The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federal High Court

  • Court vacates order stopping Natasha’s suspension

    Court vacates order stopping Natasha’s suspension

    Recall process begins in Kogi Central

    Olaide Oyelude, Lokoja

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has set aside an order it made on March 4 that any action taken by the Senate and others during the pendency of a suit by suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan would be “null, void and of no effect whatsoever”.

    In a ruling yesterday on a motion filled by the Senate, Justice Obiora Egwuatu agreed with lawyers to the defendants that the order ought to be vacated.

    The defendants listed in the suit are: the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the President of the Senate, and Senator Neda Imasuem (Chairman, Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Code of Conduct).

    Arguing the motion, lawyer to the Senate, Chikaosolu Ojukwu (SAN), contended that the order “was vague, ambiguous and lacking in specificity” as it did not specify which of the parties it was targeted at or referring to and what actions it related to.

    Ojukwu argued that the order, in the form in which it was granted, “refers to all actions of whatever nature, without any limitation, taken by both the plaintiff/respondent and the defendants”.

    Read Also: NSIA, Cascador partner to empower Nigerian entrepreneurs

    The lawyer also said the law prohibits the granting of a vague order by a court of law, arguing that the order, which was made ex parte, was pronounced to last till the determination of the suit.

    The Senate’s lawyer argued that enforcing the said order, as granted, would result in a constitutional crisis and anarchy, as the entire legislative duties of the Senate would be made to grind to a halt.

    Ojukwu claimed that the court was misled into granting the order to hold that the entire proceedings of March 4, upon which that breach occurred, was in nullity.

    Lawyers to the other defendants – Charles Yoila, for the Clerk; Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), for the Senate President; and Umeh Kalu (SAN), for Imasuem, agreed with Ojukwu’s submissions.

    Natasha’s lawyer, Michael Numa (SAN), faulted the defendants’ arguments and prayed the court to retain the order.

    The lawyer described the Senate’s motion as an affront on the court – for asking that the court should set aside the orders the defendants had not challenged.

    He argued that the defendants had, with audacity, disobeyed the orders of the court as made on March 4.

    Numa added: “This is an invitation to anarchy, my lord. Whatever reservation they have, their only duty is to come to court. The order was that the respondents should come and show cause.”

    Also, many constituents in Kogi Central Senatorial District yesterday started a recall process against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan.

    Investigation showed that many residents of the senatorial district, especially those in Ihima District, where the senator hails from, trooped out as early as 8 a.m. to participate in the process.

    Our correspondent noted that the recall process, which was carried out beyond party lines, is expected to take two days across all polling units in the five local government areas in Kogi Central Senatorial District.

    But a chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the state, Abdulrahman Badamasiuyi, urged the electorate/voters in Kogi Central Senatorial District to shun the exercise.

    He said: “You are hereby notified of a plot by some people to initiate a recall process of our distinguished Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan from the Nigerian Senate. Please, do not sign any form or give any information on your voter’s card to anybody in the guise of any empowerment or some money.”

  • Federal High Court orders Kaduna firm to forfeit N1.3b to Fed Govt

    Federal High Court orders Kaduna firm to forfeit N1.3b to Fed Govt

    The Federal High Court in Kaduna has ordered the temporary forfeiture of N1,373,180,510.07, which was allegedly diverted into the private account of Indo Kaduna Marts JV Nigeria Limited.

    The court also directed the applicant to “publish a notice in any two national newspapers, calling for persons – whether human, juristic or artificial having interest in the property – to show cause in court why the aforesaid movable property should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government”.

    The ex parte order, which was given by Justice G. M. Kabara on February 28, followed the application that was filed on February 14.

    Read Also: Alleged N400m fraud: IG amends charge filed against Andy Uba, Etu

    According to court documents, the forfeited amount was recovered into the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) “recovery account domiciled with the Central Bank of Nigeria in the course of an ongoing investigation activity against officials of Kaduna State government between 2015 and 2023”.

    The Federal Government of Nigeria is the applicant while Indo Kaduna MRTS JV Nigeria Limited is the defendant in the suit, which was brought “pursuant to Section 17(1)(2)(3) and (4) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act 2006”.

    The defendant was also charged under “sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Proceeds of Crime(Recovery and Management) Act, 2022 and Section 6(6)9a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(as amended)”.

    The case has been adjourned till April 8.

  • Passenger’s N45m suit against KLM starts de novo April 1

    Passenger’s N45m suit against KLM starts de novo April 1

    The Federal High Court has ordered a fresh hearing in a N45million suit filed by Alhaji Yekeen Idowu against  KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, over an alleged breach of contract and willful misconduct during the plaintiff’s travel from Germany to Nigeria in 2018.

