A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected the no-case submission made by a House of Representatives member, Nicholas Mutu being tried with two others on money laundering-related charges.
Mutu representing Bomadi/Patani Federal Constituency of Delta State is, along with two others – Airworld Technologies Ltd, and Oyien Homes Ltd – accused of laundering about N320million.
Justice Folashade Giwa-Ogunbanjo, in a ruling on Monday, January 22, ordered Mutu and his co-defendants to enter their defence as they have a case to answer in respect of the allegations made against them in the 13-count amended charge on which they are being tried.
Justice Giwa-Ogunbanjo held that the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the three defendants to warrant their being called upon to enter a defence.
The judge adjourned till February 21 and 22 for the defendants to open their defence.
Mutu, described as the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, who has maintained his seat since he was first elected in 1999, was said to have committed the alleged offences between August 2014 and August 2016 when he served as the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC).
In the charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/123/2019 the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) alleged that Mutu, while being the Chairman of the House Committee on NDDC, between August 2014 and August 2016 “did procure Airworld Technologies Ltd to conceal of the sum of N320,159, 689.63 to be paid by Starline Consultancy Services Ltd when you reasonably ought to have known that the said sum of N320, 159, 689.63 formed part of proceeds of corruption, gratification and fraudulent acquisition of property.”
While opposing the no-case submissions, prosecuting lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho argued that the money paid to the defendants by Starline Consultancy, a contractor to NDDC, amounted to gratification
Iheanacho added that Mutu, used his official position, as the Chairman of House Committee on NDDC, to accept the various sums of money paid by the NDDC contractor.
The prosecuting lawyer contended that Mutu’s alleged conduct violated both the provision of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences (ICPC) Act and the Code of Conduct for public officers, which constitute predicate offences to the money laundering offence for which he was being prosecuted.
A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has dismissed a suit filed by a former Chairman of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL), Dr. Monday Ubani, seeking to stop the army, police, and other security agencies from erecting many roadblocks on the Lagos-Southeast routes.
Ubani had sued the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Comptroller General of Customs (CGC), Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), the Corp Marshal of the Federal Road Safety Corp (FRSC) for alleged links with the proliferation of such road blocks.
The NBA official is seeking a declaration that the proliferation of intra-state and highways with road blocks mounted by their officers on the Lagos-Southeast route, had resulted in obstruction of free movement in the highway and loss of travel time.
He described the development as a violation of his right to free and undisrupted movement, as guaranteed by Section 41 of the 1999 Constitution and other enabling laws.
Also joined in the suit as co-respondents are: the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), the Nigeria Customs Service Board, the Nigerian Army, and the FRSC.
Other prayers that Ubani is praying the court to grant him include a declaration that the proliferation of intra-state and highway roadblocks, particularly en route Lagos to the Southeast obstructs free flow of traffic, constitutes a nuisance, causes untold hardship, and unwarranted suffering to him and other road users.
The lawyer prayed the court to declare the roadblocks as unlawful and without legal justification.
He also prayed for an order directing the respondents to dismantle all roadblocks on intra-state roads and highways throughout the country, particularly those on the Southeast route.
Delivering judgment in the suit, Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke held that there was a proliferation of roadblocks the Lagos-Southeast route, which made the applicant and other users to spend hours on the road.
Justice Aneke also held that the right to free movement of the applicant was derogated upon due to the constitutional powers the President and the security agencies have to take to secure the country.
But the court was silent on Ubani’s concern that the roadblocks were proliferated on the Southeast routes and minimal on routes to other parts of the country.
Justice Aneke held that the road blocks mounted by the second to the ninth respondents, which clearly restrict the right to freedom of movement of the applicant and other road users, did not, by that reason, alone violate the applicant’s fundamental rights.
Ubani has said he would appeal the judgment or return to court with a modification of his reliefs.
Following the appointment of Olola of Ola, Oba Johnson Ajiboye, in Ejigbo Local Government of Osun State by Governor Ademola Adeleke, the Head of Kingmakers, Dr Femi Fasanya, has disowned the process.
He hinged his action on the court restraining order barring all parties involved in the matter not to install anybody pending the determination of the suit.
