

    “Upon the expunging of the said documents, there is nothing to show that the court rooms of the High Court of Kogi State is in state of disrepair as the reliefs claims are bare without any credible evidence.

    “Consequently, relief 5 fails for lack of proof. In final analysis, the plaintiffs lack locus standi to institute this action.

    “Assuming it has requisite locus standi, the suit lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed,” the judge declared.

    (NAN)

  • Court sentences Osun businessman, other to death over armed robbery, murder

    Court sentences Osun businessman, other to death over armed robbery, murder

    An Osun State High Court sitting in Osogbo on Thursday, April 18, sentenced a 34-year-old businessman, Kola Adeyemi, and a battery charger, Wasiu Afolayan (36yrs) to death by hanging over armed robbery and murder.

    The prosecution counsel, Bewaji Adeniji from the Ministry of Justice, upon arraignment, dragged the two before Justice Ayo Oyebiyi on four counts of conspiracy, armed robbery, and unlawful possession of arms.

    He noted that the offences are contrary to and punishable under section 3(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (special provisions) Act, Cap R.11, Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

    However, the convicts pleaded not guilty to the offences pressed against them.

    Subsequently, Adeniji told the Court that on December 7th, 2018, at a place near C.A.C No. 16, Oke-Onitea Area, Osogbo, Afolayan and Adeyemi laid siege in the area and robbed people living in that community.

    Afolayan was arrested at the scene of the crime.

    Read Also: Court okays substituted service on Mohbad’s wife for DNA test

    “Before the arrest, Afolayan (a battery charger) and Adeyemi (a spare part dealer) had robbed at No. 3, Oduola, Street, Igbona area, Osogbo, Osun State, where they carted away belongings of the of the residents and also killed one Olaniyi Adewale with the gun on 28th November 2018.”

    The prosecutor called six witnesses to prove his case and tendered exhibits including the extra judicial statements of the convicts which defence counsel, Adeshina Olaniyan opposed.

    Delivering his judgment, Justice Oyebiyi said prosecuting counsel has proved the charges against the convicts beyond reasonable doubt and found them guilty of the offences preferred against them.

    Justice Oyebiyi thereafter sentenced them to death by hanging.

  • Court refuses to vacate order baring Secondus, Opara, Omehia from PDP’s meetings

    Court refuses to vacate order baring Secondus, Opara, Omehia from PDP’s meetings

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed applications by the former chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Uche Secondus, and two others seeking to vacate an order barring them from attending meetings of the leadership of the party.

    Also affected are the sacked governor of Rivers State, Celestine Omehia, and a former deputy speaker of the House of Representatives, Austin Adiele Opara.

    The court had, on April 5 issued ex-parte orders, which among others, restrained the three PDP chieftains from attending any meeting of the National Executive Committee of the party or participating in deliberations or proceedings of the meetings in any manner pending the determination of the substantive suit.

    The restraining orders were made concerning three substantive suits filed against the three chieftains of the PDP by some members of the party in Rivers State.

    The suit against Secondus and seven others, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/440/2024 was filed by Titus Jones.

    The second against Omehia and five others, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/436/2024 was filed by Precious Wobisike, while the third, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/438/2024 against Opara and seven others, was filed by Chisa Amadi.

    Secondus, Opara and Omehia had applied that the execution of the orders be stayed pending the determination of the appeals they filed, challenging the ex-parte orders.

    In three different rulings on Thursday, Justice Inyang Ekwo held that the applications for stay were wrongly filed and therefore, incompetent.

    Justice Ekwo held that under Order 26(9)(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (FHCCPR) 2019 what Secondus, Opara, and Omehia ought to do was to apply to the court to either vary or discharge the orders, not to apply for stay.

    The judge said: “By Order 26 (9) (1) of the FHCCPR 2019 it is provided that where an order is made on a motion ex -parte, any person affected by it may, within seven days after service of it, or within such further time as the court shall allow, apply to the court by motion to vary or discharge it.

    “The first defendant/applicant ought to have familiarized himself with the provisions of the Rules of this court before embarking on this course.

    “What any person, who is affected by ex-parte order of the Federal High Court has to do is provided for in Order 26(9)(1) of the FHCCPR 2019.

    “There is no law which provides for appeal against ex-parte order of the Federal High Court. It is trite that where there is no law in support of a process or action such process or action is considered as abuse of process of court.