    Justice Musa Kakaki ruled that the case would begin de novo  on April 1, 2025, following arguments from  legal teams regarding the continuation of cross-examination.

    During proceedings, on Thursday, plaintiff’s counsel, Enitan Afolabi, argued that the matter, previously part-heard by Justice Awoboro, must restart under a new judge as mandated by Section 23 of the Federal High Court Act.

    He expressed surprise that the defence counsel sought to continue from where the previous proceedings left off.

    Defence counsel, Fidelis Okeke, opposed the motion for a fresh trial, urging the court to follow its records.

    He accused the plaintiff’s legal team of causing repeated delays since 2020 and urged that the case proceed immediately to the defence stage.

    The suit stemmed from an incident on July 3, 2018, when Alhaji Yekeen Idowu flew on KLM Royal Dutch Airlines from Germany to Nigeria under reservation codes MOHSKI and V4P8K4 (KL).

    Read Also: Sanwo-Olu hails Tems’ historic Grammy win, applauds other Nigerian nominees

    The plaintiff in his second amended statement of claim had alleged that his agreed itinerary—from Stuttgart, Germany, to Lagos, Nigeria, via Amsterdam—was arbitrarily changed by the airline. He claimed that instead, he was rerouted through Paris, France, and Casablanca, Morocco, causing significant delays.

    According to the plaintiff, his flight from Stuttgart to Paris was delayed by eight hours, for which KLM compensated him with €600.

    However, upon reaching Paris, he was placed on an Air France flight and later abandoned in Casablanca for over 48 hours without access to proper accommodation, his family, or his business associates.

    The plaintiff further alleged that he was subjected to harassment by Moroccan immigration authorities, prevented from contacting KLM representatives, and forced to stay in a deportee waiting room, alternating between sitting on a chair and sleeping on the bare floor.

    The plaintiff’s counsel also argued that KLM ignored multiple legal demands, including letters sent in May and June 2019, further demonstrating the airline’s alleged indifference to its contractual obligations.

    Alhaji Idowu is therefore seeking total damages of N45 million, plus additional costs, for the distress and financial losses he suffered, including €700 for the cost of securing an alternative flight from Casablanca to Lagos.

    The plaintiff is also asking for N1.2 million for loss of professional time, calculated at N50,000 per hour over 24 hours and N45 million in general damages for negligence, willful misconduct, and financial losses.

  • Court slams N100million damages on expelled PDP National vice chairman

    Court slams N100million damages on expelled PDP National vice chairman

    A Federal High Court sitting in Abakaliki, Ebonyi State has slammed a N100m damages on the embattled National Vice Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Southeast Zone,  Ali Odefa.

    It gave the ruling in a consolidated Fundamental Rights suit with suit number:FHC/ AI/CS/197/2024 between Herbert Onyedikachi Ovuta & 4 ORS. v. Chief Ali Odefa and 2 others and another, ,FHC/AI/CS/ 199/ 2024 between Sabastine Idenyi &13 others v. Chief Ali & 2 others, the Presiding Judge,.

    Listed among the respondents are Herbert Onyedikachi, Anoke, Egbe, Njoku Nwagu, Moses Idika, Ogbonnaya Idika, Obinna Chukwu, Chief John Igboke,  Mrs. Ijeoma Nome,  Okorie C. Okorie and nine others.

    Odefa, the Commissioner of Police Ebonyi State and the Inspector General of Police were listed as respondents.

    Odefa was first suspended from the party by Ward executives of his Oguduokwor Ward in Onicha LGA on September 11, 2024.

    The Abakaliki Division of the Federal High Court also upheld the initial suspension of Odefa..

    Odefa wrote a petition to the police accusing the ward executives of forging party documents and impersonation of ward executives of the party.

    Four members of the party were subsequently arrested, arraigned and remanded in October, 2024 over the matter.

    But, consequent upon his earlier suspension,  the Oguduokwor Ward Disciplinary Committee  after hearing the allegations leveled against Odefa recommended the expulsion of the former zonal Chairman of the party.

    Read Also:

    On December 12th 2024, the Executives of PDP Oguduokwor Ward announced the summary expulsion of Odefa. 

    Stakeholders of the PDP in Ebonyi also wrote to to the National Working Committee announcing the  nomination of the Zonal Youth Leader of the party, Chidiebere Egwu to replace Mr. Ali Odefa as Zonal Vice Chairman of the party.

