The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federal High Court Abuja

  • Asset Declaration: FG drags Nwaoboshi to CCT, set for prosecution

    The lawmaker representing Delta-North Senator Peter Nwaoboshi, has been dragged to the Code of Conduct Tribunal by the Federal Government on a three count count charge  of false declaration of assets.

    The charges were filed by the Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions, Federal Ministry of Justice.

    The senator was recently referred to the DPPF’s office for prosecution by the Special Presidential Investigation Panel for the Recovery of Public Property led by Okoi Obono-Obla.

    A copy of the charges shows that Nwaoboshi is to be tried for allegedly making false assets declaration in his Form CCB1 submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau by failing to declare three bank accounts in  Sterling Bank (Nigeria) Ltd .

    This is just as a Federal High Court, Abuja in a suit FHC/ABJ/CR/88/2018 between the Federal Republic of Nigeria versus Senator Albert Bassey Akpan presided over by  Justice J.T Tsoho, ruled that the Special Presidential Investigation Panel For Recovery of Public Property is competent to initiate criminal prosecution against Senator Albert Akpan Bassey or anybody it has investigated.

    Read Also: Assets Declaration: Presidential panel transfer Sen. Nwaoboshi case to DPPF

    The Court also  held that the Prosecutor of the Panel, Dr Celsus Ukpong is competent to sign or initiate criminal prosecution and doesn’t require the consent of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to do so.

    The Principal State Counsel at the Federal Ministry of Justice, Mr Labaran Magaji, who signed the charges, alleged Nwaoboshi’s action was contrary to section 15(1) and (2) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act and punishable under section 23(2) of the same Act.

    The charges read in part: “That you, Senator Peter Nwaoboshi, adult, male, Nigerian citizen and a serving Senator representing Delta North constituency within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal did make a false declaration in your asset declaration Form CCB 1 No: SEN001098 in that you refused to declare Account No: 0008600331 maintained by you with Sterling Bank (Nigeria) Ltd which is in operation since about 2015 and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15 (1) and (2) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 015 LFN 2004 and punishable under Section 23 (2) of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 015 LFN 2004.

    Accompanying the charges filed against the Delta-North senator was a document titled, ‘an application to commence trial.’’

    The summary of the prosecution’s case also attached to the charges, read, “It is the prosecution’s case that the defendant, a serving senator was investigated and found to have falsely declared his assets in his assets declaration Form CCB1 No. SEN001098.

    “The prosecution, in this case, shall rely on the exhibits and testimonies of witnesses to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

    Ruling on the case that involved Senator Bassey, the Court also said that the Panel doesn’t require having the consent of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria before it can initiate criminal prosecution against anybody.

    Senator Albert Bassey Akpan was arraigned before the Federal High Court by the Panel for refusal to declare his assets contrary to Section 3 (a) of the Recovery of Public Property (Special Provisions) Act, 2004. However, he objected to the competence of the Panel to file charges against him.

    With the ruling, the coast has been cleared for the Senator Akpan to face the charges against him.

    However, Senator Akpan’s counsel, Solomon Unoh (SAN) has filed a Notice of Appeal against the ruling.

    Reacting to the development, the Chairman of the Panel, Chief Okoi Obono-Obla, said that the ruling is great and that it has an impetus to the fight against corruption and strengthening the hand of the panel.

  • Court sentences 66-year-old woman to five years imprisonment for drug trafficking

    The Federal High Court Abuja, on Monday, sentenced a 66 -year-old woman, Sikirat Adeyemi to five years in prison for exporting 1.340 kg of heroine.

    Adeyemi who was arraigned by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, (NDLEA) had pleaded guilty to the offence.

    When the matter was called on Monday, she pleaded for forgiveness, almost in tears, through an interpreter.

    Delivering judgment, Justice Florence Giwa-Ogunbanjo held that the crime she committed was a grievous one which the court could not forgive.

    “I have taken into consideration that she is a first time offender and has not wasted the time of the court. It appears that that is the first step to remorse.

