The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • N3.5b debt: Court freezes Oyo govt’s accounts in 10 banks

    N3.5b debt: Court freezes Oyo govt’s accounts in 10 banks

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja has issued an order attaching the accounts of the Oyo State Government in 10 commercial banks in the country.

    The order was issued by Justice A. O. Ebong in a ruling on a garnishee proceeding initiated by ex-council chiefs in Oyo State, sacked on May 29, 2019 by Governor Seyi Makinde, and who in 2021 got a N4,874,889,425.60 judgment against Makinde and other officials/agencies of the state.

    The other officials/agencies listed with Makinde as judgment debtors, by virtue of the May 7, 2021 judgment of the Supreme Court, are the Attorney General, Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs,  Accountant General of Oyo State, Speaker of the House of Assembly, House of Assembly and Oyo State Independent Electoral Commission (OYSIEC).

    The garnishee proceeding is intended by the ex-council chiefs, led by Bashorun Majeed Ajuwon, to recover the balance of N3,424,889,425.60 (N3.5b), which is outstanding from the actual judgment sum, from which Makinde paid only N1.5billion in 2022.

    What was outstanding in respect of the Supreme Court judgment was N3,374,889,425.60, but the Court of Appeal in Abuja added N50million, which it awarded as cost against Makinde and others in a judgment on December 8, dismissing their appeal.

    The banks in which Oyo State Government’s accounts are blocked are Zenith Bank, United Bank of Africa (UBA), Wema Bank, First Bank of Nigeria, Ecobank, Guaranty Trust Bank, Access Bank, Polaris Bank, Jaiz Bank and Union Bank.

    Justice Ebong, in the ruling delivered on December 15  on a motion marked: BW/M/85/2023, ordered the garnishees (the banks) to “file affidavits and attend this court on the next adjourned date to show cause why the garnishee orders nisi hereby granted should not be made absolute.”

    The judge awarded N300,000.00 as cost against the judgment debtors; ordered that a copy of the order be served on Makinde and others and adjourned till January 5 next year for hearing.

    On May 7, 2021 when the Supreme Court gave judgment, voiding Makinde’s sack of elected local government chairmen and councillors in Oyo State, the apex court gave similar judgment in respect of Katsina State and ordered both states to pay the salaries and allowances of the effected ex-council chiefs.

    Justice Ejembi Eko, who delivered the lead judgment in the Oyo State case, condemned the decision by Makinde to unlawfully sack the elected council chiefs before the end of their tenure.

    Read Also: Lagos, Ogun, five others named most viable states

    Justice Eko said: “I will not conclude this appeal without commenting on the disturbing ugly face of impunity displayed by the Governor of Oyo State on 29th May, 2019 which is tantamount to executive lawlessness, outright and vehemently condemned by this…

    “Local government chairman and councillors, being persons duly elected by the people cannot just be removed and their councils dissolved whimsically and arbitrarily by any other elected persons in clear abuse of their office and powers. It is not right in law and under the constitution to do that.”

    But, while the Katsina State Government has since paid its ex-council chiefs, who were unlawfully sacked, the Oyo State Government, under Makinde, has failed to pay the ex-council chiefs he sacked before the end of their tenure, and which sack the Supreme Court voided in its May 7, 2021 judgment in the appeal marked: SC/CV/556/2020.

    Lawyer to the ex-council chiefs, Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), had during a hearing in the appeal filed by Makinde and others before the Court of Appeal, Abuja, told the court that some of his clients have died, while others are suffering after they were unjustly sacked as elected council officials by Makinde, who he blamed for the delay in paying the judgment debt.

    In a court document, the ex-council chiefs said: “As at date, we have lost 26 of our members,  whose children are crying to the conscience of His Excellency (Makinde) for justice.

    “Obviously, if His Excellency (Makinde) had paid our money within the six months expressly pledged by the immediate past Attorney General on his behalf, our deceased colleagues would have had little money to attend to the sicknesses that took most of them away.”