    Read Also: Nigerian youths imbued with indomitable spirit, says First Lady

    In the suit, the applicants, some of whom include those remanded last year, prayed the court for enforcement of their fundamental rights pursuant to Order two of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 and Sections 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) respectively

    Odefa as earlier stated, had accused them of forging documents purporting his suspension as the National Vice Chairman of PDP, South East 

    Lead counsel to the applicants, Mudiaga Ehrenede had in the suit filed in October last year sought seven reliefs from the Court among which was; a declaration that the threats, invitation, harassment and intimidation of the ward executives for suspending the former National Vice-Chairman (South East) were unconstitutional and a violation of their fundamental human rights.

    The applicants had also prayed the Court to grant an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from threatening, arresting, inviting or intimidating the Respondent/applicants for their roles in the suspension of the former National Vice-Chairman (South East) of the PDP for anti-party activities.

    Ruling on the suit, the presiding Judge, Justice Hilary I. O. Oshomah held that  Odefa had “maliciously”  used the police against the defendants by making criminal accusations against the applicants in a civil political matter.

    The Court frowned at Mr Odefa’s used of the police to maliciously harass and intimidate the applicants in an attempt to prevent them from prosecuting the civil suit pertaining to his suspension which rendered the matter subjudice at the time of the police report.

    The court held that Odefa who had alleged in his statement to the police that the defendants forged documents to suspend him as a member of the PDP in Oguduokwor Ward failed to show proof of any form of forgery in the court to support his claims.

    The court issued an order restraining  Odefa and the police from harassing, arresting or in any form intimidating the defendants on the issue of his suspension from the PDP, Oguduokwor Ward.

    It  awarded damages in the sum of N5, 000, 000 (five million naira) to each of the 20 defendants totaling N100, 000,000 (one hundred million). 

    The court also awarded another N2m as cost for harassing and attempting to arrest them using the instrumenalities of the Nigerian Police Force.

    The court further ordered that the cost must be paid within seven (7) days of the judgement, failure to pay, according to the court will attract 10% daily interest.

    Justice Oshomah further gave an order restraining the police and Odefa from harassing,  arresting , inviting any of the Applicants on account of facts pertaining to his suspension.

    “That N100m is hereby awarded as general damages against Ali Odefa and N2m as cost in favour of the Applicants in these consolidated suits”, the judge ruled.

    At the ruling, the OC Legal of the Nigeria Police,  Ebonyi State Command, Benson Emenike was in the court to represent the Commissioner of Police, while Odefa’s counsel was absent .

  • Court orders arrest of 150,000mts crude over $1.647m debt

    Court orders arrest of 150,000mts crude over $1.647m debt

    Justice Adamu Turaki Mohammed of the the Federal High Court, Port-Harcourt, Rivers State division, has ordered the arrest of 440 cargo of 150, 000 metric tones of Crude Oil, on board MT Tamara Tokoni with IMO No. 8302131over alleged unpaid $1. 647, 975 million USD, being hire sum due.

    The ship with the crude oil is currently located at OML 120 Western Niger Delta within the Territorial Waters of Nigeria.

    The judge made the order while granting an exparte motion marked FHC/PH/CS/287/2024, filed by ThankGod Nwugha Esq, on behalf of the plaintiff, Trisac Limited.

    Others affected by the order of the court are General Hydrocarbons Limited and Vitol Energy Limited.

     Justice Mohammed after perusing all the processes filed, also made further orders.

    The judge said: “an order is hereby made directing the admiralty marshal with the assistance of Nigerian Navy, and the Harbour Master of Nigerian Ports Authority to arrest and detain the Cargo of 150,000 Barrels of Crude Oil herein sued as 1st defendant/respondent and currently on-board MT Tamara Tokoni IMO: No. 8302131 currently lying being and situate at Western Niger Delta OML 120 Offshore Nigeria or any other location within the territorial waters of Nigeria and within Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, be arrested and remain under arrest pending further orders or further directions of this Honourable Court.

    “An order is hereby made directing that the Cargo of 150,000 barrels of Crude Oil herein sued as 1st defendant/respondent and currently on board MT Tamara Tokoni IMO 83o2131 currently lying being and lying and situate at Western Niger Delta OML 120 offshore Nigeria of any other location within the territorial water of the Nigeria and within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court be released from arrest only upon the payment of all sums claimed in the writ of summons into Court or pending the provision of an acceptable Bank Guarantee to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Honourable Court, in the sum of;

    “A total sum of USD $1,647,975 million USD, only being unpaid Hire sum due to the Plaintiff from the 2nd defendant for the Hire of the Plaintiff’s Ships: MV Donny & MV Ocean Merit for Provision of Security Surveillances and offshore support services at the 2nd Defendant’s OML 120 located at Western Delta within the territorial waters of Nigeria.

