The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federal High Court

  • $10.1b cash demand: MTN drags CBN, AGF to court

    …Group CEO assures of amicable settlement

     

     

    MTN Nigeria Monday said in order to protect its assets and shareholder rights within the confines of the law, it  has approached the Federal High Court for injunctive relief to restrain the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) from taking further action in respect of their orders to refund $8.1billion and $2billoon to the Federal Government.

    Read Also:MTN faults CBN on conversion of loan to preference shares

    The CBN accused the telco of illegally repatriating $8.8billion through improper certificate of capital importation (CCI) while the AGF is also seeking the payment of $2billion in unpaid taxes over a 10-year period.

    Four local lenders found wanting in the deal were also fined and fines have since been deducted by the CBN from their accounts.

    MTN has continued to strenuously reject both allegations.

    The Group Chief Executive Office of MTN, Rob Shutter has assured of amicable settlement of the issues the Nigeria arm of the telco is facing.

    Responding to a specific question on the crisis on the sideline of ongoing International Telecoms Union  (ITU) Conference at the International Convention Centre (ICC) in Durban,  South Africa, Shutter said, in all its 22 countries of operation,  Nigeria  is the telco’s largest market, adding that the “challenges of the past two weeks” will be addressed.

  • Court to hear suits against change of Senate leadership Sept 19

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed September 19 for the hearing of about six suits seeking to stop the planned removal of Bukola Saraki as Senate President.

    In the main, all the suits want the court to declare as unlawful Saraki’s removal from office via means other than that provided in Section 50(2)(c) of the Constitution.

    Section 50(2) provides: “The President or Deputy President of the Senate or the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives shall vacate his office…. (c) if he is removed from office by a resolution of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House.”

    Read Also:Ojukwu’s children reject Bianca’s bid for Senate

    The September 19 hearing date was chosen Thursday by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba to enable parties file all necessary papers and prepare adequately.

    The suits include: United People’s Congress (UPC) vs. Attorney General of the Federation & four others (FHC/ABJ/CS/944/2018); Okpako Grant vs. All Progressives Congress & others (FHC/ABJ/CS/948/2018) and Senator Rafiu Adebayo & one other vs. The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & others (FHC/ABJ/CS/872/2018).

    Others are: Hon. Benjamin Tivfa vs. IGP & others (FHC/ABJ/CS/822/2018); The Incorporated Trustees of C.S.O.C.L.O. vs. Senator Bukola Saraki and others (FHC/ABJ/CS/936/2018); and Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere & another vs. The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & others (FHC/ABJ/CS/890/2018).

    UPC, in the suit filed by its lawyer, Chief M. A. Igwe, stated that there was need for a formal court’s pronouncement on the proper interpretation of the provision of the Constitution on the proper mode of changing the leadership of a federal legislative house.

    In a supporting affidavit deposed to by its National Chairman, Kenneth Ibe-Kalu, the plaintiff claimed that the determination of the suit would guide persons seeking election on its platform into the National Assembly as to their rights when elected as legislators as well as the rights of their party.

    The UPC said it is already planning a retreat, which will be regular, for all its candidates for the 2019 elections, to let the candidates understand their rights and powers, including their rights and powers as sought to be declared by the court.

    It added that: “As a registered political party, the plaintiff has a right to know the true position of the law as provided by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), as the provisions of the Constitution are not self-executory.

    “That it is only a court set up under the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as this Honourable Court that has the power to interpret the Constitution”.

    The plaintiff wants the court to declare:  “That the President of the Senate, the Deputy President of the Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives can only be removed from office by the provisions of section 50(1) (a) and (b) and section 50 (2) (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and in particular, can only be removed by a resolution of that House by votes of members not less than two-thirds majority of ALL the members of that House.”

    It also seeks a declaration “that the two-thirds majority for removal of President of the Senate, the Deputy President of the Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives as provided in section 50(1) (a) and (b) and section 50 (2) (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended refers to two-thirds of All members of that House and not two-thirds of members present at the sitting.”

    Defendants in the suit are: the Attorney General of the Federation, National Assembly, President of the Senate, Speaker, House of Representatives and Clerk of the National Assembly.

  • Oni vs Fayemi: Court sets hearing for Sept. 25

    Okays ex-gov’s amended processes

     

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed September 25 this year for hearing in the suit challenging the eligibility of Ekiti State Governor-elect, Kayode Fayemi for the last governorship election in the state.

    Justice Nnamdi Dimgba chose the date on Wednesday after granting an application by the plaintiff, Segun Oni, for an amendment to the originating processes.