  • Appeal Court decides Fintiri, Binani’s fate Monday

    Appeal Court decides Fintiri, Binani’s fate Monday

    Governor Ahmadu Fintiri of Adamawa State was upbeat Sunday as the state awaits the decision of the Court of Appeal on the case filed against him by his opponent in the last governorship election, Senator Aishatu Ahmed (Binani).

    Binani was equally hopeful as the Court of Appeal fixes Monday, December 18, to pronounce its judgement on the appeal that she filed as the state Governorship candidate of All Progressives Congress (APC) in the March 2023 governorship election.

    She is in court challenging the victory of Fintiri, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the election who was declared winner and has since remained the state governor.

    The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal which had earlier heard the case and reserved judgement, will on Monday deliver the judgement.

    Binani had gone to the Court of Appeal last month after the Adamawa State Governorship Electoral Petitions Tribunal in October 2023 dismissed Binani’s petition.

    Binani had gone to the tribunal asking it to void the declaration of Governor Fintiri by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as elected governor of Adamawa State.

    In her petition, Binani who listed INEC, Fintiri and PDP as the first, second, and third respondents respectively, asked the tribunal to annul the election over non-compliance with the Nigerian Electoral Act.

    The tribunal had however dismissed Binani’s petition and affirmed Fintiri’s victory, prompting Binani to go to the Court of Appeal.

    As the state awaits what the court will decide on Monday, Fintiri said Sunday that the Appeal Court sitting in Abuja will, like the Tribunal in Yola, dismiss Binani’s decision.

    “Just like the verdict at the Tribunal, we are very optimistic that the verdict of the Appeal Court will favour us,” Fintiri said through his Chief Press Secretary, Mr Humwashi Wonosikou.

    On her part, Binani urged her supporters to remain calm, saying, “I strongly believe the Court of Appeal will upturn the victory of PDP.”

  • N2.757m fraud: court grants husband bail, remands wife in custody

    N2.757m fraud: court grants husband bail, remands wife in custody

    Justice Mojisola Dada of an Ikeja Special Offences Court on Friday  granted bail to a businessman, Oriyomi Idowu, in the sum of N250 million.

    The wife, Ruth Idowu will however remain in custody as the court deferred till December 20 the hearing of her bail application.

    The couple is facing a 20 count charge offence brought against them by the Lagos zone of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The charges bordered on obtaining money by false pretence, money laundering, stealing, retention of stolen property, and forgery to the tune of N2,757,188,000.00

    The EFCC had arraigned the couple  on Tuesday, November 28, 2023, alongside three companies, Food Commodity Processing Enterprise, Bonway Food Processing Company Limited, Samee Idowu Company Limited and Farmex Integrated Companies Limited,  belonging to Ruth Idowu.

    The couple pleaded not guilty to the charges, prompting the court to adjourn till yesterday for hearing of their bail applications.

    During proceedings, James Alara, counsel for the wife, informed the court that he was withdrawing the earlier motion for the bail of his client, and replacing it with a new one, “due to the need to include the medical reports on the health status of the first defendant.

    EFCC’s prosecuting counsel, Bilikisu Buhari, however, responded that the prosecution had earlier opposed the application being withdrawn.

    Bikukusu said she only received the new application on December 11, 2023.

    “We responded to the one they are withdrawing and brought to us the new one on the 11th of December 2023, and we intend to respond to the first defendant’s new bail application,” she said.

    She explained further that the prosecution needed to authenticate the said medical reports attached to the new bail application.

    Alara thereafter prayed the court for a short adjournment for the court to hear the new bail application of his client, “because of the health of the first defendant.”

    Responding, Babatunde Ogala, (SAN), counsel for the husband who is the second defendant moved the bail application for his client.

    “We urge the court to discountenance the counter-affidavit of the prosecution and grant bail to the defendant on liberal terms, as the defendant has no prior criminal records and has never been charged before now.”