    “The sum of $60, 000.00 USD, Costs of redelivery of vessel from to Port Harcourt from Western Nigeria Delta offshore Nigeria to Port Harcourt.

    “The sum of $50,000 USD, on the footing of General damages. To be issued by First Bank of Nigeria Plc, Zenith Bank Plc., United Bank for Africa Plc or any other First Class Nigerian Bank acceptable to the applicant.”

    Read Also: Omo-Agege denies alleged plan to dump APC

    Counsel to the Plaintiff, ThankGod Nwugha, enunciating on the development in a statement issued in Lagos on Friday, January 10, 2025, warned all those affected by the court order to comply in their interests.

    Further hearing in the matter has been adjourned to January 20, 2025.

    In the the substantive suit, parts of the plaintiff’s statement of claims read: “that by a Time-Charter party entered into between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant which took effect on the 26/09/2023 and was further extended with an addendum on 18/12/2023, 26/01/2024 and 08/04/2024 respectively. Pursuant to the said Charter party, the plaintiff deployed its vessels: MV Donny, MV Ocean Merit, MV Miss Wealth for the purpose of security surveillance, pilotage and salvage operations and sundry offshore support services in aid of the exploration and production of the 1st defendant by the 2nd  defendant, which 1st defendant received, stored and managed as described in paragraph 3 above.

     The plaintiff pleads and shall rely on copy of the Charter Party, together with the addendum, which constitutes the legal frame work of its relationship with 2nd defendant at trial.

    “The three vessels aforementioned were deployed at different times in alternative. The said services rendered by them to the 2nd defendant all took Place at Gulf of Guinea, 60-75 Kilometers offshore the coast of Nigeria in the Western Niger Delta at OML 120 within the territorial waters of Nigeria.

    “The duration of the services rendered by the plaintiff’s vessels aforesaid  spanned between the 23/11/2023 and 08/04/2023 up till sometime in June 2024 when the plaintiff withdrew its services owing to the 2nd defendant’s habitual breach of payment obligations.

    “The hire, which was stated in box 9 of the charter party to be for a duration of initial 30 days subject to extension, provided for redelivery, upon termination at Port-Harcourt and for daily rate of $UDS 7,300 all-inclusive except for Taxes and VAT.

    “Payment obligations on the part of the 2nd defendant, as and when due, were often observed in the breach in a manner that rendered the entire contract a fiasco and prompted the plaintiff’s withdrawal of its services in June 2024.

    “As of the time of the plaintiff’s withdrawal of services, a total sum of USD$1,647,975, taxes and VAT inclusive, had accrued and remain unpaid by the Plaintiff despite several demands and importunities by the plaintiff.

    “The above outstanding sums, totalling USD1,647,975 were duly invoiced and sent to the defendant on different occasions.

    “The above figures are duly reflected in the invoice Nos. 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006 and 007 respectively. The plaintiff pleads and shall rely on all the said invoices at trial.

    “The continuous failure, neglect and or refusal of the 2nd defendant to pay the said outstanding hire which are due to the plaintiff is having a crippling effect on the plaintiff’s operations and thus with a resultant unacceptable financial disability to the plaintiff.

    “By agreement of plaintiff of both the plaintiff and 2nd defendant and by custom and convention, all outstanding daily rates as must have accumulated in the course of hire, ought to be defrayed before off-hire of any of plaintiff’s vessels.

    “In an apparent move to dodge its payment obligations and spring itself from liability, in regard to the said outstanding sums due to the plaintiff as stated in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, the 2nd  defendant hurriedly off-hired the Plaintiff’s vessel, MV Miss Wealth and refused to redeliver her to Port-Harcourt, Nigeria as stipulated in Box 9 of the governing Charter-Party. The plaintiff was left in the lurch to bear the burden of redelivery of the vessel from the 2nd  defendant’s OML 120 at Western Niger Delta offshore Nigeria to Port-Harcourt at a whooping cost of $60,000 USD.

    “ Following persistent requests from the plaintiff, the 2nd  defendant sent several emails promising on each occasion to defray the outstanding indebtedness as per paragraph 11 and 12 above but only relapsed into its usual contractual perfidy. Given the antecedents of the 2nd defendant, there is high possibility that it would not ordinarily pay the plaintiff for the said services rendered except by the order of this Honourable Court.

    “The plaintiff pleads and shall rely on electronic copies of email trials between the plaintiff and 2nd  defendant as it relates to the 2nd  defendant’s contractual derelictions and the certificate of compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act.