    Earlier, Oni’s lawyer, Anthony Adeniyi told the court that his client has complied with the order for substituted service on the defendants.

    Fayemi’s lawyer, Rafiu Balogun said his client was just served with the court processes and needed time to respond.

    He agreed to file his client’s response before the next date.

    Oni, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/663/2018 claimed that Fayemi was not qualified to participate in the APC’s primary election held on May 12 this year on the grounds that he allegedly failed to resign his appointment as Minister Mines and Steel Development as required by law.

    According to him, Fayemi won the APC’s primary election on May 12 this year while he was still the Minister of Mines and Steel Development, a position he didn’t officially resign from until May 30.

    He queried Fayemi’s eligibility for the election on the strength of his (Fayemi) purported indictment by the Justice Oyewole Judicial Panel of Enquiry, set up by the state government to probe Fayemi’s first tenure in office.

    Oni, who came second in the primary election by scoring 481 votes behind Fayemi’s 941, wants the court to declare him the valid flag bearer of the APC in the election held on July 14 this year, which Fayemi won.

    Read Also: Fayemi will run all-inclusive govt, says lawmaker

    He also wants “A declaration that the claimant (Oni,) having scored 481 votes which is the majority of lawful and valid votes at the 2nd defendant’s (APC) 12th May, 2018 governorship primaries election for the purpose of determining the 2nd defendant’s candidate for the 14th July 2018 election for the office of Governor, Ekiti State is the person that was validly nominated by the 2nd defendant for the 14th July, 2018 election for the office of Governor, Ekiti State.”

    Oni wants the court to determine “whether by virtue of All Progressives’ Congress constitution and particularly Articles 2 and 5 of All Progressives’ Congress 2014 Guidelines for the nomination of candidates for public office as applicable to the APC Governorship primaries conducted on the 12th May, 2018, the 1st defendant, being a serving member of the Federal Executive and Federal Minister of Solid Minerals, Mines and Steel Development, having not resigned his appointment as a member of Federal Executive and Minister of Solid Mineral, Mines and Steel Development, at all or at least 30 days to the said primaries election of 12th May, 2018, was qualified to contest and participate in the said All Progressive Congress Governorship primaries of 12th May, 2018 as an aspirant in that election.”

    He is also praying the court to determine “Whether by virtue of All Progressive Congress Constitution and particularly Articles 2 and 5 of All Progressive Congress 2014 Guidelines for the nomination of candidates for public office as applicable to the APC Governorship primaries conducted on the 12th May, 2018, at Damilek Event Centre, Ado-Ekiti for the purpose of determining or nominating the 2nd defendant candidate for the 12th July Ekiti State Governorship election, the 1st defendant, having been indicted by Rtd. Hon. Justice Oyewole Judicial Panel of Enquiry, was qualified to contest and participate in the said All Progressives Congress Governorship primary of 12th May, 2018 as an aspirant in that election.”

  • Saraki: Court advises parties to exercise restraints

    Fixes September 6 for hearing

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has asked parties to the suit, seeking to prevent the forceful removal of Bukola Saraki as Senate President, to exercise restraint pending the determination of the suit.

    Justice Nnamdi Dimgba gave the advice on Tuesday after listening to argument by lawyer to the plaintiffs, Emeka Etiaba (SAN), who argued an ex-parte application for, among others, orders restraining the defendants from unlawfully impeaching Saraki.

    Justice Dimgba queried the rationale behind the plaintiffs’ prayers for an orders stopping Saraki’s unlawful removal, wondering how the court could be asked to restrain the defendants from unlawfully removing the Senate President? He said: “If it is unlawful, it is unlawful.”

    Etiaba made effort to justify the prayers as contained in reliefs 1, 2 and 3 of the ex-parte motion. He also informed the court about an alternative prayer if the court was not favourably disposed to granting reliefs 1, 2 and 3.

    He said: “Our alternative prayer is for the court to make preservatory orders in order to protect the res (subject) of the suit pending its determination.

    Ruling, Justice Dimgba said: “In respect of reliefs 1, 2, and 3, which are orders of interim injunction, I believe the proper order to make is an order of accelerated hearing of the suit so that the court can consider and determine the merits of the substantive case definitively and expeditiously

    Read Also: SDP: Court strikes out case against Omisore

    “Even though reliefs 1, 2, and 3 are not granted, needless to say that parties are enjoined to respect the authority of the court and the integrity of the judicial process, and should not take steps that will render nugatory the outcome of this litigation.

    “In the light of the order of accelerated hearing on the merit of the case, the matter is hereby adjourned to the 6th of September 2018 for hearing,” the judge said.