    Read Also: National Assembly commends Tinubu’s 4D Foreign Affairs Policy

    Ogala assured the defendant will not interfere with the case.

    He further argued that his client was granted administrative bail by the EFCC during investigations and “he never jumped bail granted him by the EFCC, and has shown that he is not a flight risk.

    Responding, Buhari moved the 15-paragraph counter-affidavit of the prosecution, adding that “bail is at the discretion of the court, and if the court is so inclined, we pray for terms that will ensure appearance in court”.

    Ruling on the bail application of the second defendant, Justice Dada granted bail in the sum of N250 million, with two sureties in like sum, who must show means of gainful employment and must agree to have a lien placed on their bank accounts. The defendant was also ordered to deposit his international passport with the Chief Registrar of the court.

    Justice Dada adjourned till December 20, 2023 for hearing of the bail application of the first defendant.

    She also adjourned the trial of the couple till January 10 and February 2, 2024.

    Count one reads: “That you Ruth Sameeha Idowu aka Loiry Ventures, Oriyomi Kabeer Idowu aka Yocli Ventures, Food Commodity Processing Enterprise, Bonway Food Processing Company Ltd, Samee Idowu Company Limited, Farmex Integrated Companies Limited between 31st of March 2022 and 17th of May 2023 in Lagos, conspired amongst yourselves by false pretence that you have a genuine Local Purchase Order (LPO) from various vendors and with intent to defraud, obtained from Creditpro Business Support Services Ltd the sum of N2,757,188,000.00.

    Another count reads: “that you Ruth Sameeha Idowu aka Loiry Ventures, Oriyomi Kabeer Idowu aka Yocli Ventures, Food Commodity Processing Enterprise, Bonway Food Processing Company Ltd, Samee Idowu Company Limited, Farmex Integrated Companies Limited sometime in 2023 in Lagos converted the sum of N10,000,000 to purchase a GLK Benz, purchase sum derived from converting the sum of N500,000,000 belonging to Creditpro Business Support Services to disguise the illegal origin of the funds.”

    Another count further reads: “that you Ruth Sameeha Idowu aka Loiry Ventures, Oriyomi Kabeer Idowu aka Yocli Ventures, Food Commodity Processing Enterprise, Bonway Food Processing Company Ltd, Samee Idowu Company Limited, Farmex Integrated Companies Limited sometime in 2023, dishonestly retained the sum of N936,619,876 in your UBA bank account, property of Creditpro Business Support services knowing same to be fund fraudulently obtained from Creditpro Business Support Services.”

  • ECOWAS court orders release of deposed Niger president

    ECOWAS court orders release of deposed Niger president

    The Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) on Friday ordered the immediate release of Mohamed Bazoum, Niger’s president who has been held captive since the coup that overthrew him on July 26, and that of his family.

    The Court “orders the defendant (the military authorities in Niamey, editor’s note) to release all the applicants immediately and unconditionally”, said the judge, who deliberated in Abuja.

    “The defendant has violated their right not to be arbitrarily detained”, he declared.

     The Court also asked that Mohamed Bazoum be reinstated in his position.

    “It is Mohamed Bazoum who represents the State of Niger”, he “remains President of the Republic”, the judge assured.

    Read Also: National Assembly commends Tinubu’s 4D Foreign Affairs Policy

     “There are constitutional rights that have been violated”, as well as “political rights”, he said.

     Mohamed Bazoum has been sequestered in his presidential residence with his wife Haziza and their son Salem, since he was overthrown by a coup d’état on July 26.

    In mid-September, the deposed president appealed to the ECOWAS Court of Justice for his release and the restoration of constitutional order in the country.

    The application filed by his lawyers cited the “arbitrary arrest” and “violation of the freedom of movement” of Mr. Bazoum, his wife, and their son.

    Bazoum has been held in detention since a July 26 coup.