    “The 2nd defendant’s failure to discharge all payment obligation due, has resulted in an untold hardship and avoidable financial quagmire to the extent that the plaintiff is presently unable to discharge its financial obligations to its several employees, statutory agencies and business collaborators.

    “Wherefore the plaintiff claims against the 1st and 2nd  defendants jointly and severally as follows: a total sum of $1,647,975  only being unpaid Hire  due to the plaintiff from the 2nd defendant for the Hire of the plaintiff’s Ships: MV DONNY & MV OCEAN MERIT for Provision of Security Surveillances and offshore support services at the 2nd defendant’s OML 120 located at Western Delta within the territorial waters of Nigeria.

    “A total sum of USD$60,000.00 as Cost of redelivery of vessel from Western Niger Delta offshore Nigeria to Port-Harcourt.

    “The sum of $50,000 USD  on the footing of general damages.

    “The sum of $60,000 USD  as interest on the said principal sum at the rate of 21% per annum and other direct and incidental losses together with interest of 15% on the judgment sum from the date of judgment until the entire sum is fully and completely liquidated.”

  • Court throws out Ajayi’s suit seeking disqualification of Aiyedatiwa’s deputy

    Court throws out Ajayi’s suit seeking disqualification of Aiyedatiwa’s deputy

    Federal High Court sitting in Akure, has thrown out a suit seeking disqualification of Dr. Olayide Adelami as deputy governorship candidate of All Progressives Congress (APC), in the November 16 election.

    Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa won the poll with a wide margin.

    Justice Toyin Adegoke, in his judgment yesterday, held that Ajayi lacked locus standi to file the suit.

    The court held that the suit was statute barred, saying Ajayi filed it outside the 14 days required by the Electoral Act.

    Justice Adegoke held that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit because Ajayi filed it through originating summons, instead of a writ of summons.

    Ajayi had, in his originating summons, pleaded that Adelami was known by multiple conflicting and irreconcilable names of Adelami Owolabi Jackson and Olaide Owolabi Adelami.

    He asked the court to disqualify him, claiming APC had no qualified candidates for the election.

    Counsel for Adelami, Dr Remi Olatubora, said the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) result had the name Adelami Owolabi Jackson in 1974 and that a degree certificate from Ambrose Alli University issued in 1982 had the name Adelami Olaide Owolabi.

    Read Also: Senate, NUC advocate for more universities in Nigeria

    He said the grievance of the plaintiffs was not about discrepancies in the name, but the order or arrangement of the names.

    Olatubora said the plaintiffs had no right to file the suit, following Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2022 because they were not members of the APC and did not participate in the primaries that produced Adelami and Aiyedatiwa as candidates.

    Justice Adegoke ruled that PDP and Ajayi had no legal right to challenge the qualification of Adelami, as they were not aspirants in the APC primary that produced Aiyedatiwa and Adelami as candidates.

    Consequently, the court resolved all issues in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit.

  • Federal High Court to begin end-of-year vacation December 16

    Federal High Court to begin end-of-year vacation December 16

    The Federal High Court has announced plans for its judges to proceed on the end-of-year vacation on December 16.

    The jurists are to resume duties on January 6, next year, as contained in a circular by the court’s Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho.

    The circular stated that normal court sittings would resume on January 7 in all the court’s judicial divisions nationwide.

    Read Also: Why Federal High Court’s order can’t stop Rivers council poll, by APC

    During the vacation, judicial activities would still be conducted in three key divisions of the court – Abuja, Lagos, and Port Harcourt.

    Justices Emeka Nwite and M. S. Liman will serve as vacation judges in Abuja; Justices Akintayo Aluko and Isaac Dipeolu will sit as vacation judges in Lagos, while Justices P. M. Ayua and A. T. Mohammed will sit in the Port Harcourt division during the vacation.

    According to the court’s spokesperson, Dr. Catherine Oby Christopher, the only cases to be entertained during the vacation are those on enforcement of fundamental rights, arrest or release of vessels and others concerning dire national interest.

  • Again, the Rivers war!

    Again, the Rivers war!

    The latest front in the Rivers “civil war” is an Abuja Federal High Court halting federal allocations to Rivers State — till Governor Siminalayi Fubara legalizes his 2024 budget.

    Now, 2024 has less than two months to expire.  Yet, the Rivers governor — at least by the court’s verdict — has been spending illicit money!

    That order is double thunder that grates.  In the eye of emotion, it’s cruel.  But in the eye of law, it is dire, but hardly wrong. 

    Next to treason (which overthrows the democratic order) spending public money, without legal appropriation, is No. 1 political crime in a democracy — remember?

    The law is indeed very clear.  You could hardly question the propriety of that order.  But it could also prove very dire for Rivers.