    The plaintiffs – Senators Rabiu Adebayo (Kwara South) andIsa Misau (Bauchi Central) are, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/843/2018 seeking among others, to prevent Saraki’s removal through means other than that provided under Section 50(2)(c ) of the Constitution.

    Section 50(2) provides: “The President or Deputy President of the Senate or the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives shall vacate his office…. (c)if he is removed from office by a resolution of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House.”

    Listed as defendants in the suit are: The Senate, the Senate President, Deputy Senate President, Senator Ahmed Lawal (Senate Leader), Senator Bala Ibn Nallah (Deputy Senate Leader), Senator Emma Buacha (Deputy Minority Leader), Clerk of the Senate, Deputy Clerk of the Senate, the Attorney General of the Federation, Inspector General of Police and the State Security Service, (SSS).

  • NFF saga: Anxiety as court fails to vacate Giwa’s ex-parte order

    A Federal High Court sitting in Jos on Friday failed to vacate the ex-parte granted Chris Giwa, one of the parties in the leadership crisis that has engulfed the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF).

    The court had granted the order on June 5, 2018, which gave Giwa the impetus to pose as the President of the NFF.

    Following that order, Giwa moved into the NFF headquarters last month, a development that did not go down well with Giwa’s rival, Amaju Pinnick, who rushed to the court with three motions on notice asking the court to vacate the order.

    When the case came up for hearing on Friday, counsel to Pinnick, Mr Festus Ukpe, told the court that he had filed three motions on notice and was seeking the leave of court to move them.

    He said that the motions sought to ask the court to vacate the ex-parte order earlier granted Giwa on June 5, 2018 so that Nigeria could escape a ban from football activities as threatened by FIFA.

    But Giwa’s counsel, Mr Habila Ardzard, raised an objection to Pinnick’s motions, and notified the court of a pending appeal he filed before the Jos Court of Appeal in respect of the case.

    He explained that the appeal was challenging the ruling of Justice Musa Kurya which allowed Pinnick to serve Giwa a photocopy of the said motions on notice, instead of original copies.

    Read Also: FIFA turns down NFF reconciliation visit to Zurich

    Ardzard argued that any attempt by the judge to hear any of Pinnick’s motions would amount to “abuse of court processes’’ and “judicial rascality.’’

    “My Lord, this Honourable court has been informed of the said appeal before the Jos Court of Appeal, and by that, this court lacks the jurisdiction to continue with this matter pending the determination of the appeal.

    “This is the position of the Supreme Court and that of the Appellate court; if the lower court will do otherwise, it will only be setting itself on collision course with the Appex and Appellate Courts.

    “We hereby urge your lordship to adjourn the case pending the determination of the appeal by the appellate court,” he argued.

    Kurya, in his ruling, said that there were two posers – whether there was an appeal, and whether he could continue with the matter.

    In answering the two posers, the judge declared that he had resolved the two in favour of Giwa, and therefore decided to adjourn the case indefinitely.

    “Since there is an appeal before the appellate court, I don’t want to be involved in any judicial rascally, therefore I hereby adjourn the case indefinitely,’’ he declared.

    The latest attempt is the third by Pinnick to convince the court to vacate the Ex-parte order it granted Giwa.

    The court’s position had created anxiety in soccer circles following the threat by FIFA to ban Nigeria if the NFF leadership crisis is not resolved.

    FIFA had given Nigeria up to Monday, Aug. 20, 2018 to resolve the NFF leadership crisis between Chris Giwa and Amaju Pinnick or face ban on all football affairs

    NAN

  • Court suspends hearing in suit filed against INEC Chairman

    The Federal High Court Abuja on Thursday suspended hearing in the contempt suit against the Chairman, Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC) Prof. Mahmood Yakubu pending the hearing of an appeal in respect of the suit.

    Justice Stephen Pam, in a short ruling at the resumed hearing, said that he was adjourning the matter in view of an order made by the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings.

    “Before me is a ruling from the Court of Appeal dated Aug. 13, signed by Justice Abdul Aboki presiding.

    Read Also:APC to INEC: PDP plans to deploy thugs for Osun guber election

    “In view of the Court of Appeal’s order to stay proceedings, this matter is adjourned to a date to be communicated to both parties, pending the outcome of the appeal.”

    Mr Emmanuel Okorie, counsel to the applicant, Ejike Oguebego had told the court that although the matter was for continuation of contempt proceedings, there was an order from the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings.

    The judge had earlier told INEC’s counsel, Mr Samuel Omale to convey his displeasure to Yakubu’s counsel Mr Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) over the manner in which he was handling the matter.