    “I have heard her plea for leniency and the allocutus, unfortunately, the crime carries a life sentence and the court cannot forgive her, nonetheless, I’ll give her a reformatory sentence.

    “In view of this, the defendant is sentenced to five years in prison. The sentence is to commence from when she was initially arrested.”

    The judge said that she hoped that after Adeyemi completed her sentence she would not return to crime.

    Read Also: Woman drags neighbour to court for alleged assault

    She ordered that the convict’s international passport and the €1,000 found on her when she was arrested should be forfeited to the Federal Government.

    She further ordered that the drugs recovered from her should be forfeited to the Federal Government and destroyed 90 days after the judgment, if it was not appealed against.

    Earlier, Counsel to Adeyemi, Mr Adrian Amadi, by way of “allocutus” pleaded with the court to tamper justice with mercy and give the defendant a light sentence.

    Amadi said that the offence for which she pleaded guilty to, carried a life sentence but since she was a first time offender, had shown remorse and didn’t wast the time of the court, she should be shown mercy.

    “The convict is 66 years old with an aged mother of 98 years who she looks after. She was a successful business woman who lost her business which led her into this unfortunate situation.

    “The convict has shown remorse. The offence is punishable with life imprisonment but the court has the discretion to give a lighter sentence,” Amadi said.

    The prosecuting counsel, Mr Mike Kasa also confirmed that the agency had no previous record where Adeyemi had been convicted, making her a first time offender.

    NAN

  • N400m fraud: EFCC asks court to try Metuh in absentia

    The EFCC  on Tuesday asked the Federal High Court Abuja to proceed with the ongoing trial of former PDP Spokesman, Olisa Metuh in his absence.

    Counsel to the EFCC, Mr Sylvanus Tahir, made the request in an application at the resumed trial following Metuh’s absence in court.

    His application was sequel to that of Metuh’s counsel, Mr Emeka Etiaba, (SAN) that the matter could not go on since Metuh was not in court.

    Metuh collapsed in court on Monday while attempting to enter the dock when his matter was called and was taken away in the court’s ambulance.

    Tahir, however, insisted that the judge, Justice Okon Abang should proceed with the matter in his absence since his fall was on account of his disobedience and disregard for the orders of the court.

    “I wish to draw the attention of the court to yesterday’s events. The defendant was using a walking aid to support himself and when the matter was called, to hearing of everyone, the court asked him to remain on his seat.

    “However for reasons best known to him, he ignored the directives of the court and made his way to the dock which resulted in his fall and the rest is history,” Tahir said.

    According to him, suffice it to state on our part that what happened in court on Monday amounts to misconduct since the defendant willfully ignored the directives of the court.

    The prosecutor maintained that moreover, the defendants had not furnished the court with satisfactory evidence, such as a medical report, as to why Metuh was not present in court.

    He added that Metuh was not entitled to the benefits of Section 266 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, (ACJA), and urged the court to rather invoke provisions of Section 266(a) to take the action of Metuh as misconduct.

    He further submitted that while the law provided that the a criminal trial could not go on in the absence of the defendant, there were exceptions to the rule.

    “If the court marries Section 266(a) with Section 352(4) which deals with trial in absentia, the court will be more than comfortable to proceed with this trial in Metuh’s absence.

    “This is because he has violently disobeyed his bail condition and the only rider to proceeding in his absence is that it should be after two adjournments. We had one adjournment yesterday and there will be one today.”

    The prosecutor also told the court that proceedings in the ongoing matter were discussed on a television program where one of Metuh’s lawyers made prejudicial comments.

    “On my way to court this morning, I received a call where I was told that Proceedings in this matter were extensively discussed on Sunrise Daily, a programme aired on Channels Television.”

    He said that he was constrained to bring the development to the court’s attention since it was not the first time it was happening.

    He alleged that all what the defense was doing were ploys to frustrate, scuttle and delay the matter.

    Earlier, Metuh’s counsel had told the court that following the fall of his client in court on Monday, he was currently receiving treatment in a hospital and was unable to attend his trial.

