The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa

  • Restriction of movement during elections illegal – Adegboruwa

    Activist-lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa has said there is no legal basis to restrict movement during elections.

    He said cited a Federal High Court judgment, which nullified the restriction of movement during environmental sanitation, saying the verdict’s principles ought to apply during elections.

    Adegboruwa recalled the Acting Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Mohammed Adamu had announced that there would restriction of human and vehicular movements for 12 hours from 6am to 6pm due to the elections, which were later postponed.

    He said it was beyond the IGP’s powers to forcefully keep people at home because of elections.

    According to him, there is no law in force in Nigeria authorizing such unlawful restriction of movement.

    “The Federal High Court had occasion to pronounce on a similar illegal directive in the case of Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, Esq. v. Inspector-General of Police & 5 others in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1690/2014.

    “In that case, the applicant, a legal practitioner, was on his way to honour an invitation as a guest speaker of Channels Television for an early morning programme on June 29, 2013, being the last Saturday of the month.

    “He was accosted by policemen and LASTMA officials at the Ketu end of the Third Mainland Bridge, where the road had been barricaded on account of some compulsory three-hour environmental sanitation programme declared by the Lagos State Government.

    “The applicant was denied free movement and was arrested and detained briefly but later released.

    “Being dissatisfied with the action of the policemen, the applicant instituted an action at the Federal High Court to challenge his arrest and denial of his right to move around,” the senior lawyer said.

    Read Also: Elections: APC UK wants INEC reviewed, reformed

    According to him, in striking down “this odious practice”, Justice Mohammed Idris (now of the Court of Appeal), held that restriction of movement on account of environmental sanitation was illegal.

    The judge held: “Consequently, the restriction imposed on the applicant and other peace loving residents of Lagos State during the environmental sanitation day without a law prescribing such restrictions is unjustifiable and a gross infringement of the right to personal liberty and movement of the Applicant and the court so holds.

    “Everyone high or low must be prepared to justify his acts by a reference to some statute or common law power which authorises him to act precisely in the way in which he claims he can act.

    “Superior orders or state necessity are not defence to an action otherwise illegal.”

    Adegboruwa said the IGP did not appeal against the judgment, “yet he proceeded to hold people down at home on February 16, 2019, contrary to the express order of injunction granted by the court in this case against any repeated illegal practice of keeping citizens indoors.”

    “We will, therefore not condone or agree with any attempt to restrict people’s movement illegally, on February 23, 2019 or indeed any other day, by reason of elections,” Adegboruwa added.

  • Lawyers: Poll shift lawful but damages INEC’s credibility

     

    Lawyers on Saturday affirmed the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to reschedule elections but noted the Commission damaged its credibility with how it shifted presidential and national assembly polls.

    Chief Niyi Akintola SAN observed the Electoral Act permitted the Commission to make polls adjustments in the national interest.

    Section 26(1) of the Electoral 2010 (As Amended), says: “Where a date has been appointed for the holding of an election, and there is reason to believe that a serious breach of the peace is likely to occur if the election is proceeded with on that date, or it is impossible to conduct the elections as a result of natural disasters or other emergencies, the Commission may postpone the election and shall in respect of the area, or areas concerned, appoint another date for the holding of the postponed election, provided that such reason for the postponement is cogent and verifiable.”

    Akintola said: “INEC has powers to postpone polls. But the sad thing about this postponement is that it waited till very late at night, an unholy hour, disrupting the economy, the political lifeline of the country, the social traffic of the country.

    “To make matters worse, INEC National Commissioner in charge of Information and Voter Education, Mr. Festus Okoye, denied around midnight that there was any postponement.

    “People have travelled far and wide, Mr President travelled to his state, the Vice President had travelled. Practically everyone that is somebody had travelled back to their constituencies.

    “See what it has caused the country? Yet there was no apology from INEC. It’s a big disappointment and has cast doubt on the credibility of the election.”

    READ ALSO: Why we postponed polls, by INEC

    He urged INEC to learn from its mistakes and up its game.

    Activist-lawyer Ebun-olu Adegboruwa noted that notwithstanding INEC’s powers, the postponement was “totally unacceptable.”

    He invited the national assembly to audit and probe INEC through a Commission of Inquiry.

    Adegboruwa said: “The postponement has unwittingly eroded the credibility of the elections and the capacity of INEC, in spite of the huge resources committed to it and the length of time available for planning and logistics.”