The Nation reports that there was tension in the community after Governor Adeleke approved the appointment of Oba Ajiboye at the state executive meeting despite court order restraining him from taking the action. The appointee was installed by kingmakers.
The Olugbode section of Ejitunde ruling house had sued Oba Ajiboye, Osun State Government and others in suit No: HEJ/312020, after which a restraining order was issued against the parties last December.
Dr. Fasanya, speaking with The Nation, disowned the process, saying: “I was not involved in the installation of the king appointed by the governor. I was not involved because of the court order. Court will determine the issue.”
The Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Dosu Babatunde, who spoke through the Permanent Secretary, Olufemi Ogundun, said the government was not aware of any restraining order.
He said: “The Adeleke government is a law-abiding administration. It cannot be aware of the restraining order and go ahead to appoint the monarch. We are going to mediate among the parties involved, to prevent breakdown of law and order in the community.”
One of the heads of the Olugbode section, who is the first plaintiff in the matter, Mr Kolawole Sangoniran, said civil servants in the Ministry of Justice and Chieftaincy Affairs misled Governor Adeleke to make the appointment, which is contempt of court.
Bolstered by last Friday’s Supreme Court judgment that overturned the dismissal of Governor Caleb Mutfwang by the Court of Appeal, legislators who faced a similar ousting from the intermediate court are optimistic despite the legal constraints, writes ERIC IKHILAE.
The repercussions of the Supreme Court’s decision last Friday on the governorship election dispute in Plateau State are still rippling across the nation. The January 12 ruling nullified the November 19, 2023, judgment of the Court of Appeal, reinstating Governor Caleb Muftwang. Although this resolved the controversy surrounding the rightful governor of the state, the judgment has sparked a renewed contest over claims to several legislative seats in Plateau State. The aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision seems to have reignited the debate surrounding a number of legislative seats in the state.
After the Supreme Court ruling, Plateau lawmakers elected under the banner of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), who had previously had accepted their removal by the Court of Appeal, are now reconsidering their stance. A shift in perspective has emerged among them and their supporters, as they entertain the prospect of a favourable turn of events. This shift is noticeable in the warning issued by Gabriel Dewan, the Speaker of the Plateau State House of Assembly, who expressed reluctance to acknowledge the All Progressives Congress (APC) legislators benefiting from the Court of Appeal’s rulings.
Dewan said the state assembly has only eight lawmakers that he recognises, arguing that the Friday judgement by the Supreme Court has reversed the position of the Court of Appeal. He said: “As it stands now, only eight lawmakers are recognised as members of the state assembly.” The Speaker vowed that the 16 APC lawmakers who were declared winners by the Court of Appeal would not be recognised for now pending the interpretation of the Supreme Court judgement.
Since the Friday verdict, the PDP has vowed to reclaim the seats it lost to the Court of Appeal judgments; while the APC is contending that the damage was irreversible. Part of the steps being considered by the PDP include returning to the intermediate court to seek review and approaching the National Judicial Council (NJC) with a strongly-worded petition. The party’s Deputy National Publicity Secretary, Ibrahim Abdullahi, was quoted to have said the PDP resolved to petition relevant institutions in the federal judiciary to review the Court of Appeal’s decisions regarding affected Plateau lawmakers from Plateau State.
Abdullahi said, “Certainly, yes, we have already commenced efforts in that regard. This is because what the Supreme Court justices did was an indictment on the Justices of the Court of Appeal. We have always maintained that line of argument. We are going to seek redress for the members of parliament concerned. Senate, House of Representatives and House of Assembly. The redress will focus on their respective offices.”
In a counter posture, the APC has insisted that the Supreme Court judgement has not changed the status of its members, who are beneficiaries of the decisions of the Court of Appeal. Its spokesman in Plateau State, Sylvanus Namang was reported to have said: “Our members are comfortable as they remain authentic members (of the national and state assemblies).” Namang argued that since the Court of Appeal is the final court on legislative election litigation, the matter cannot proceed beyond that level.
The dispute and casualties
The Court of Appeal primarily based its decisions on the contention that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lacked a legitimate structure in Plateau State, which could produce valid candidates. The appellate court asserted that the Plateau PDP’s non-compliance with a directive from the state’s High Court, instructing it to conduct new ward, local government and state congresses to establish the party’s state executive, rendered it incapable of having a valid executive. Consequently, the court argued that the party had no valid executive to organise primaries for the nomination of candidates in the last election.