    “I wish to draw the court’s attention to the fact that the defendant is not in court. He was taken by the court’s ambulance with the medical personnel to the National Hospital Abuja where he is receiving treatment in the Intensive Care Unit, (ICU).

    Also Read: EFCC closes case in Kalu’s trial

     “In view of the clear provisions of Section 266 of ACJA, it is my submission that the trial cannot go on in his absence since it is a criminal matter which requires the presence of the defendant in court.

    ” I therefore ask for an adjournment to enable the defendant recuperate and return to continue his trial,” Etiaba said.

    On the submission of the prosecution that Metuh acted in disregard of court directives, Etiaba said that the account given by the prosecution was not what he witnessed in court.

    According to him, the defendant was already in motion as soon as his matter was called and didn’t know that the judge had asked him not to bother going to the dock.

    Mr Tochukwu Onwubufor, (SAN), counsel to Metuh’s company, the second defendant in the matter aligned himself with Etiaba’s submission.

    Onwubufor added that Section 266 of ACJA made it mandatory for the defendant to be present in court for his trial.

    He, however, said that this was except where the defendant misconducted himself in such a manner as to render his presence impracticable or undesirable.

    The trial judge, Justice Okon Abang adjourned the matter until May 23 to rule on whether or not a reasonable explanation was given by the defence for the absence of Metuh in court.

    Justice Abang also said he would rule on whether proceedings in the matter should go on in the absence of Metuh.

    He is to also rule on whether or not the court should compel the General Manager of Channels Television and the producer of the programme, Sunrise Daily to provide the tape of the programme aired on Tuesday.

    Metuh is standing trial along with his company, Destra Investments Limited, on a seven count charge which involves laundering two million dollars.

    He is also charged with fraudulently receiving N400 million from the former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki.

    Metuh had told the court that he was suffering from a spinal chord related ailment for which doctors had recommended surgery as definitive treatment.

    He had applied for the release of his international passport on three occasions to enable him travel abroad for surgery but the court refused all three applications.

    NAN

     

  • Court bars Police, EFCC, DSS, from searching Wike’s houses

    The Federal High Court Abuja has barred the Nigerian Police, the EFCC  and the Department of State Security Service, (DSS) from searching houses belonging to Gov. Nyesom Wike of Rivers.

    Wike had in 2017, approached the court seeking an order of injunction restraining the IGP, the Police, the EFCC and the DSS from obtaining a search warrant to search any of his houses.

    Delivering judgement on the matter on Wednesday, Justice Ahmed Mohammed noted that the defendants were in agreement that the plaintiff, Wike, could not be investigated based on the provision of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution.

    Justice Mohammed said that from the combined reading of Section 308 of the constitution, and sections 149 and 150 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, (ACJA) 2015, three situations had been prohibited.

    The first, he said, was the provision that no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against the plaintiff.

    He further said that a person covered by the provisions shall not be arrested, and thirdly, any process of court requiring appearance of a person protected under the provisions shall not be applied.

    Justice Mohammed maintained that parties in their submissions, lost the purport and intendment of section 308(1)(c) of the constitution.

    According to him, a careful reading of section 308(1)(c) shows that the constitution has prohibited court process requiring the appearance of a serving governor before any investigative panel.

    He held that the argument of the police and the EFCC that Wike’s residence could be searched without his presence was untenable.

    The judge said it was wrong for the defendants to import meaning or interpretation not included in Section 308 of the constitution by the person who drafted the constitution.

    He held that the essence of the section was to accord immunity to a serving governor so as not to cause distractions to the governor in the act of governance.

    The judge dismissed the objections of the defendants and held that Wike’s suit had succeeded because it had merit.

    Wike had asked for six reliefs but the judge granted three and said while one was not grantable, the others were embedded in the ones granted.

    “The defendants cannot whether by themselves, their servants, agents, officers, privies or in any manner howsoever apply for, obtain, issue or in any way or manner howsoever execute any court process requiring; the appearance of the plaintiff who is currently the governor of Rivers.