  • Kogi: from ballot box to court

    Kogi: from ballot box to court

    • By Isah Ismail 

    One month after the governorship election in Kogi State, it appears that the dust is yet to settle over the outcome of the election. 

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Ahmed Usman Ododo, as the winner of the election ahead of his closest challenger and candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Murtala Yakubu Ajaka.

    Ordinarily, that declaration should have settled the matter, but given the nature of political contestations in Nigeria and the rancorous acrimony that characterised the largely ethnicised governorship election in Kogi state, it is safe to assume that those who lost the election would need more than time to get over the pain of defeat.

    Political gladiators and their parties may have now shifted their battle to the courtroom, beginning with the Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Lokoja, which is the court of first instance in this case.

    The decision of Ajaka, to file a petition before the tribunal (whether that was within the constitutionaly allowed timeframe is a different matter) should be applauded as it is far better than resorting to self-help, given all the controversies arising from the election.

    The SDP candidate appeared on live television while the electoral process was yet to be concluded to declare that he was not going to challenge the outcome of the November 11 gelection in court, thus conceding defeat in the contest ab initio. 

    However, Ajaka suddenly announced that he was headed to the tribunal. The SDP candidate embarked on his judicial expedition which is well within his rights as a party in the election.

    Since the tribunal began sitting in Lokoja before it was relocated to Abuja, there were several provocations by political actors that are far from desirable, especially among citizens genuinely concerned about the peace and stability of Kogi state. Amidts claims and counter-claims by members of the APC and the SDP over procedures and processes leading to the filing of election petition at the tribunal, there were heated exchanges by party supporters, prompting interventions by law enforcement agents.

    Given the highly charged political atmosphere before, during and after the election, one would expect all parties, including the judiciary, to exercise absolute caution in dealing with any piece of material deemed consequential in the electoral process.

    A lawyer has called on the Federal Government to intervene in a matter purportedly before the court. This is completely partisan, extra-judicial and crassly divisive.

    His line of argument is outlandish and sensational apart from feeding the spectre of ethnic jingoism that has taken over politics in the state.

    i With his vituperations, it is clear that he wants the people of Kogi state to go to war over an election that has been won and lost.

    Perhaps, more despicable is the position of the public officer whose infamous role has raised doubts over the entire process of the election petition and the good intention of the election petitions tribunal. His dodgy and grossly unprofessional conduct is a text book reference in judicial corruption in Nigeria.

    How do you explain that the public officer became so partisan, aggressively compromised and compulsively egoistic that he decended so low to receive an election petition from a political party in his hotel room?

    Read Also: Kaduna bombing: Tinubu’s daughter visits victims, donates N5m to injured survivors

    How will the petition he claimed to have received by 8.30 in the morning of the 1st of December, 2023 again in his hotel room, still be in his car in the evening of the  3rd of December, 2023?

    How does a petition that should be submitted through the court registry be found in his car?

    How could he be the one to be heading to the court on the 3rd of December, 2023 purportedly to submit the petition to the court registry on behalf of the SDP and three other political parties?

    Who are the persons responsible for filing petitions of the three other political parties whose petitions he allegedly also received?

    Why is a lawyer desperately defending the tribunal for which he is not a member and why is he daring to create tension in one of Nigeria’s most peaceful states?

    Nigerians and the international community should take note of the sinister plot by corrupt elements to set Kogi State on fire in their nefarious attempt to push through the petition of the SDP allegedly filed out of time on the 4th of December,2023 and for which notice is yet to be served on any of the parties named as respondents as at today.

    •Isah Ismail, a concerned citizen of Kogi State writes from Lokoja.

  • Court costs as deterrent

    Court costs as deterrent

    The Court of Appeal in ASIMS (Nig) Ltd vs Lower-Benue River Basin Dev. Authority (2002) F.W.L.R. p.111, para H, per Muhammad JCA, held: “Costs are a pecuniary allowance made to the successful party and recoverable from the losing party for his expenses in prosecuting or defending an action or a distinct proceeding within an action.” Recently, Justice Robin Knowles of the Business and Property Court of England and Wales directed Process & Industrial Development (P&ID) which earlier gamed a dubious arbitral award against Nigeria to pay 20 million pounds in damages and compensation in favour of the federal government.  