    Read Also: Court okays substituted service on Mohbad’s wife for DNA test

    “I find that there is no iota of law in support of this application and I so hold. The consequence thereof also has been stated by the court in a very steady manner.

    “I therefore make an order dismissing this application for being an abuse of process of this court,” Justice Ekwo said in the ruling on the application by Secondus.

    Justice Ekwo reached the same conclusions for similar applications by Opara and Omehia.

    The judge then adjourned till April 25 for hearing of a pending motions on notice for interim injunctions filed by the plaintiffs in the three cases.

  • Court sentences three kidnappers to death by hanging

    Court sentences three kidnappers to death by hanging

    Justice R. Irele-Ifijeh of the Edo State High Court has sentenced Solomon Abuede, James Monday and Kelvin Edward to death by hanging, for armed robbery, kidnapping and murder of Ephraim Akhere.

    Justice Irele-Ifijeh said the offences were punishable under Section 3 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Amendment Law of Edo State 2013, and the Armed Robbery and Fire Arms Act.

    The late Akhere was kidnapped at Ihumudumu Quarters, Ekpoma, Esan West Local Government Area of on June 13, 2014.

    Read Also: Court okays EFCC’s arrest of former Kogi Gov Yahaya Bello

    Justice Irele-Ifijeh also sentenced Oviasogie Sunday, alias Alhaji of Kano, to life imprisonment for receiving Akhere’s vehicle which was stolen after his murder.

    The four persons were among the six people arraigned on six counts of armed robbery, kidnapping, conspiracy and receipt of stolen property, among others.

    The two other suspects – David Williams and Monday Ozomo – were discharged for lack of evidence linking them to the crimes.

    Justice Irele-Ifijeh, in her 91-page judgment, said the confessional statements of Solomon Abuede, James Monday and Kelvin Edward that they participated in the robbery, was corroborated by the evidence of Sandra, a prosecution witness, who was in the same vehicle, and kidnapped with the late Akhere.

  • Alleged N150m bribe: Court admits documents in evidence against oil magnate Akindele

    Alleged N150m bribe: Court admits documents in evidence against oil magnate Akindele

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) yesterday admitted three documents in evidence in the bribery trial of the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Duport Midstream Company Limited, Mr. Akintoye Akindele.

    Justice Modupe Osho-Adebiyi admitted the documents and marked them as exhibits accordingly during the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness (PW1), Mr. Ibrahim Ezekiel Sini, a Superintendent of Police (SP).

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the documents included a petition to the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) by Summit Oil International Limited, an original statement Akindele reportedly made to the police and a motion filed before a Nasarawa State High Court.

    They were admitted and marked as Exhibits A2, A3 and A4.

    The judge had, on February 28, adjourned for the continuation of cross-examination of S. P. Sini by the defendant (Akindele)’s lawyer, Mrs. Funmi Quadri (SAN).When the matter was called yesterday, Quadri confronted the witness with the petition, showing that the indebtedness of her client, according to the petitioner, was $5.6 million and N73 million.

    Read Also: Court okays EFCC’s arrest of former Kogi Gov Yahaya Bello

    While the $5.6 million is said to be the debt owed, the N73 million is said to be reimbursement expenses.

    The SAN alleged that while in custody, Sini and his team had several meetings with the defendant, recalling that on one occasion, Akindele was asked how he intended to liquidate his debt to Summit Oil. But the witnesses said: “I can’t remember.”

    Sini also denied that the defendant used a computer belonging to the police to write a letter undertaking to repay the debt.

    Quadri tendered the original statement Akindele made to the IGP, wherein the defendant claimed that the money he had transferred to an account provided by Sini was to demonstrate his willingness to pay part of the $5.6 million and N73 million owed the petitioner (Summit Oil International Limited).

    At the end of the cross-examination, Justice Osho-Adebiyi adjourned till today for the police to call their next witness.

  • Court fixes June 10 to commence trial against Lagos pastor

    Court fixes June 10 to commence trial against Lagos pastor

    Magistrate Antoinette Dirisu of the Magistrate Court in Ogba, Ikeja, Lagos, has fixed June 10, 2024, to commence trial against a Lagos-based Pastor, Jude Ojo.