In all, the Appeal Court’s decision affected two PDP senators, three House of Representatives members and 11 members of the State Assembly. Some of the affected lawmakers, including Ms. Beni Lar, Joe Philip Gwom and Bala N Fwanje have expressed their determination to reclaim their seats. Lar, who lost her Langtang North/Langtang South seat in the House of Representatives, has argued that since their case is a novel one, they would do everything possible to reclaim their mandates.
She said: “We don’t know what the National Judicial Council (NJC) will say yet because this kind of thing has never happened before. There is no precedence to our case, but there is no harm in trying. The Supreme Court verdict is the first of its kind in Nigeria and has restored hope, restored confidence in the judiciary. They have upheld the rule of law. The Appeal Court robbed us of our victory. It’s a learning experience. The Appeal Court erroneously robbed us of the people’s mandate. It is a national disaster for an arm of the judiciary to rob 24 lawmakers of their mandates. It is gross abuse of power to do so. It should have never happened at all. It means 24 constituencies have been handed over to illegal occupants,” Lar said.
Gwom lost the Barkin Ladi constituency seat in the state Assembly. He said: “I am a victim of the Court of Appeal judgement. But as far as I am concerned, I am going back to the House of Assembly, because the pronouncement of the Supreme Court supersedes that of Court of Appeal. Not only me but all of us from the state assembly and national assembly. We are going back to our seats because the Supreme Court judgement supersedes that of the Appeal Court. That was injustice meted to us by the Court of Appeal.
“I believe that in the next few days you will see action. I don’t need to talk too much. All I know is that the Supreme Court said APC should not have taken PDP to court over an issue that was internal affairs of PDP. It then means that what the Court of Appeal did was an illegality against PDP. We are going back to take our seats as law makers based on the mandate given to us by our constituencies.”
On his part, Fwanje, who lost his Mangu South state constituency seat, said: “To God be the glory, the Supreme Court has given us victory. Our victory has been restored. The judgement means that my seat is not lost. The apex court has confirmed to us that the Court of Appeal was not supposed to entertain the case. It then means there was no case against us at all. In other words, what the Court of Appeal did was to defend an interest, not the law. But now the apex court has come out with the true position of the law. It means our case has to be reviewed and we are coming back strongly to claim our mandate
“Plateau is going to set a precedent for the growth of democracy in this case. That illegality done to us by the Court of Appeal cannot stand because there will be another election in 2027. Our cases and that of the governor are similar; hence our own has to be reviewed accordingly because that of the governor has been decided. So I can assure you the NJC will definitely review our cases to correct the injustice,” Fwanje said.
Any remedy in the eye of the law?
Lawyers, including Mike Ozekhome (SAN), John Baiyeshea (SAN), Joseph Nwobike (SAN), Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) and Otunba Tunde Falola are of the view that the deed has been done and that there are no remedies for the sacked lawmakers in the eye of the law. They noted that since the Electoral Act makes the Court of Appeal the last court in legislative election litigation, it was impossible to reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeal. Others are also of the view that since the 180 days provided for the hearing of election petition and the 60 days for appeal have since lapsed, there was little the affected legislators could do to reverse their fortune.
Baiyeshea said: “In the case of the National Assembly members, appeal terminates at the Court of Appeal; so the injustice to them is permanent and irreversible. There is no remedy for them now for this monumental travesty of justice to them. It is quite sad that, before our very eyes, the representatives the people of Plateau State, voted for, have been replaced by those ‘selected’ by the Court of Appeal. Democracy has been obliterated, basterdised and the people shortchanged. That’s the tragedy of a nation like Nigeria that never gets anything right,” Baiyeshea said.
Nwobike also noted that there was nothing the affected legislators could do in view of the provision of the law that made the Court of Appeal the final court in legislative disputes. The senior lawyer said: “I must start by commending the Supreme Court of Nigeria for always using the powers vested in it by the Constitution to defend the people’s choices whenever the occasion arises. The judgements delivered on Friday are a reflection of the cardinal role the Judiciary plays in deepening democracy in Nigeria.