    He argued: “INEC should not have waited till the dying minutes before announcing the postponement, since it was well aware of all its handicaps long before now.”

    The lawyer appealed to “all Nigerians to be patient and give room for a proper election at the times rescheduled for it by INEC. No sacrifice should be too great for us as a people to get us to the destination of our dreams.”

  • Court dismisses Tompolo’s suit seeking to void ACJA sections

    Court dismisses Tompolo’s suit seeking to void ACJA sections

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Wednesday dismissed a suit by a former Niger Delta militant leader, Government Ekpemupolo (aka Tompolo).

    Tompolo, who was declared wanted last February 12, was charged with an alleged N45.9 billion fraud.

    He sought an order “nullifying, voiding, striking down and expunging sections 221 and 306 from the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 to the extent of their inconsistency with the 1999 Constitution.”

    Through his lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, he said the sections were unconstitutional because they prevent a court from entertaining any objection to a criminal charge or an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal.

    Section 221 says: “Objections shall not be taken or entertained during proceedings or trial on the ground of an imperfect or erroneous charge.”

    Section 306 says: “An application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before a court shall not be entertained.”

    But, Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami (SAN) said the suit was an abuse of court process and should be dismissed.

    He said a warrant of arrest was issued for Tompolo’s arrest only when he failed to appear in court to answer to criminal charges against him.

    “He failed and bluntly refused to present himself in court, thus leaving the court with no other option but to take measures at compelling him to appear,” AGF said.

    Malami said sections 221 and 306 of the ACJA do not infringe on Tompolo’s rights to fair hearing.

    The sections, he said, were made to ensure speedy and efficient justice delivery and prevent “malicious delays and stalling of criminal cases by parties employing frivolous and time wasting tactics to impede the course of justice.”

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which was also joined in the suit, said Tompolo was “a fugitive in law”, and so, should not be allowed to seek redress in court until he submits himself for trial.

    It argued that given the materials placed before the court, it was clear that Tompolo was in contempt of the order of Justice Ibrahim Buba, who had earlier compelled his attendance in court to answer to charges preferred against him.

    EFCC described the application as an abuse of court process, since it was trite that a party who was in contempt of court cannot seek redress.

    He urged the court to throw out the application for lacking in merit.

    Justice Mojisola Olatoregun-Ishola held that the Supreme Court had affirmed that whether a charge was defective or not, an accused person was bound to first take his plea.

    The judge said the apex court had confirmed the validity of the ACJA sections, which were designed to enhance speedy criminal justice administration.

    She said it was in the defendant’s interest for the case be decided quickly, which the law was designed to achieve.

    She dismissed Tompolo’s suit but awarded no cost.

    Adegboruwa told our correspondent that Tompolo would appeal the judgment.

    “Of course we’ll appeal,” he said.

     

  • Lagos court fixes June 19 for judgment in Tompolo’s suit against IGP, EFCC

    Lagos court fixes June 19 for judgment in Tompolo’s suit against IGP, EFCC

    A Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday fixed June 19 to deliver judgment in a suit filed by Chief Government Ekpemulopo, alias Tompolo, seeking the enforcement of his rights.

    Tompolo, who had been declared wanted since Feb. 12, 2016 by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), is seeking court’s protection against prosecution over an alleged N45.9 billion fraud.
    Joined as respondents in the suit are the Inspector-General of Police, the Chief of Army Staff, the EFCC, the Chief of Naval Staff and the Chief of Air Staff.
    On Thursday, Justice Mojisola Olatoregun reserved judgment in the suit after hearing arguments from counsel.
    Adopting his originating processes, counsel to the first and second respondents, Mr T.A Mofolu, argued that the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, provides for speedy criminal trials.
    According to him,  the law provides that an accused has a right of appeal where he is not at par with the decision of a court.

    He said in this case the respondent was aware of an appeal filed by the applicant.
    He also objected to the attachment of a newspaper publication in the applicant’s further affidavit dated June 16, 2016 on the grounds that such piece of evidence was secondary and ought to be certified at the National library.

    Mofolu, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the application for lack of merit.

    But counsel to the EFCC, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, submitted that the applicant in question was a “fugitive” in law and should not be allowed to seek redress from the court until he submitted himself for trial.

    He argued that given the materials placed before the court, it was clear that the applicant was s in clear contempt of the order of Justice Ibrahim Buba, who had earlier compelled his attendance in court to answer charges preferred against him.