    “Send my displeasure to Chief Awomolo, I do not like the way he is handling this matter. His attitude to this court is disappointing; he has shown a lot of disrespect to the court.

    “He cannot sit in his house and expect the court to act based on information gotten from television announcements, I am not on his payroll and he should not treat me as such,” the judge said.

    The court had on Aug. 1, issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Yakubu for “flagrant” disobedience of court orders.

    Court of Appeal vacated the arrest order on Monday and ordered a stay of proceedings in the alleged contempt charge pending the determination of the substantive case.

    NAN

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Shareholders warn CBN, NCC, against Etisalat’s sale

    Some aggrieved shareholders of Etisalat (now 9Mobile) have cautioned the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and others involved in an ongoing negotiation to sell the telecommunication firm not to proceed with the transaction in view of a pending case before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

    The shareholders – Afdin Ventures Limited and Dirbia Nigeria Limited – warned of the legal consequences to the CBN and others, should they proceed to conclude the sale of Etisalat despite a subsisting order of the court, halting further activities in relation to the sale of the telecommunication firm.

    Afdin and Dirbia, promoted by businessman, Dahiru Barau Mangal, issued the warning yesterday in letters written by their lawyer, Mahmud Magaji (SAN) to the six parties said to be involved in the transaction, who are also defendants in the pending case.

    Those to whom the letter were addressed are: CBN, Etisalat International Nigeria Limited and Nigerian Communication Commission (NCC), Karlington Telecommunications Limited, Premium Telecommunications Holdings NV and First Bank of Nigeria Plc.

    Afdin and Dirbia said their letters were informed by recent media report, credited to one Boye Olusanya (CEO, 9mobile) to the effect that “9mobile’s board was pleased with the progress made thus far and expects the acquisition process to be concluded as soon as possible.”

    Shortly after Afdin and Dirbia filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/288/2018, Justice Binta Nyako, on April 17 gave an order, directing “the maintenance of status quo as at today.”

    Read Also: CBN injects $210m into forex market

    In the suit, Afdin and Dirbia, who claimed to be major investors in the troubled telecommunication firm, said they were left out in the firm’s decision making and therefore want a refund of their invested funds estimated at $43,330,950.

    Part of one of the letters by Magaji reads: “Recall that Hon. Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court No. 4, Abuja made an interim order in suit: FHC/ABJ/CR/288/2018, Afdin Ventures Ltd & 1 other v. Karington Telecommunications Ltd & 6 others, restraining your office andother defendants from selling Etisalat Nigeria Ltd (now 9mobile) pending the outcome of the suit.

    “Upon service of the enrolled order on you, your office entered appearance and filed a statement of defence to the suit. Ogunmuyiwa Balogun, Esq made several appearances on behalf of your office in court.

    “Unfortunately, despite being aware of the subsisting court order, your office and the other defendants herein went ahead and concluded plans to sell off Etisalat Nigeria Limited (now 9mobile) in fragrant disregard to the subsisting order of court.

    “We have our clients’ further instructions to write and warn you of the consequences of disobeying lawful orders of court.

    “You are implored to put a hold on the transfer of ownership of 9mobile to any other investor pening the determination of the suit, failing which we shall be compelled to issue and serve you with Forms 48 and 49 with a view to commencing contempt proceedings against you in accordance with our clients’ instruction.”

  • Benue accounts: Court orders service of processes on EFCC

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the service of processes on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in relation to a suit by the Benue State Government, challenging its investigation and the alleged freezing of the state’s accounts by the anti-graft agency.

    Justice Babatunde Quadri issued the order on Thursday after listening to Benue State’s  Emeka Etiaba (SAN),who argued an ex-parte motion to that effect.

    Justice Quadri, who acceded to the plaintiff’s request to have the case heard during vacation, also ordered that processes in the case be served on other respondents before the next hearing date fixed for August ‎14, 2018.

    Other respondents in the suit marked: FHC/MKD/CS/42/18, are the Speaker of the Benue State House of Assembly; the Clerk, Benue State House of Assembly; Benue State House of Assembly and the Auditor-General, Benue State.

    Etiaba argued that it was wrong to allow the EFCC investigate the accounts of the state under any guise without due authorisation of the Benue State House of Assembly, as required under Section 128 and 129 of the Constitution.