    At home, the Supreme Court awarded a cost of N40 million against Mike Ozekhome, SAN, in a case filed on behalf of Emeka Ihedioha, against Governor Hope Uzodimma and other respondents. Ihedioha was removed in 2019 by the apex court after returning the cancelled votes of Hope Uzodimma in the election. Learned counsel, Ozekhome had approached the court on the premise that the Supreme Court had earlier found that the governorship candidate of AA party, Uche Nwosu, was also the candidate of APC that sponsored Uzodimma.

    Ozekhome therefore contended that if Uche Nwosu was the valid candidate of APC, then Uzodimma contested without a party, in flagrant disobedience of the Electoral Act. When the apex court sought to redirect the mind of the SAN, that what he is contending was an election petition, he insisted on pushing ahead with his application, resulting in the humongous cost awarded against him.

    Justice Tijanni Abubakar held: “This is a calculated attempt to re-litigate the matter. The application is frivolous and vexatious. It is totally lacking in merit. Counsel for the applicant is hereby ordered to pay N40 million to the listed parties in the matter.”

    Read Also: Tinubu to Army: don’t be partisan, be vigilant to protect democracy

    For the P&ID case, the court found that the firm paid bribes to Nigerian officials to draft the contract agreement. The court also found that the company illegally obtained privileged legal documents belonging to Nigeria during the arbitration hearing. And furthermore, there were banking records showing fund transfers from New York to Nigerian government officials, by entities allegedly affiliated with P&ID, and large unexplained cash withdrawals by P&ID affiliated entities around the period the contract was signed. Nigeria showed by inference that from the conception to the arbitral award, P&ID were engaged in a scam to swindle Nigeria of huge sums, nearing $11.4 billion on account of interest.

    It is interesting that not only did the court award costs against P&ID, it first set aside the award and declared it a nullity. The ability to set aside an award is not a mean achievement. In Commerce Assurance Ltd vs Alhaji Buraimoh Alli (1992) 1 NSCC 556 (SC) the apex court held: “A person who has submitted to an arbitration cannot turn to the court to ask it to review the award when he believes it is too high.” Again in BSG Energy Holdings Ltd & 4 Ors vs Spears & 3 Ors (2013) 4 CLRN 49 (CA) 68-77, the Court held: “A fortiori, the term “arbitration award” denotes a contractual provision mandating arbitration of disputes regarding the contracting parties’ (respectively) rights, duties and liabilities”.

    The court went further to say “Most interestingly, the fundamental object of an arbitration clause is to avoid litigation. Hence, the veritable legal maxims – (i) Arbit Ramentum Aequum Tribuit Cuique Suum – A just arbitration renders to each his own; (ii) Arbitrium Est Judicium – An arbitral award is a judgment.” The present government must watch out for the arbitral clauses in the international agreements that has been entered into on behalf of the country by previous administrations. It should indeed call for a review of the contracts, considering that once parties subscribe to arbitration as the means to settle disputes that may arise, the court are foreclosed from interfering, except in cases like the P&ID case where a party adduced evidence of fraud.

    The fact of finality of arbitral award was also made in Ebokan vs Ekwenibe & Sons Trading Co. (2001) 2NWLR (Pt 696) 32 per Galadima JCA: “Once an award had been made and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the proceedings or even the time limit for challenging it had expired the award become final and binding.” In the Nigerian case against P&ID, the court when called upon to determine the legitimacy of the arbitral award found that there are many issues intrinsically wrong with the award, which made the court to set it aside and award costs against the company.