    “A declaration that by virtue of the combined effect of section 308 of the Constitution and sections 149 and 150 of ACJA, the defendants cannot in any manner apply for, obtain, issue or execute any search warrant at the residence of the plaintiff in Abuja or in any of the plaintiff’s residence in any other place or locations in Nigeria.

    “An order that the defendants cannot by the combined effect of section 308 of the Constitution and sections 149 and 150 of ACJA, apply for, obtain, issue or execute any search warrant at the residence of the plaintiff in Abuja or in any of the plaintiff’s residence in any other place or locations in Nigeria.”

    The suit was filed in June 2017 by Mr Sylva Ogwemoh, (SAN), on behalf of Wike.

    Ogwemoh had argued that Section 308 which had to do with the immunity clause was put in place to allow serving governors concentrate on the act of governance.

    But the defendants had in opposition, argued that they had the right to search Wike’s residence even in his absence.

  • Recall: Melaye to appeal against nod for INEC

    Recall: Melaye to appeal against nod for INEC

    The National Assembly member representing the Kogi West senatorial district of Kogi State, Senator Dino Melaye has hinted he will appeal the Federal High Court judgement giving the nod to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to continue with the recall process against him.

    Reacting to the Federal High Court judgment on his recall, yesterday in a statement, the lawmaker said any gang-up against him will fail.

    He said alleged that “efforts of Kogi State governor, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, the INEC, top Federal Government officials and top security agents to harangue and stampede him out of the Senate against the will of Kogi West constituents will fail woefully”.

    “He who is with me from above is greater than all of them put together”, he boasted.
    He added: “I will not stop speaking truth to authority. kogi State government must pay workers salaries and pay pensioners.

    “My great people of Kogi West Senatorial district of Kogi State, in the face of obvious persecution and appealable judgement of the Federal High Court, Abuja, today. Let not your heart be troubled.

    “Lies will never overtake or conquer truth. The presence of the Kogi State Attonery General and Commissioner for Justice in Court today over a matter that Kogi State is not joined as a party shows the clear collaborative efforts of INEC and Kogi State government.

    “We cannot all sleep facing one side of the bed. We shall overcome this temporary shenanigans in the long run.

    “We will neither sleep nor slumber on this. I use this oppotunity to thank my dear constituents for their abiding love for and confidence shown towards me”.

  • Respect court ruling, activist tells Kogi assembly

    Respect court ruling, activist tells Kogi assembly

    The Executive Director of the Centre for Human Rights and Conflict Resolution (CHRCR), Lokoja, Kogi State, Idris Miliki Abdul has called on members of the fractious Kogi State House of Assembly to respect Thursday’s ruling of the Federal High Court Abuja upholding Hon. Momohjimoh Lawal as speaker.

    He admonished all those concerned to allow peace reign in Kogi.

    Crisis engulfed the Kogi legislative arm following Lawal’s purported impeachment on February 16, by five members, and their subsequent proclaimation of Umar Imam as speaker.

    Idris said that the decision of the court has vindicated their position that what went on since then at the assembly, including the passage of the state’s 2016 appropriation bill were illegal and unconstitutional, saying, “We wondered where the group of five derived its authority to conduct that illegal action on the 16th of February 2016. And more disturbing, was the shadow activities by the state executive led by the governor, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, in identifying with the illegal activities of the five honourable members and claim to the whole world that there was no crisis in the assembly”.

    He called on all affected persons and organs of the state to respect the rule of law and obey the court pronouncement on the matter.

    He added: “Now that an Abuja Federal High Court of competent jurisdiction has ruled that the purported impeachment of 16th February 2016, is null and void and of no effect, and that the principal offices purported to have been impeached including the speaker, Hon. Momohjimoh Lawal, is illegal, we therefore call on the Kogi State Assembly to respect the court ruling and return to the pre 16th February 2016 status quo and continue with the legitimate business of the assembly in the interest of rule of law, good governance and democracy.

    “We call on the state executive led by Alhaji Yahaya Bello, to respect and abide this court ruling and let peace reign in the interest of justice, fairness, democratic principles and separation of power, and to restore all privileges and entitlements that were denied to the Kogi State house of assembly members without further delay”.