    The 57-year-old clergyman was arraigned before the court on a three-count charge of conspiracy, perversion of the course of justice and aiding the escape of the suspects.

    The arraignment was consequent to a petition written by a traditional ruler of the Otumara community in Lagos, High Chief Kehinde Kalejaiye to the Lagos State Police Command, alleging a threat to his life.

    In a swift reaction, the CP special squad led by ASP Jagunno investigated the allegation and arrested five suspects. 

    The suspects were released on bail to the clergyman on the understanding that he would produce them in court at the appointed date for prosecution but he failed to comply with the directive.

    Following the suspects’ evasion of justice, Ojo was brought before the Ogba magistrate court on an amended charge consisting of three counts: perversion of justice, conspiracy, and aiding the escape of suspects.

    The three-count charge proffered against Ojo, according to the prosecutor, Inspector John Iveredem, read: “That you Jude Ojo ‘M’ and others at large on the 31st of December, 2023 at about 1900hrs at the CP Special squad, Lagos State Police Command, Ikeja, in the Lagos Magisterial District, did apply and stood surety or bail for Shola Adegun, Festus Arowojolu, Friday Arowojolu, Rotimi Arowojolu who were involved in a case of conspiracy, conduct likely to cause a breach of peace and threat to life, wherein you promised to produce the said persons on the 2nd of January 2024 at about 0900hrs and every subsequent date as disposed of or forfeit the sum of five hundred thousand nairas to the Lagos State government but breached same by failing and refusing to produce the persons despite repeated requests and thereby perverted the course of justice contrary to Section 97 of the criminal law of Lagos State of Nigeria 2015.

    Read Also: Supreme Court urges Lagos, Shangisha landlords to settle

    “That you, Jude Ojo and others at large on the same date, time and place in the aforementioned magisterial district, did aid to escape from the lawful custody of the police one Shola Adegun, Festus Arowojolu, Rotimi Arowojolu and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 107 of the Criminal law of the Lagos State of Nigeria, 2015.

    “That you, Jude Ojo and others at large on the same date, time and place in the aforementioned magisterial district, did stand as a surety and enter into recognizance in bond sum of Five hundred thousand naira for the bail of Shola Adegun, Festus Arowojolu, Friday Arowojolu and Rotimi Arowojolu who you promise to produce on January 2nd, 2024 and subsequent dates and which you failed to produce the said persons.

    “You are hereby ordered to show cause why the recognizance bond of five hundred thousand naira you entered into should not be forfeited to the government in pursuant to Section 132 of Administration of Criminal Law of Lagos State of Nigeria 2015.”

    He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.

    Magistrate Antoinette Dirisu of Court 19, Ilori court house, Ogba, Lagos, fixed June 10, 2024, for the commencement of trial.

  • Court remands five over alleged armed robbery

    Court remands five over alleged armed robbery

    An Iyaganku Magistrates’ Court Ibadan, on Tuesday remanded five men in a correctional facility over alleged armed robbery.

    The defendants, Abiodun Solomon, 24; Abdulahi Alejolowo, 26; Emmanuel Ayobami, 31; Kazeem Saka, 37 and Taofeek Lawal, 35, whose addresses were not given, are being charged with conspiracy and armed robbery.

    The Prosecutor, Insp Olalekan Adegbite told the court that the defendants committed the offence at about 2.00a.m on Jan. 8 at the Olode area of Ibadan.

    Adegbite stated that the defendants attacked residents of the area with arms and robbed them of their cell phones and other items.

    Read Also: Veteran journalist to court: lawyer owed us more than N1.4m

    ”They were armed with guns and other weapons, they attacked and robbed residents of their cell phones, jewelry, electrical gadgets, cash and other valuables,” he said.

    Adegbite said the offences contravened Sections 6(B) and 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms Laws of Nigeria, 2004.

    The Magistrate, Mrs Oluwabusayo Osho did not take the plea of the defendants for lack of jurisdiction.

    She ordered the return of the case file to the Director of Public Prosecution for legal advice.

    Osho thereafter adjourned the case until April 29 for mention.

    (NAN)

  • Alleged $6b fraud: Court dismisses Agunloye’s application on ‘amicus curiae’

    Alleged $6b fraud: Court dismisses Agunloye’s application on ‘amicus curiae’

    A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court yesterday dismissed an application by a former Minister of Power and Steel, Dr. Olu Agunloye, inviting some legal luminaries to hear his case on alleged infractions in the Mambilla Hydroelectric plant.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged Agunloye, who served as a minister under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie.