“Regarding the options open to those who lost their legislative seats on account of the judgments of the Court of Appeal, sitting in Jos, I think that it must be recognised that the Court of Appeal is the final court for the determination of that level of electoral disputes in Nigeria. There are no clear legal or constitutional basis for them to seek for judicial review of those judgements in any manner that will not create a bad precedent in our jurisprudence. However, it is left for the lawyers to the persons affected to deeply consider the issues and the extent to which the equitable rule of ibi jus ibi remedium can be of any material help.
“Recall also that similar applications that were made to the Supreme Court recently was met with heavy cost against the counsel who filed the application on behalf of the parties. I will, therefore, advise that the matter should be treated as closed so as not to create confusion in the electoral jurisprudence with respect to the finality granted to the Court of Appeal by the Constitution,” Nwobike said.
On his part, Falola noted that by the provision of Section 246(1) of the Constitution, the Court of Appeal currently exercises the final jurisdiction on the decision of the election tribunal in respect of all legislative elections cases be it National Assembly or State Houses of Assembly. He added: “What that means is that once a candidate, who participates in Senatorial, House of Representatives or State House of Assembly elections and loses the election, he petitions the election tribunal.
“And when he loses the petition, his final destination, in terms of appealing against the tribunal’s decisions, ends at the Court of Appeal, being the final court. At that juncture, the only option open to him is to abide by the outcome of the decision of the Court of Appeal. If he loses the appeal, there is really nothing he can do than to wait for another election period, as no further right of appeal exists,” Falola said.
Criticisms of Court of Appeal
Baiyeshea, who expressed disappointment in how the Court of Appeal handled the case, said it was very sad that the appellate court justices chose to replace elected representatives with their selected ones. He said: “The judgment of the Court of Appeal in respect of National Assembly members that removed in Plateau State is quite unfortunate. This is one of the ugly scenarios in our Nigerian system and one of the irreversible errors in our legal/administration of justice.
“It is obvious now that, with the judgment of the Supreme Court yesterday affirming the election of the Governor of that state (who was removed by the Court of Appeal for the same reasons that the National Assembly members were removed), that the Court of Appeal’s judgment is a complete travesty of justice to those the National Assembly members. The governor was lucky that, by our present laws, appeal in governorship matters terminates at the Supreme Court; so he had his case reviewed by Justices of that court. Happily the unjust judgment of the Court of Appeal against him was set aside.”
Kehinde said what the Court of Appeal Justices did amounted to judicial rascality. He added: “I will encourage, especially the intermediate court – the Court of Appeal – to know that it has no choice, once a position has been laid down by the Supreme Court, it is judicial rascality to depart from it. This was what happened, with respect, in some of these states like Plateau, Kano and a number of other states. This was what they did, with respect, I am not castigating the whole bench of the Court of Appeal, but those involved got themselves involved in judicial rascality.
“What is good is good, and what is bad is bad. What they did has no basis in law. The Supreme Court has condemned it; I am not the one condemning it. And let them also have a rethink that they owe it to this country to ensure the survival of this democracy. This is a responsibility that we all owe to this country,” Kehinde said.
How to avert recurrence
Law experts suggested amendments to the Constitution and other relevant laws to allow National Assembly election cases terminate at the Supreme Court. Ozekhome noted that, in view of what happened in the Plateau case, he was reviewing his earlier stance that not all election cases should terminate at the Supreme Court. He said, “I was one of those who felt like the Supreme Court should not be bothered with too many of these; the House of Assembly, House of Representatives, and Senate (cases) could end at the appeal level, but from what we have seen particularly in the Plateau scenario, there was a great miscarriage of justice.
“The Supreme Court spared no words; they used legal and judicial koboko (cane) to flog the Court of Appeal for what they termed miscarriage of justice; perverse judgments. In many of the cases, particularly the Plateau State, two senators’ positions were reversed, three House of Representatives were reversed, and 11 House of Assembly were reversed. If all these cases had gone to the Supreme Court, all of them would have their seats retained. On what grounds were they reversed? The Court of Appeal surprisingly was saying the PDP had no structure in Plateau state. When did PDP structure, membership of a political party, nomination, congresses, and primaries become part and parcel of matters that the court can have jurisdiction?” he said.