     

  • Court reserves judgment in suit seeking Saraki, Ekweremadu’s sack

    Court reserves judgment in suit seeking Saraki, Ekweremadu’s sack

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday reserved judgment in a suit filed by five serving Senators, who are seeking to void the election of Bukola Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu as Senate President and Deputy Senate President.

    The judge, after listening to lawyers to parties in the case adopt their final written addresses, announced that they would be contacted when the judgment is ready.

    The suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/651/2015 has Senators Abu Ibrahim, Kabir Marafa, Ajayi  Boroffice, Olugbenga Ashafa and Suleiman Hunkuyi as plaintiffs, with Saraki, Ekweremadu, the National Assembly, the Clerks of the National Assembly and the Clerk of the Senate as defendants.

    It is the palintiff’s contention that the election of Saraki and Ekweremadu as President and Deputy President was invalid on the ground that the Senate Standing Orders 2015 used for the election was a forged document. 

    The plaintiffs argued that since the Senate Standing Order 2011, which was the valid Senate Rules as at the proclamation of the 8th Senate on June 9, was not known to have been validly altered before the election, the 2015 Rules could not be said to be a legitimate document.

    They stated, in a supporting affidavit,  that the Senate Standing ‎Orders 2015 was “contrived” from the amendment of the 2011 version of the Orders without following its (the 2011 edition’s) relevant provisions and those of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    The plaintiffs argued that the said amendment was in breach of the “prescriptive procedures” stipulated by the extant provisions of section 60 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Rule 110(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Senate Standing Orders 2011 (as amended).

    They therefore prayed the court for the following reliefs:

    • A declaration that the Senate Standing Order 2011(as amended) is the proper, valid, constitutional and subsisting Rules/Standing Orders of the 8th Senate.
    • A  declaration that the Senate Standing Order 2015(as amended), not being a product of any legitimate amendment pursuant to the extant provisions of Rule 110 of the Senate Standing Orders 2011 (as amended), is invalid, illegal, unconstitutional.
    • A declaration that the election of the 1st and 2nd defendants as the President and Deputy  President of the Senate of the 8th Senate pursuant to the Senate Standing Orders 2015 and contrary to the provisions of Rules 3(3)(e) and (k), Chapter II of the Senate Standing Orders 2011, is illegal and unconstitutional
    • An order setting aside the purported election of the 1st and 2nd defendants as Senate President and Deputy Senate President of the 8th Senate; an order setting aside the Senate Standing Orders 2015 and an order directing the 8th Senate to elect its presiding officers in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 of the Constitution and Rules 3(3)(e) and (k)of the Senate Standing Orders 2011.

    Justice Ademola, on Tuesday took arguments from parties on the substantive suit and defendants’ preliminary objection.

    Plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mamman Osuman (SAN) urged the court to disregard the defendants’ objection and grant his client’s prayers.

    The defendants, represented by Kehinde Eleja (SAN), Ikechukwu Ezechukwu (SAN) and Miss Nancy Odimegwu, faulted the competence of the suit and urged the court to dismiss the suit.

  • Hand of Esau…

    Hand of Esau…

    Two famous lines immediately came to mind on hearing ruling of the Federal High Court Abuja ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register Young Democratic Party (YDP). The first is that of George Santayana that – ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’. The other well known verse is attributed to the American statesman Henry Kissinger: “It is not often that nations learn from the past, even rarer that they draw the correct conclusions from it.

    Shortly after the ruling filtered in, most Nigerians, like yours truly, would imagine the YDP to be a reincarnation of the Association for Better Nigeria (ABN) – the genie sprung on the political space by the maverick Arthur Nzeribe in 1993 to ambush the nation’s democracy. Though hardly an improved version of the old as one might expect after more than two decades of mutation, YDP seems the perfect PDP Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) with all the essential features of the old complete with subterfuge and political toxicity.