    When a party a party asks for costs in a proceeding, the judge is enjoined to act judicially and judiciously, and exercise his discretion in determining whether the party is entitled to cost. The court is also entitled to determine the cost due and payable by the party. Ordinarily by virtue of section 241(2)(c) there is no right of appeal against an award of cost by the courts. In essence, in exercise of its discretionary powers, the courts can use costs to deal with a party who brings frivolous and vexatious applications to annoy the other party or waste the time of the court.

    In Eneh vs N.D.I.C (2019) All FWLR, pt. 982, at p. 1069, the Supreme Court held “A party who seeks to invoke the discretionary powers of court has the duty of providing the necessary material on which basis the discretion is to be exercised in his favour.” With respect to the costs awarded against learned silk, Ozekhome, some may ask whether such humongous cost was demanded by the respondents in whose favour it was made, or did the court act suo motu? Such poser would be pertinent considering that the court is not a father Christmas even when in the season of Christmas.

    But it is significant that before slamming the cost against the learned counsel, the court made spirited effort to enable Ozekhome justify that the petition brought before the court was not frivolous. It was reported that learned Justice Iyang Okoro gave hints to the learned counsel that the petition is frivolous, vexatious and annoying not only to the respondents but to the court, but the learned silk insisted that his petition was meritorious and should be heard. In N.P.A.S.E vs Fasel Services Ltd (2002) F.W.L.R. Pt 97, p. 74, the Court of Appeal elucidated: “The rule of audi alteram partem posits that at least counsel in the matter should have been allowed to address the court on the point raised by the court suo motu before the decision is taken on it.”         

    The days ahead will determine whether the humongous cost awarded against the learned silk, Ozekhome and P&ID will deter litigants and their counsels from bringing petitions which the court may consider frivolous and vexatious or foreign from entities gaming Nigeria?     

  • Kano Govt denies court froze 24 bank accounts

    Kano Govt denies court froze 24 bank accounts

    The Kano State Government says it has blocked leakages that might lead to the misuse of public funds by those in authority in the state.

    Governor Abba Yusuf gave this hint yesterday at the commemoration of the 2023 International Anti-Corruption Day in Kano.

    Represented by Alhaji Aminu Gwarzo, his deputy, Yusuf explained that some of the giant strides taken by the state government towards ensuring a better life for the people of the state are evident to the fact that it does not tolerate corruption.

    The event, hosted by the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission (PCACC), the governor declared that his administration has zero tolerance for corruption.

    Read Also: Gov joins military operation to rescue abducted civilian

    He explained that the government has resumed payment of salaries to civil servants without unnecessary deductions introduced by his immediate predecessor.

    Yusuf added that public properties illegally acquired by individuals during the last administration have been recovered and put to public use, giving an example of the Hasiya Bayero Paediatric Hospital.

    He said the government has also prioritised the creation of anti-corruption units in government agencies while ensuring it pays the outstanding N6 billion pensions and gratuities of retirees neglected by his immediate predecessor.

    Earlier, the Chairman of the state anti-graft agency, Mr Muhyi Rimingado, described the commission as the most vibrant subnational anti-graft agency in the country.

    He explained that the day is commemorated with the view of mobilising the public towards fighting corruption.

  • P & ID: London Court awards £20 million costs in Nigeria’s favour

    P & ID: London Court awards £20 million costs in Nigeria’s favour

    Nigeria has recorded a fresh legal victory over the Irish firm, Process & Industrial Developments (P&ID), after a London court awarded £20 million in damages and compensation in favour of the federal government.

    Justice Robin Knowles of the Business and Property Court of England and Wales  directed the firm to pay,within 28 days, the costs which Nigeria applied for to defray its legal fees.

    The court had, on October 23,upturned an  $11 billion judgment debt which P & ID wanted enforced against Nigeria.

    In his final pronouncement on the case on Friday Knowles rejected a proposal by the firm to pay the costs in naira.

    He also dismissed in its entirety the judgement debt which had been awarded against Nigeria by an arbitration tribunal.