Ozekhome added that “the Supreme Court said not even the election tribunal has jurisdiction, let alone the court of appeal. And they voided the decision of the governorship. They would also have voided the decision on the two senatorial candidates, three Houses of Representatives, and the 11 House of Assembly. Injustice has been done to them. What is the remedy now? That is why I am going to review my stance with all respect, humility as a constitutional lawyer, to say that, yes, these cases should go to the Supreme Court as a final court of the land. We saw grave injustice; people voted for by the electorates were removed by the Court of Appeal, which has no jurisdiction over the matter. I am sad about it and it should never happen again,” he said.
Baiyeshea urged relevant stakeholders to work on ways of altering existing laws, particularly the Constitution to prevent such unfortunate occurrence. He said: “I hope the National Assembly and other stakeholders in law making will do something to amend the Constitution and other laws to remedy this anomaly against the future because we cannot and must not continue like this. Our legal system should not, at our present state of development, present citizens with such helpless situation where there is no remedy for such a brutal wrong done to its citizens. This is why those who have the privilege of presiding over the affairs of others to determine their fate should be very careful not to abuse such privilege,” Baiyeshea said.
Kehinde advocated punishment for erring judicial officers involved in such brazen act of abuse of judicial powers. He noted that if it was in other clime, like the United Kingdom, the justices involved would have been penalised for deliberately ignoring earlier decisions of the Supreme Court on the issues raised in the Plateau cases. Kehinde urged lawyers, particularly the Senior Advocates, to realise that it is not every case that must be taken to court. “We have to be sincere to our clients and tell them the whole truth that a particular case will not fly,” he said, adding that lawyers should avoid cases that could ridicule them and subject the whole system of justice to disrepute.
According to Falola, “to address the several complaints against the decisions of the Court of Appeal in respect of the appeals in legislative matters in Plateau State, the option open to our legislature is to amend the Constitution and make the Supreme Court final court in appeals in legislative matters. Doing so will give the Supreme Court the opportunity to address the perceived perverseness of most of the decisions of the appellate court in deserving cases,” Falola said.
High Court of Delta State in Effurun has dismissed preliminary objections by Nigerian-American singer, David Adeleke, a.k.a Davido, and his company, Davido Music Worldwide.
They challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine a breach of contract suit filed against them by Amaju Pinnick and Brownhill Investment Company on the annual ‘Warri Again Concert’ in which he allegedly failed to perform after receiving payment.
The court also dismissed another objection by Davido Music Worldwide and Israel Afeare challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the defamation case filed against them.
In its ruling yesterday in suit EHC/183/2023, the court dismissed the defendants’ arguments that the matter was a debt recovery case and was premature since the claimant failed to issue a letter of demand for a refund of money claimed in the case.
It agreed with the submissions of claimant’s counsel that the reliefs sought must be read jointly and not in isolation to determine the nature of the suit.
Besides, the court held that the reliefs sought showed that the matter was a breach of contract which does not require the issuance of a letter of demand.
In the sister case of defamation, the court held that it has territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the cases.
The court said it was established that the claimant, who resides in Delta, was present in the state at the time the defendants posted the alleged defamatory publications online and viewed the online defamatory statements while in the state.
The cases have been adjourned for hearing of other pending applications.
When the idea of an out-of-court settlement was mooted, defendants counsel said efforts were on to resolve the case.
But the claimant said there had been no progress because they wanted settlement on their terms, a decision they rejected.
Brownhill Investments had, through its lawyer, Kelechi Onwuegbuchulem, prayed the court to award N2 billion as damages against Davido.
The claimant asking for N150 million as fees, and N30 million as cost.
The musician, in his preliminary objection, challenged the jurisdiction on the grounds that the case was a debt recovery matter and that the claimant ought to have written a letter of demand before approaching the court.
He further claimed that Sosoberokon is not his agent and does not negotiate performance contracts on his behalf.
While the singer claimed that he was not paid for the show and that Soso was not his agent, he however admitted receiving the payment of $94,500 but stated that the sum was payment for only promotion of the show.
In the sister case bordering on defamation, Davido also filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction on the ground that the defamatory statements were published online but the claimant did not show that the defamatory statements were downloaded and viewed in Delta State to give the court jurisdiction.