    Oyedepo described the application as an abuse of court process, saying “it is trite that a party who is in contempt of court cannot seek redress” and urged  the court to throw out the application for lack of merit.

    He said in his originating processes, the applicant had “ridiculously and in contradiction of his claims” annexed a copy of his notice of appeal signed personally by him.
    “If the applicant feigns ignorance of the charge, how then was he able to brief his counsel on the charge for an appeal to be filed.

    “The issue leading to the preferring of a criminal charge against the applicant borders on fraud in which billions of naira was lost by the Federal government.”
    He, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the application and award “heavy” costs against the applicant for abusing the court’s process.

    In response to the arguments of respondent’s counsels, Tompolo’s lawyer, Mr Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, brought his application pursuant to the provisions of the African Charter of Human rights, the 1999 constitution, as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

    He argued that in criminal law service of a charge was personal and could not be presumed, adding that there is no evidence before the court showing that exhibit A (charge) was served on the applicant.

    On the issue of contempt, Adegboruwa submitted that the applicant could not be cited for contempt, adding that since the beginning of the proceedings, the applicant cannot be said to have breached any court order.

    He insisted that it was the constitutional right of the applicant to apply to court for the enforcement of his rights and urged the court to uphold it.

    After listening to the submissions of counsel, Justice Olatoregun fixed June 19 for judgment.

    The EFCC had filed a 40-count charge against Tompolo and nine others before Justice Ibrahim Buba of the same court.

    Following the absence of  Tompolo in court since his arraignment, Justice Buba had  issued a bench warrant for his arrest and production in court.

    The court had also on Feb. 19, 2014, ordered a forfeiture of property belonging to Tompolo after an application was moved to that effect by the EFCC.

    Justice Buba had held that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 empowers the court to seize properties of an accused who refused to face trial.

    The court recalled that though Tompolo refused to appear in court, he briefed his lawyers and through them sought to vacate the order of his arrest.

    Consequently, he ordered forfeiture of properties belonging to Tompolo pending when appears in court.

    Property affected by the forfeiture order included a River Crew Change Boat named MUHA – 15, the property known as “Tompolo Dockyard”, and the property known as “Tompolo Yard”, at the end of Chevron Clinic Road, next to Next Oil, Edjeba, Warri.
    Others are the Diving School at Kurutie at Escravos River, the property known as “Tompolo House” at Oporaza Town, and any other property discovered by the EFCC moveable and immovable.
    Meanwhile, Tompolo is seeking an order restraining the respondents from further proceeding with the charges slammed on him.

    Tompolo contends that Sections 221 and 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 which prohibit him from seeking a stay of proceedings in his trial infringed on his constitutional rights to fair hearing.

    Tompolo also wants the court not to only nullify Sections 221 and 306 of the ACJA but to also restrain the respondents from invoking  the sections of the law against him.

    He insists that Sections 221 and 306 were in conflict with Section 36 of the Constitution which guarantees his right to fair hearing.

  • Court dismisses suit challenging Magu’s position as EFCC chief

    A Federal High Court on Monday in Lagos struck out a suit challenging the position of Mr. Ibrahim Magu as Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    A rights activist, Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, had filed the suit, seeking an order to restrain Magu from holding the office in acting capacity.

    Adegboruwa is also asking the Senate not to entertain any further request for the confirmation of Magu as chairman of EFCC.

    The defendants in the suit are the Senate, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the EFCC and Magu.

    At the resumed hearing Justice Mojisola Olatoregun, struck out the suit, following Adegboruwa’s application to withdraw the suit.

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and counsel to the applicant, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, while addressing the court, said his client had decided to discontinue with the case.

    Oyetibo said that soon after he took over the case, he had to convince the applicant on the need to withdraw the case to encourage Magu in his current war against corruption

    “There is need to give Magu the opportunity to continue the anti-corruption campaign of the present administration and since this case may affect his confirmation, it is better to discontinue it,” he stated.

    Confirming Oyetibo’s application, Adegboruwa maintained that he was persuaded by his counsel, to withdraw the suit on the grounds that Magu would do a good job in his approach to the anti-corruption drive of the administration.

    The defence counsel, Mr. Wahab Shittu, who did not oppose the application for withdrawal, argued that the move would boost the anti-corruption war.

  • Prosecutor’s absence stalls Adegboruwa’s trial

    The absence of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) prosecutor on Monday stalled the trial of activist-lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa.