    Counsel to Nigeria,invoking the common law principle of “fraud unravels all” had argued that the award be set aside in its entirety.

    However,P & ID applied to the court to appeal the October judgement.

    The  tribunal  first issued a $6.6billion arbitration award against Nigeria in January 2017 after the firm accused the Federal Government of reneging on an alleged   2010 contract  with  the Ministry of Petroleum Resources to  construct and operate a new gas processing facility in Calabar.

    The award,according to P&ID lawyers claim, had  grown to $11.4 billion on account of  interest.

    Nigeria subsequently approached the  Business and Property Court praying it to  dismiss the award.

    The court upheld Nigeria’s prayers and said the firm actually paid Nigerian officials to draft the contract agreement.

    It also found that P&ID was illegally in possession of Nigeria’s privileged legal documents during  the arbitration  hearings.

    Read Also: 17 years after, lack of census has created information vacuum for Nigeria – NPC

    Nigeria    was able to provide  the court with  banking records from New York showing fund transfers to Nigerian government officials by  entities allegedly affiliated with P&ID, as well as evidence of large, unexplained cash withdrawals from a P&ID affiliated entity’s Nigerian bank account around the time the contract was signed.

    Nigeria,according to the terms of the purported contract, was to supply natural gas  at no cost to P&ID’s facility while the company would construct and operate the facility.

    The  company was to  process the gas for the purpose of  removing  natural gas liquids and return lean gas to Nigeria at no cost.

    The understanding was that the lean gas so supplied would  be suitable for use in power generation and other purposes.

    Nigeria insisted that the  contract was based on an unsolicited proposal presented by P&ID.

    It also said no tender was conducted in respect of the project and the company even had no experience or assets in the gas sector to handle a contract of that magnitude.

  • N’Delta youths fault A’Court’s verdict on Kano, Plateau, Zamfara guber disputes

    N’Delta youths fault A’Court’s verdict on Kano, Plateau, Zamfara guber disputes

    The Niger Delta Youth Congress (NDYC) on Saturday, December 9, faulted the decisions of the Court of Appeal on the governorship disputes in Plateau, Kano and Zamfara states.

    The youths, which cited verdicts on governorship elections in Kano, Plateau and Zamfara states, said discriminatory application of legal standards between the North and other regions, signify a broader conspiracy aimed at debilitating and fragmenting the region.

    NDYC coordinator, Comrade Israel Uwejeyan, in a statement, implored stakeholders to prioritize the restoration of coherence and integrity to the electoral process.

    He said: “The prevailing uncertainties within the judiciary pose a substantial risk, evident in the disparate rulings of the Appellate Court in states like Kano, Plateau, and Zamfara.

    “The ostensible divergence in judicial interpretations has cast a pall of uncertainty upon the electoral landscape, compelling the vigilant attention of our discerning youth constituency.

    “It is imperative to underscore our unwavering commitment to the principles of democracy, justice, and the rule of law, which form the bedrock of our societal fabric.

    “The Byzantine nature of the legal labyrinth within which these electoral contests find themselves necessitates a nuanced and comprehensive analysis.

    “The cacophony of legal postulations and discordant rulings has sown the seeds of doubt within the public psyche, thereby impinging upon the sanctity and integrity of the electoral process.”

    NDYC said the appellate court ought to have dispensed verdicts imbued with unassailable coherence and consistency, to boost the confidence of the people in the judiciary.

    He added: “In the Kano case, the Appellate Court’s ruling on Abba v APC raises questions regarding the court’s jurisdiction in pre-election matters. The well-established electoral jurisprudence principle that designates pre-election matters exclusively to the Pre-Election Court finds support in various legal authorities, including the Supreme Court’s stance in Peter Obi v INEC. Regrettably, the Appellate Court’s departure from these principles in the Abba case necessitates correction by the Supreme Court, the bastion of justice.