The Panti Division of the Police has sent a letter inviting the musician for a response regarding the criminal defamation of character and cyberbullying of Amaju Melvin Pinnick.
It followed a petition to the police against Davido.
Justice Ayokunle Faji of a Federal High Court, Lagos has struck out an application filed by a popular internet celebrity, Ismaila Mustapha, aka Mompha, seeking to vacate an order obtained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for his arrest.
Justice Faji struck out Mompha’s suit yesterday for lack of diligent prosecution.
Mompha, living in Mirdiff, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), in his suit filed by his lawyers, Olufemi Oguntokun and Wale Michael Adekola, had asked the court for an order mandating the EFCC to withdraw the request for his arrest made to the ICPO-INTERPOL in March 2023 on the grounds that the commission had failed to furnish the ICPO-INTERPOL with specific details of the allegations against him.
A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the remand of Suleiman Dabo, former member of Kaduna State House of Assembly (Zaria Constituency) in Kuje prison pending ruling on his bail application.
Justice James Omotosho issued the order yesterday after Dabo was arraigned on a seven-count charge brought against him by the Nigeria Police.
He is among others, accused of obtaining N30million from Mrs. Folashade Mojeolaoluwa under false pretence.
Dabo was arraigned with his firm, Ohman International Venture Limited, on the charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/363/2021.
The two defendants pleaded not guilty when the charge was read to them, following which prosecuting lawyer, Mathew Omosun, urged the court to remand the ex-lawmaker in prison pending the commencement of trial.
However, defence lawyer, A. S. Egene, opposed Omosun’s request and informed the court that he filed an application for bail on behalf of his client.
Egene told the court that his client was earlier granted bail by another judge of the court, who was handling the case before it was reassigned to a new court.
He urged the court to grant Dabo bail on the same conditions on which he was earlier granted bail, a request
Omosun objected to, noting that he has filed a counter affidavit to that effect.
Going through the case file,
Justice Omotosho noted that Dano had been absent in court for about eight times since the case was reassigned to his court.
In response, Egene prayed the court to be lenient with his client, to which the judge reacted by saying, “as a lawmaker, he should know that the temple of justice must be respected.”
Ruling, Justice Omotosho held that since Dabo had been absent in previous proceedings for about eight times, he would take his time to carefully go through the case file before giving a ruling.
The judge the adjourned till February 5 for ruling on Dabo’d bail application.
Dabo and his firm were in count one of the charge, alleged to have, sometime in October and November, 2017, conspired to obtain N30million by false pretence from Mrs. Folashade S. Mojeolaoluwa.
In count two, Dabo and the company, were said to have, sometime in October and November, 2017, defrauded Mrs. Folashade S. Mojeolaoluwa of N30million through a GTBank account No: 0172410075 with account name: Ohman International Venture Limited.
A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the remand of Suleiman Dabo, immediate-past member of Kaduna State House of Assembly (Zaria Constituency) in Kuje prison pending a ruling on his bail application.
Justice James Omotosho issued the order on Monday, January 15, after Dabo was arraigned on a seven-count charge brought against him by the Nigeria Police.
He is among others, accused of obtaining N30 million from Mrs. Folashade Mojeolaoluwa under false pretence.
Dabo was arraigned with his firm, Ohman International Venture Limited on the charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/363/2021.
The two defendants pleaded not guilty when the charge was read to them, following which prosecuting lawyer, Mathew Omosun urged the court to remand the ex-lawmaker to prison pending the commencement of trial.
However, the defense lawyer, A.S Egene, opposed Omosun’s request and informed the court that he filed an application for bail on behalf of his client.
Egene told the court that his client was earlier granted bail by another judge of the court who was handling the case before it was reassigned to a new court.
He urged the court to grant Dabo bail on the same conditions on which he was earlier granted bail, a request
Omosun objected to, noting that he has filed a counter affidavit to that effect.
Going through the case file, Justice Omotosho noted that Dano has been absent in court for about eight times since the case was reassigned to his court.
In response, Egene prayed the court to be lenient with his client, to which the judge reacted by saying, “as a lawmaker, he should know that the temple of justice must be respected.”