    The lawyer was arraigned at the Federal High Court in Lagos for allegedly dealing in a seized property.

    The commission, in a January 26 letter to the court’s Registrar, sought an adjournment because its prosecution counsel, I. A. Mohammed, was before another judge of the Lagos State High Court in Ikeja for the trial of Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia.

    “In the circumstance, we crave the Honourable Court’s indulgence to vacate January 30, 2017 and have the matter adjourned to the already pre-fixed dates of 31st day of January, 2017. We regret any inconveniences this application may cause the Honourable Court and the defendant’s counsel,” EFCC wrote.

    It was learnt that contrary to reports that the judge was absent, Justice Oluremi Oguntoyinbo was in court and ready to take the case before travelling for another assignment outside Lagos.

    Adegboruwa was arraigned under Section 32 (1) of the EFCC Establishment Act 2004 which provides that “any person who, without due authorisation by the Commission, deals with, sells or otherwise disposes of any property or assets which is the subject of an attachment, interim order or final order, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of five years without the option of a fine.”

    The commission said Adegboruwa and Jonathan Udeagbala, said to be at large, committed the alleged offence on August 13, 2013 in Lagos.

    The defendant allegedly conspired to lease the property at House 105, NICON Town Estate, Lekki.

    Adegboruwa pleaded not guilty to the charge in which EFCC said the property was a “subject of interim orders of attachment made by Justice Christopher Balogun of the Lagos State High Court” on June 18, 2012.

    The case has been fixed for February 24.

  • Adegboruwa to court: stop Buhari from replacing Onnoghen

    Adegboruwa to court: stop Buhari from replacing Onnoghen

    Human rights lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa on Tuesday sued President Muhammadu Buhari at the Federal High Court in Lagos over the non-confirmation of Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen.
    Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo, the Senate, the National Judicial Council, Justice Onnoghen and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami (SAN) are the other defendants.
    Adegboruwa is asking the court to direct the President, and in his absence the Vice-President, to forward Justice Onnoghen’s name to the Senate for confirmation as CJN forthwith.
    Walter OnnoghenHe is also praying for an order of injunction restraining the President and the Vice-President from appointing another candidate as CJN apart from Justice Onnoghen, who is the most senior justice of the Supreme Court.
    Adegboruwa wants the court to stop the Senate from accepting, entertaining, deliberating upon or considering the nomination of any other candidate that may be forwarded to it by the President or the Vice-President.
    He sought an order of injunction to restrain the National Judicial Council (NJC) from entertaining any request to consider another candidate for the office of CJN apart from Onnoghen who has already been selected.
    The lawyer is seeking a declaration that under section 292 (i) (a) of the 1999 Constitution, the failure to forward Onoghen’s name to the Senate for confirmation amounts to his compulsory retirement in a manner that is inconsistent with the due process of law and is, therefore, unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
    He also wants the court to hold that by virtue of section 153(1), Paragraph 21 of the Third Schedule and section 231 (1-5) of the Constitution, the NJC is the only body authorised by law to select and recommend any candidate for appointment as CJN.
    Among others, he wants the court to hold that Onoghen is the fit and proper person to be appointed as the CJN upon his selection and recommendation by the NJC.
    No date has been fixed for the hearing.

  • Adegboruwa writes Senate, AGF over Magu’s status

    Lagos lawyer and activist, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, on Thursday wrote the Senate President, Bukola Saraki and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mahmud Malami (SAN), seeking clarification on the status of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) chairman, Ibrahim Magu.

    In the letter to Saraki, Adegboruwa is demanding official clarification of Senate’s position on Magu’s status.

    He also asked for the record of Senate’s proceeding of December 15 when the upper legislative chamber declined to confirm Magu.

    Adegboruwa asked Malami to confirm Magu’s status at EFCC and the capacity he currently functions.

    Both requests, Adegboruwa said, were in line with Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act, which guarantees the right of any citizen to have access to information from any public official on any matter.

    Adegboruwa said he expects to receive their responses in seven days as stated under section 4 of the FOI Act.