    It was perhaps just as it was designed to be: on the one hand, the ruling by Justice Ahmed Mohammed has sent the nation’s adrenalin soaring; on the other, such has been the jubilation in the camps of the YDP and the PDP that one imagined that they already have a big trophy in their hands. I have struggled to make sense of what is supposed to be its substance over which political vagrants have been dancing naked. My puzzle, to be sure, is one of understanding the basis of their morbid dance. Is it a case of the upstarts seeing what the rest of us cannot see? Or simply one of those situations in which media reportage, aside muddling up issues, may have done grave injury to the renditions of the learned judge?

    Either way, it must be troubling enough that some political delinquents would seek to abort what seems to be a well laid out democratic pathway.

    What do we know of the YDP? I watched their officials – five or six of them – on TV during their press conference the other day. They seemed youthful alright (which by the way is sheer tragedy given what they represent); with the exception of the chairman who looked a bit serious, their media outing in all conveyed a picture of school children coerced to make an appearance!

    As to their middle appellation – Democratic – I confess to having a bit of difficulty reconciling what is supposed to be a legitimate quest to get a party formally registered with the stated resolve to achieve same through the back door and at the pain of bringing the roof of the house down on everyone!

    On their claim to be a party – I leave the judgement of whether or not the motley assembly of the odd fellows qualify to be labelled a “party” to Nigerians given the infinitely elastic interpretation of their rights to form just about any association. After all, I have countless times wondered about the farce under which some deluded fellows would hold the system down only because they have just enough money to rent shops in 36 state capitals all in the name of party formation.

    But I digress. I do not pretend that I have read the judgment of the Federal High Court Abuja. It seems doubtful that anyone has come across let alone read the full text. Like many Nigerians, I am limited to the snippets as reported in the media which unfortunately comes to pretty little. Which is of course unfortunate given what is supposed to be its import on the orderly process of the 2015 election. Merely by what the inferences and interpretations suggest, a judicial mine is supposed to have been laid in the way of the process.

    Nothing of course can be fundamentally wrong with the specific order on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to immediately register YDP as a political party. The judge’s finding that the party is deemed to have been registered when INEC failed to inform it of its decision not to register it as a political party within 30 days of receiving its application, is said to find strength in Section 78 (4) of the Electoral Act, 2010ý. On that, I have no quarrel.

    The part I consider troubling is the varied interpretations of the ruling particularly as touching on the elections barely three weeks away. Here, the issue is whether the court actually ordered INEC to put the name of the YDP candidates on the ballot for the March 28 and April 11 elections? Did it? Could it – or should it have – given the implications?

    And which candidates are we talking about here – those that emerged with or without INEC-supervised primaries? Could the litigants have been automatically availed of that right without inviting grievous assault to public policy? Assuming one concedes that the party is truly deemed to have been registered by May according to the law, where should the pendulum of public policy ordinarily tilt given that the printing and logistics for the elections ought to have been concluded before now?  Still wondering why Nigerians are apprehensive of the imminence of a judelex coup? Judelex  – yes – judiciary-electoral-executive coup!  Look at it this way: The ruling PDP has by words and deeds, shown that it would rather not have the elections. The dithering PDP administration not only gifted itself six weeks to sort out a security mess that it had nearly the whole of eternity to clean up but chose not to, it has in the last three weeks found a ready song in the deployment in card readers which it claimed would disenfranchise voters. It is hard to imagine a worse case of electoral avoidance –I once described it as electoral allergy – by a party in government in a democratic setting!

    Now, YDP, its minion wants the names of its so-called candidates on the ballot; knowing how impractical the demand is. It offers INEC a gratuitous option of postponing the elections which it knows is unlikely to happen! In the meantime, it purports to procure a judgment, which for all practical purposes, makes it a supremo with the power of discretion over electoral validity? Yes, that is where some have taken us!

    So, where is the difference between the party with acute electoral allergy and another which insists on not caring a hoot if the entire structure is brought down so it can have its way? Aren’t we again at a point where a band of certified delinquents, aided by the piper, would brazenly suborn the judiciary to their devious schemes? How short some people’s memory can be! See you after the polls.

     

    • This column goes on a five-week vacation. God willing, we meet again at the other side of the polls.