    The plaintiff, in its originating summons, wants the court to among others, declare that by the provisions of sections 6, 7 and 38(1) of the EFCC Act and any other law, beyond the Benue State House of Assembly and the Auditor- General, Benue State (4th and 5th respondents), the EFCC or any other body has no power to investigate and/or inquire into the accounts and/or appropriations, disbursements and administration of the funds of Benue State Government having regard to the clear provisions of Sections 1 (1) and (3): 125(2). (4) and (6), 128 and 129 of the Constitution

    It also seeks: “A declaration that in the absence of any resolution duly passed by the Benue State House of Assembly pursuant to Sections 128 and 129 of the Constitution authorizing the EFCC or any other body, authority or person to investigate the accounts or make inquisitions into the accounts and/or appropriations, disbursements and administration of the funds of Benue State Government, the EFCC or any other body, authority or person cannot commence or continue investigations and/or inquisitions with respect thereof.

    “A declaration that the commencement or continued invitations of officials of Benue State Government on account of investigation of Benue Government accounts, investigations and/or inquisitions into the accounts and/or appropriations, disbursements and administration of the funds of Benue State Government by the EFCC or any other body, authority or person under any guise without authorization by the 2nd to 4th defendants vide a duly passed resolution negate the Doctrine of Separation of Powers as enshrined under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution.

    “A declaration that the continued invitations of officials of Benue State Government, investigations and/or inquisitions into the accounts and/or appropriations, disbursements and administration of the funds of Benue State Government by the EFCC or any other body, authority or person amount to usurpation of the Powers of the Benue State House of Assembly and the Auditor General, Benue State, having regard to Sections 125 (2), (4) and (6), 128 and 129 of the Constitution.

    “A declaration that the demands made by the 1st defendant, invitations of officials of Benue State Government and subsequent investigations violate the express provisions of Sections 125, 128 and 129 of the Constitution.

    “A declaration that the 2nd to 4th defendants are not permitted to surrender or share their powers of control over the public funds of Benue State as provided by the Constitution to the 1st defendant or any other body, authority or person.

    “A declaration that the EFCC Act is an inferior; legislation to the Constitution and where any provision in the Act ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution, such provision becomes null and void and of no effect.

    The plaintiff also wants an order of perpetual Injunction restraining the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants from surrendering\ or sharing their powers of control over the public funds of Benue State as provided under Sections 128 and 129 of the Constitution to the 1st defendant or to any other body, authority or person.

    The suit is supported by a 35 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Samuel Orchir, who averred that the business of governance has suffered tremendously by the intermittent interferences and demands by the EFCC, on the officials of the Benue State government to furnish it with documents relating to the accounts and /or appropriations, disbursements and administration of the funds of the state.

    He stated that some officials of the state were invited and detained by the EFCC and thereby denying the state of their services.

    According to him, some of the officers invited for interrogation by the EFCC, according to the affidavit are Permanent Secretary, Government House; Permanent Secretary, Bureau of Internal Affairs and Special Services; Mr. Kato Ijir; Secretary to the State Government; Mr. Agbo Omada (Assistant Director, Finance); Terwase Orbunde (Chief of Staff to the Governor); Dr. Dura Magdalene (Special Assistant Adviser on SDG’s to the governor) and Mr. Stephen Amase.

     

  • Breaking: Appeal Court reverses judgment on election sequence dispute

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reversed the judgment by the Federal High Court, Abuja which voided Section 25 in the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018, which sought to dictate the sequence of the next general elections.

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja had, in a judgment on April 25 this year, upheld a suit by Accord Party, to the effect that the National Assembly attempted to usurp the exclusive power of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by seeking to dictate the sequence of elections.

    Read Also:Election sequence: Buhari, AGF back suit against NASS

    But, in a judgment on Wednesday on an appeal by the National Assembly, a five-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by the court’s President, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa set aside the April 25 judgment by Justice Mohammed.

    Justice Bulkachuwa, in the lead judgment, said the Federal High Court was without jurisdiction to hear the suit in the first place, because it (the suit) was premature.

    The court said the provision of a Bill could not be challenged in court until it becomes an Act.

    The appellate court was also of the view the plaintiff at the lower court, Accord Party (AP) lacked the locus standi to institute the suit, because the disputed provision of the Bill did not affect its (AP’s) rights or obligations as a political party.

    The court said the “general interest” which is available to the public did not confer on Accord Party, the rights to challenge the provision of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018.

     

    Details later…

     

  • Court orders arrest of INEC chairman

    A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja ordered a bench warrant arrest against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) chairman, Professor Mahmood Yakubu for failure to appear in court.

    Read Also:No extension of voter registration beyond Aug. 17 – INEC

    Justice Stephen Dalypop Pamel gave the order of arrest following his absence in court Wednesday.

    The trial judge also held that the disobedience of INEC chairman professor Yakubu will no longer be tolerated.

    Details later…