Ruling, Justice Omotosho held that since Dabo had been absent in previous proceedings about eight times, he would take his time to carefully go through the case file before giving a ruling.
The judge adjourned till February 5 for a ruling on Dabo’d bail application.
Dabo and his firm were in count one of the charge, alleged to have, sometime in October and November 2017, conspired to obtain N30 million by false pretence from Mrs. Folashade S. Mojeolaoluwa.
In count two, Dabo and the company, were said to have, sometime in October and November 2017, defrauded Mrs. Folashade S. Mojeolaoluwa of N30m through a GTBank account No: 0172410075 with account name: Ohman International Venture Limited.
The prosecution alleged that the defendants had, on the pretence of selling a scrap vessel ship known as ADNAN 101, committed the act “when you presented yourself to Mrs. Folashade S. Mojeolaoluwa as the bonafide owner of the scrap ship.”
In count three, they were alleged to have converted the N30m to themselves, the property derived directly from the proceeds of theft with the aim of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the money.
The offences are said to be contrary to Section 8 and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act and Section 15(1) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act LFN 2011, among others.
Two anticipated judgments from the Supreme Court made the waves over the weekend. One in Kano State and the other in Plateau State. The top court ruled that it was wrong to cancel about 165,000 votes with unsigned INEC materials. In the second, they upturned the appeal ruling over dubious primaries. If the top court gave us justice, has it brought us peace or clarity? Lawyers will have to contemplate this. Do we give justice to placate a crowd or the law?
In the Kano case, does it mean we can always accept unsigned material as authentic against the law? Will it not open a floodgate of false documents. Democracy is about the majority as it is about the law. Majority cannot stand without the law. It will breed anarchy. The law must always act in the interest of the majority. How to navigate this is the conundrum. It can engender confusion. Hence, Thoreau wrote, “The law never made anyone a whit more just.”
The Plateau matter highlights how we should define pre-election matters. The same Supreme Court dislodged a governor in Zamfara State for a similar matter in the previous election circle. In Bayelsa State, a deputy governorship candidate’s certificate annulled a ticket even though it was presumably a pre-election matter. Rotimi Amaechi was made governor over a primary miscue. Are we sure, justice is not becoming jaundiced or circumstantial in this country? Now, a cloud of illegitimacy hangs over Lawmakers in Plateau. Do we blame the constitution or judges? According to law, the appeal court is the Supreme Court on matters of the lawmakers. How do we fix this puzzle? Just a thought.
The High Court sitting at Yola, Adamawa State, presided over by Justice Kyanson Lawanson, has delivered a judgment in favour of a Jos-based mining company, Elipse Industries Limited, over a suit involving it and Ajia Global Fleet Concept Limited.
The plaintiff, Ajiya Global Fleet Concept now the Judgment Debtor, had dragged Elipse Industries Limited now the Judgment Creditor before the court for trespass, and declaration of title in respect of the disputed lands/the defendant’s mining site situate at Gidan Zuma, Sugu District, in Ganye Local Government Area of Adamawa State.
In its statement of claim, Ajiya Global Fleet Concept averred that it acquired the lands from the original owners for valuable consideration via a sale agreement executed on February 8, 2022, and therefore sought for declaration of title and restraining order against the Defendant/Judgment Creditor, its servants, agents, privies, or any other person by whatever name from further trespassing into the plaintiff’s land.
Conversely, to the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant, Elipse Industries, posited before the Court that in 2019, it was granted consent by the land owners with which it acquired a Mineral Title from the Federal Government to mine copper and manganese at Gidan Zuma, Sugu District, in Ganye Local Government Area.
According to the Defendant/Judgment Creditor, its license was approved after it submitted the requisite supporting documents and fulfilled all the requirements for exploration and acquired all legal rights, including an exploration license from the Nigeria Mining Cadastre Office (MCO).
The Defendant/Judgment Creditor argued that the plaintiff/Judgment Debtor emerged from nowhere with a license in respect of the same mining site hence overlapped on the existing licence of the Defendant/Judgment Creditor and sequel to a complain to the Ministry of Mines and Steel, Cadastre Abuja, the purported licence of the Judgment Debtor was recalled, withdrawn and cancelled.