  • Tompolo to judge: Refer my case to Appeal Court

    Tompolo to judge: Refer my case to Appeal Court

    Wanted ex-Niger Delta militant leader, Chief Government Ekpemupolo (alias Tompolo), on Tuesday asked Justice Mojisola Olatoregun-Ishola of the Federal High Court in Lagos to refer his case to the Court of Appeal for determination.
    Tompolo is seeking an order “nullifying, voiding, striking down and expunging sections 221 and 306 from the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 to the extent of their inconsistency with the 1999 Constitution.”
    The applicant said the issues raised in his suit were novel. According to him, since there is no precedent, it would be better for the Court of Appeal to determine the case as any decision reached on the case“would affect many criminal and civil cases all over Nigeria where the ACJA is being applied.”
    In a supporting affidavit deposed to by Oladapo Sofola, Tompolo said: “A decision of this court on these issues will eventually be submitted to the Court of Appeal for review. Valuable time and resources will be saved if these issues are henceforth referred by this honourable court to the Court of Appeal as requested. The interest of justice will be better served if the substantial issues of law are so referred.”
    Through his lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, Tompolo said sections 221 and 306 of the ACJA were unconstitutional because they prevent a court from entertaining any objection to a criminal charge or an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal.
    Section 221 says: “Objections shall not be taken or entertained during proceedings or trial on the ground of an imperfect or erroneous charge.” Section 306 says: “An application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before a court shall not be entertained.”
    Tompolo wants the Court of Appeal to determine the following: (1) whether the ACJA sections are in consonance with sections 4 (8) 6 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution; (2) whether the sections are in consonance with Article 7 (1) (d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act of 2004; and (3) whether the sections do not constitute flagrant violations of the guaranteed constitutional right of the applicant.
    Opposing Tompolo’s application, Attorney-General of the Federation, represented by Tolu Mukoro, urged the court to dismiss it. He said the Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution permits the government to enact any law such as the ACJA.
    He further submitted that since Tompolo has been consistently absent in the main criminal proceedings leading to the civil suit, he should not be allowed to take benefit of his wrongdoing to obtain any favour from the court.
    Counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Mohammed also urged the court to dismiss the suit.
    Justice Ibrahim Buba, before whom criminal charges against Tompolo are pending, had on January 14, issued a warrant for Tompolo’s arrest. But Tompolo, on January 27, filed an application to set the warrant aside. OnFebruary 8, Justice Buba dismissed the application. Tompolo thereafter appealed the ruling on February 18.
    EFCC, on March 22, arraigned Tompolo in absentia over N34billion fraud after he failed to turn up despite being declared wanted. He was said to be “at large” in the charge.

    He was also absent on April 18 when his co-accused, former Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Director-General Dr Patrick Akpobolokemi and others, were arraigned for alleged N22.7 billion fraud. He was also said to be “at large”.

    Justice Olatoregun-Ishola adjourned until December 12 for ruling on Tompolo’s application.

  • Prosecutor’s absence stalls Adegboruwa’s trial

    The trial of activist-lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, was stalled on Wednesday at the Federal High Court in Lagos due to the absence of prosecution counsel, Mohammed Idris.

    Idris wrote the court to request for an adjournment because he was engaged elsewhere.

    Justice Oluremi Oguntoyibo adjourned the trial till November 17 and 18.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned Adegboruwa for allegedly dealing in a seized property.

    He was charged under Section 32 (1) of the EFCC Establishment Act 2004 which states that any person who deals in a property or asset that is the subject of an attachment, interim order or final order without due authorisation by the commission is liable to five years imprisonment without an option of fine.

    The commission said Adegboruwa and Jonathan Udeagbala, said to be at large, allegedly conspired on August 13, 2013 to lease a property at House 105, NICON Town Estate, Lekki, which EFCC said was a “subject of interim orders of attachment made by Justice Christopher Balogun of the Lagos State High Court” on June 18, 2012.

    But, On September 22, Justice Ayisat Opesanwo of the Lagos State High Court vacated the interim order of forfeiture.

    Udeagbala was arraigned before the Lagos High Court for allegedly issuing dud cheques in favour of his business partner, Mr. Leonard Okafor.

    In the course of the said trial, the parties met and decided to resolve the matter amicably after Udeagbala promised to raise funds by leasing his property in NICON Town, following which the court dismissed the criminal case on December 17 last year.

    Udeagbala filed an application dated January 22 praying the Lagos High Court to discharge the interim order of forfeiture since the criminal charge upon which it was anchored had been dismissed.

    The EFCC filed a counter-affidavit to the application, arguing that it had filed an appeal against the order of December 17, 2015, which dismissed the main criminal charge.

    Ruling, Justice Opesanwo held that since the court had dismissed the main criminal charge, the interim order of forfeiture could not stand and that she could not sit on appeal against the order which dismissed the case.