    By a BudgIT ranking on states’ dependence on federal allocations, Rivers sits on No. 24, depending on federal allocations to the tune of 60.44%.  That means it needs more than N6 federal cash out of every N10 it spends.

    Lagos — the state that least depends on federal  allocations — does much better: at 26.55%, needing less than N3 for every N10. 

    Rivers does worse than hinterland Osun, with no oil wealth (60.11%); but far better than the other three oil “moguls”: Bayelsa (92.17%: this state’s internally generated revenue is near-zero!), Akwa Ibom (86.29%) and Delta (83.88%). Nigeria’s oil-rich states should really do better to grow their IGRs!

    But back to the Rivers’ blight.  With its level of dependence on federally shared cash, you can imagine the putative collapse awaiting it, when that order well and truly dawns.  Hard, hard road for Rivers!

    That’s why the pity symphony are shrill with their dolorous trumpets.

    Read Also: I’m still in charge, says embattled UNIZIK VC

    Peter Obi, with characteristic wailing, just weighed in.  His sweet prism only sees victims.  It’s blissfully blind to the clear appropriation crime Justice Joyce Abdulmalk fingered in her order.  To Obi and wailing clan, there is neither joy nor justice from that Joyce!

    “Consider the pensioner struggling to survive on a meager income alongside the health workers, school teachers, civil servants, and everyday citizens whose lives are already marked by severe hardship,” Obi rued, eye bleary with bumper tears, “How much can they endure?  This latest development risks pushing them even further into distress — even into untimely deaths — by compounding the challenges they face each day.”

    For good measure, “severe hardship” is a not-so-subtle dig at Abuja.  Cant!

    Still, the suit has a deep partisan root.  The 27 Rivers Assembly members, loyal to Nyesom Wike, ex-Rivers governor but sitting FCT minister, took the case to court, though on the solid ground of the governor spending public money without proper appropriation.

    “Proper” is key here: for Governor Fubara could also counter that he passed the budget through a four-man legislature — down from the five loyal to him, since Edison Ehie, the former Speaker that resisted Fubara’s rushed impeachment attempt, has since resigned to become Fubara’s chief of staff.

    He could even double down on that by claiming that the 27 lawmakers, now after his scalp, had crossed over to APC, from PDP on which platform they sought and won election; and had forfeited their seats, on the basis of that sole defection. 

    Indeed, this twin-claim Fubara has always pushed — no crime.

    Still, can a claimant come to judgment and reward himself victory?  That is the major chink in Fubara’s armour.  Turning a mere claim into gubernatorial power is nothing but self-help.  Self-help is the diametric opposite to due process.

    Worse: the optics!  How does four versus 27 look, even to the most ardent of the Fubara sentimental ensemble?  Forget clinical law!  Indulge in frothing emotion!  Shouldn’t four against 27, in a House of Assembly of 32 members, be defensive?

    Outright impeachment may well be the next stage in the war, should the court order not force Governor Fubara to regularize his budget.  If that push were to come to a shove, the governor would stay properly impeached, on the sole basis of spending public money without appropriation. 

    The evidence, naked and glowering, is out there in the public space — except he can prove that business concept of force majeure: meaning that as the 27 had defected, and government business couldn’t wait for fresh elections to replace them, he had no choice but to present his budget to the available and valid members.

    That would have been the Rivers’ domesticated Doctrine of Necessity, which the Senate adopted to romp President Goodluck Jonathan into office!

    Of course, both impeachment and shutting off Rivers from the federal cash spigot, would have grave political whiplashes.

    Fubara could brand Wike and co “enemies of Rivers”.  With the pocket hurting, that could gather quite some traction.  Wike, who often prides himself as the guardian-in-chief of Rivers’ interests and wellbeing, could suffer some psychological meltdown.

    Worse: the so-called “structure”, for which Wike risks everything, would have come unstuck — if not already unstuck; and the friends-turned-foes now fishing for fresh alliances for 2027.

    Still, the impeachment would happen and the heavens won’t fall.  Which prompts the wise to ask: is this fight-to-finish really worth the while? But others are quick to riposte: it’s the only way Rivers knows — that giant land of mighty gladiators!

    Still, should the worst happen, Governor Fubara would explain why he attracted a swarm of stinging bees to his once-upon-a-time serene homestead.

    Yes, Wike is domineering.  Wike is aggressive.  Wike is cantankerous.  Wike takes no prisoners!  Still, Fubara knew all that when he agreed, feigning dumbness, to be Wike’s power puppet, to maintain his “structure”.  Did Fubara think turning his back on all that would end well? 