    On March 21, the defendant, through his counsel, Adeola Adedipe (SAN), moved a motion seeking the leave of the court to allow some legal luminaries to participate in the hearing of his preliminary objection against EFCC.

    He told the court that contrary to constitutional provision, the AGF did not give EFCC the fiat to investigate and institute proceeding in the case against him.

    Adedipe cited Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), telling the court that instead of getting such a fiat from the AGF, the EFCC got it from the Solicitor-General of the Federation.

    He urged the court to take judicial notice, under Section 124 of the Evidence Act.

    Adedipe informed the court that the current AGF, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), was sworn in on August 21, 2023, while the prosecution filed the charge against Agunloye on September 7, 2023.

    “Granting the application to allow amici curiae (friends of the court), including the AGF; the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Yakubu Maikyau (SAN); a former Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), and a former NBA President, Joseph Daudu (SAN), to participate in the hearing of the said preliminary objection would not prejudice the court or EFCC,” he said.

    The counsel told the court that since assuming office, the AGF had been giving directives that all corruption-related cases against public officers should be investigated by the Independent Corrupt Pracices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).

    Adedipe said this was in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Nwobike vs FRN that delimited the power of EFCC to financial crimes alone.

    The lawyer urged the court to grant the application, saying the prosecution was aware that the court had the power to grant same, which was why it did not want the court to grant it.

    But the prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, said the Supreme Court had decided in FRN vs Osahor and others that the power of the AGF under Section 174 of the Constitution was not exclusive to him.

    According to him, this implies that other authorities could initiate criminal proceedings in court.

    The counsel explained that in the instance case, the AGF did not complain that EFCC usurped his power.

    Mohammed added that the Appeal Court had decided in Audu vs FRN that EFCC could prosecute offenders under the ICPC Act.

    Read Also: PDP: Court adjourns suits seeking to stop Secondus, Omehia from NEC, BOT meetings

    He urged the court to take judicial notice that the Solicitor-General of the Federation, who signed the fiat to prosecute the defendant, was the acting AGF as of August 8, 2023, as there was no substantive AGF then.

    He said that at the last sitting in the case, the court did not raise any doubt that it could determine the defendant’s preliminary objection and as such did not express any need to invite any amici curiea.

    The prosecution counsel urged the court to decline the application as prayed by the defendant.

    He submitted that the Supreme Court had clearly stated the situations in which the court could exercise its discretion in allowing amici curiea, which he said was only when the court was in doubt.

    The judge adjourned ruling till yesterday.

    Ruling on the motion, Justice Onwuegbuzie held that the matter was not such that amicus curiae (friends of the court) should be invited.

    He adjourned till April 22 to hear the defendant’s preliminary objection.

  • Court strikes out AG’s processes against Ondo farmers

    Court strikes out AG’s processes against Ondo farmers

    Ondo State High Court, sitting in Ore, Odigbo Local Government, has struck out the memorandum of appearance and statement of defence filed by attorney aeneral in a case involving 10,000 cocoa farmers, the state, and Sao Agro-Allied Services Limited.

    The farmers operating at Oluwa Forest Reserve sued the firm and state over their eviction from the forest reserve.

    At the resumed hearing of the case filed by the farmers’ counsel, Tope Temokun, Justice Aderemi Adegoroye, said the court was confronted by the issue of the right person to represent the state. 

    The firm’s counsel, Olajide Ajana, announced his appearance for the state and applied to withdraw processes filed by the Office of the AG, including a Memorandum of Appearance, Statement of Defence, and counter-affidavits.

    Read Also: Police arrest two for blocking containers at Lagos ports

    But Temokun objected, arguing that the action was an abuse of court process and could not be granted in the absence of tha AG’s  authority.

    Temokun said under Section 168 (1) of the Evidence Act, the presumption of regularity could only be countered with solid evidence, like a signed fiat, or through withdrawal of the AG’s filed processes by an official from its office.

    Justice Adegoroye struck out the separate processes, which include memorandum of appearance and statement of defence, filed by the office of the AG.

    He adjourned the case to May 28, 2024 for further hearing.