    “This deviation jeopardizes the purposeful categorization of election matters into pre and post-election, undermining legal certainty and sowing unprecedented confusion in electoral litigation. Allowing such a ruling to endure could unravel our electoral jurisprudence, counterproductive to the system. While ensuring political parties adhere to electoral guidelines is vital, overturning an entire election in Kano raises concerns about the democratic process’s legitimacy. This ruling arguably infringes upon people’s right to choose leaders, excessively empowering the judiciary. The situation underscores the imperative of balancing the rule of law with the democratic will of the people.

    “Moreover, the disparities between the court’s oral judgment and the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Kano governorship election ruling cast doubt on the judiciary’s transparency and integrity. Such inconsistencies erode public trust, exacerbating skepticism and speculation.

    Read Also: What I learnt from Kogi Gov poll, by Dino Melaye

    “The Appellate Court’s endorsement of annulling 166,000 votes in Kano, citing irregularities and non-compliance, raises questions about judgment consistency. Contradicting its ruling in Governor Adeleke’s case, where similar irregularities didn’t lead to vote nullification, undermines equal treatment before the law, fueling doubts about the court’s impartiality.

    “The identified discrepancies and contradictions in the Appellate Court’s rulings pose profound threats to Nigeria’s democratic system. They undermine equal treatment under the law, erode public trust, foment political instability, and create a fertile ground for social unrest. The apparent targeting of volatile states like Kano, Plateau, and Zamfara hints at a deliberate effort to foment regional crises, potentially escalating to national conflicts.

    “The current trajectory of Nigeria’s judiciary presents complications and unforeseen consequences. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu must act decisively to avert anarchy and bloodshed.”

    It, however, called on the Supreme Court to address the anomalies by ensuring the will of the people is not truncated.

    The group said: “The Supreme Court’s critical review of these controversial decisions as the apex temple of Justice is essential to salvage the dwindling integrity of the judiciary. Failure to address these issues promptly could jeopardize Nigeria’s stability and reputation, potentially leading to dire consequences such as anarchy and bloodshed. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the President must act decisively to avert anarchy.

    “It is paramount to emphasize that the ramifications of these discordant verdicts extend beyond the confines of the courtroom; they reverberate through the very sinews of our democratic framework.

    “In conclusion, alerting the federal government and the international community to the potential consequences of inaction is crucial.”

  • Court freezes 24 Kano Govt accounts over N30bn Compensation Dispute

    Court freezes 24 Kano Govt accounts over N30bn Compensation Dispute

    In a recent development, the Federal High Court in Abuja has issued a garnishee order, freezing a total of 24 bank accounts belonging to the Kano State Government.

    This order was granted in response to a suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of Masalachi Eid Shop Owners and Traders Association.

    The association sought compensation for the demolition of their shops, which they deemed illegal and unjust.

    Justice I. E. Ekwo, presiding over the case, delivered the ruling on November 28, 2023, affirming the attachment of funds totaling N30 billion.

    According to the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the ruling signed by the Registrar, Chioma Chijioke, the action is aimed at satisfying the judgment in favour of the shop owners, following the alleged illegal demolition carried out by the state in June 2023.

    Read Also: Court orders Gov Bello to pay SDP’s candidate N500m

    In the court order, Justice Ekwo specified, “A garnishee order Nisi is hereby made attaching the funds (present and future) of Kano State Government, Kano State Urban Planning and Development Authority, KNUPDA, and Attorney General of Kano State… to the tune of N30 billion in satisfaction of the judgment.”

    Moreover, the court has mandated the garnishees to appear before it and provide cause, if any, against the order Nisi being made absolute. The Judge also stipulated that the judgment creditors should serve the defendants and Garnishees at least 14 days prior to the next hearing, scheduled for 18th January, 2024.

    This ruling comes subsequent to an earlier judgment by the Federal High Court in Kano, where the shop owners were awarded N30 billion as compensation for the demolition of their shops.

    The frozen accounts span across 24 banks.