    Moralists could squirm all they like.  But realpolitik — grim and dirty — is what it is!

    Besides, wouldn’t this court order have been avoided, had Fubara stuck to the original presidential peace treaty that directed him, for the sake of peace, to re-present his budget to the Rivers Assembly — read Wike’s sworn loyalists?

    Had he done that, wouldn’t he have craftily exposed the excesses of the Wike side, and thrown them on the defensive, to gain some concessions?  But no! 

    Fubara would rather be egged on by brazen Ijaw tribalists, some of them ace conflict entrepreneurs, who saw the Wike/Fubara tiff a growth area to milk!  They were not there when Wike and Fubara were striking their deal.  They would not also be there when the chips are down, and Fubara stands alone and naked.

    Fubara should present his budget to the majority of lawmakers, even while pursuing his suit to determine their correct status.  It’s called stooping to conquer. 

    The Wike side too should quit their hard stance; and not play politics with passing the people’s money, in utmost good faith, for the people’s welfare. 

    It’s high time both sides embraced a mutual truce, to work for the people of Rivers.  A win-win is better than a lose-lose that a looming showdown portends.

  • Shareholder urges court to stop FBN Holdings’ 12th AGM

    Shareholder urges court to stop FBN Holdings’ 12th AGM

    An FBN Holdings Plc shareholder, Mr. Kujenya Olayiwola Yusuf, has urged the Federal High Court in Lagos to restrain it from going ahead with a proposed 12th Annual General Meeting (AGM) billed for November 14.

    He accused Leadway Holdings Limited, the plaintiff, of working with the bank to deny other shareholders their rights by asking for a court-ordered virtual meeting.

    Yusuf is the sixth defendant in suit FHC/L/CS/684/2024 by Leadway Holdings.

    FBN Holdings Plc, Olusegun Onagoruwa, Olojede Solomon, Adebayo Abayomi, Ogundiran Adejare, First Bank, Hakeem Lawal-Oluwa and Yetunde Olowoyeye are the others.

    Yusuf, in a Motion on Notice filed by his lawyer, Kunle Adegoke (SAN), prays for an order of injunction mandating the Director General of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) not to recognise the 12th AGM of the FBN Holdings purportedly proposed for November 14 and any business, decision, step, action or resolution taken at the meeting.

    The applicant stated that Leadway Holdings, in an Originating Summons of April 26, prayed for a court-ordered AGM to be held on or before April 30, 2024.

    The plaintiff contended that it had been impossible for FBN Holdings to convene an AGM due to numerous suits filed by the defendants, hence the need for the court to order the meeting.

    Yusuf said despite the pending case and the court adjourning till November 18 for hearing of all pending applications and the substantive Originating Summons, First Bank issued a publication on its website entitled ‘Notice of Annual General Meeting’ dated October 18 proposing to hold the AGM virtually via https://www.fbnholdings.com/agm-2024-live at 10 am.

    The applicant said the plaintiff, First Bank and FBN Holdings have treated the court proceedings with contempt and are attempting to destroy the res (subject matter) of the dispute.

    The applicant seeks: “An order of mandatory restorative injunction reversing all steps taken in violation of the proceedings of this honourable court by the plaintiff, the first and seventh defendants in issuing a Notice of 12th Annual General Meeting and any step proposed to be taken thereafter in organising, holding and conducting any business at the said Annual General Meeting proposed to hold virtually on 14.11.2024 or any other date as may be proposed, as same is in contempt of the proceedings of this honourable Court pending in this suit.

    Read Also: Police confirm five dead, one arrested in Edo over food poisoning

    “An order of mandatory restorative injunction setting aside and or reversing all steps and actions taken by the Plaintiff, 1st and 7th Defendants and or persons purporting to act on their instructions or statutorily putting into effect any resolutions or decisions taken at the 12th Annual General Meeting proposed to be held virtually on 14.11.2024 or any other date as may be designated, including but not limited to the entities and or persons listed in the schedule to this application, which steps and/or actions were taken during the pendency of this action in relation to issuing the Notice of 12th Annual General Meeting of the 1st Respondent and conducting any business thereat.

    “An Order restraining the Plaintiff, the 1st and 7th Defendants from proceeding to hold the 12th Annual General Meeting of the 1st Defendant proposed to hold virtually in contempt of the proceedings of this honourable Court pending the determination of this suit.

    “An Order for accelerated hearing of all pending applications and the instant suit.

    “And for such further order or other orders as this honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.”

    In a 10-paragraph affidavit in support of the Motion, the 6th Defendant/Applicant (the Applicant) stated that the Plaintiff commenced the action by Originating Summons dated April 26, 2024 against the 1st Defendant/Respondent alone praying the court to inter alia order a court-ordered Annual General Meeting of the 1st Defendant to be held on or before April 30, 2024.

    He stated that it was based on various orders of the Court that all the other Defendants were subsequently joined to the suit as it was apparent that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant only designed this suit to steal a match against all the other Defendants, the 7th Defendant excluded.

    The deponent stated: “It is the contention of the Plaintiff, to which the 1st and 7th Defendants excitedly concurred, that it had been impossible for the 1st Defendant to convene an Annual General Meeting due to numerous suits filed by the 2nd – 6th and 8th and 9th Defendants, hence the need for this honourable Court to order a Court-ordered meeting of the 1st Defendant

    “Other Defendants contended that the 1st Defendant is perpetrating illegality and attempting to further oppress the other Defendants, being minority shareholders, pursuant to which fact they instituted various suits against the 1st Defendant

    “That part of the complaints of the Defendants, particularly the 6th Defendant/Applicant, is that the consistent recalcitrance of the FBN Holdings Plc to conduct its Annual General Meeting virtually is a deliberate effort to oppress the Applicant and other minority shareholders and that the Articles of Association of the 1st Defendant and the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 do not enable the 1st Defendant to conduct its Annual General Meeting virtually”

    The deponent further stated that facts, issues and claims of the Defendants in all the other suits are already referenced in the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons and the legality or otherwise of holding the Annual General Meeting of the 1st Defendant by virtual means is a live cause of action yet to be decided by this honourable Court

    “That proceedings in this matter came up last on October 15, 2024, where the plaintiff, the 1st and 7th Defendants vehemently insisted that the Court must proceed to hear their Originating Summons so that they could have a court-ordered meeting foisted on all the other Defendants in complete disregard for pending proceedings in all other suits;

    “Whilst this matter is pending and this honourable Court had adjourned its proceedings to 18.11.2024 for hearing of all pending applications and the substantive Originating Summons, the 1st Defendant, in defiance of the proceedings of this honourable Court issued a publication named ‘Notice of Annual General Meeting’ dated 18.10.2024 proposing to hold the said Annual General Meeting virtually via the Zoom link https://www.fbnholdings.com/agm-2024-live at 10 am, which is a pending subject matter before this honourable Court.

    He added that the same business of increasing and raising share capital of the 1st Defendant, which is the reason for which the plaintiff approached the court, has been proposed with finality to be conducted at the said 12th Annual General Meeting of the 1st Defendant thereby making the court a mere academic environment.

    “The 1st and 7th Defendants are attempting to foist a fait accompli on this honourable Court, using it as a mere platform to ventilate a contrived grievance that they have designed a rival means of achieving its goal;

    “The 1st and 7th Defendants have treated the proceedings of this honourable Court with contempt and disdain and are attempting to destroy the res of the dispute that the same Plaintiff, the 1st and 7th Defendants have called upon this honourable court to determine

    He added that the Defendants have desecrated the hallowed chamber of this Honourable Court by proceeding to issue the Notice of 12th Annual General Meeting designed to hold virtually to the exclusion of the minority shareholders.

    “The balance of convenience is in favour of the Applicant who would be prejudiced by the failure of this honourable Court to grant this application as the Plaintiff, 1st and 7th Defendants would proceed to hold the said Annual General Meeting to the detriment of the membership rights of the Applicant to attend and effectively participate at the said Annual General Meeting.

    “I verily believe that it is in the interest of justice that this application be heard expeditiously to protect the dignity, integrity and sanctity of this honourable Court and its proceedings,” he concluded.

  • Federal High Court resumes today from annual vacation

    Federal High Court resumes today from annual vacation

    The Federal High Court (FHC) will resume today from its annual vacation.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the annual vacation, which began on July 23, was expected to end on September 13.

    Although normal court sittings were supposed to have begun yesterday, they were postponed due to the public holiday declared by the Federal Government to celebrate the Maulud Nabbiy, the birthday of Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

    Court activities will take off officially today.

    NAN also reports that the FHC Assistant Director of Information/ICT, Dr. Catherine Oby-Christopher, had, on July 11 in a statement, said the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, had announced the commencement of the court’s annual vacation.

    It reads: “By virtue of the provisions of Order 46, Rule 4 (d) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Justice John Tsoho, announces its 2024 annual vacation and roster for vacation judges.

    Read Also: FG trains auto technicians on petrol to CNG vehicle conversion in Ekiti

    “The vacation will commence from July 23 to September 13, 2024.

    “Normal court sitting will resume on September 16, 2024.

    “This is in order for judges to enjoy their well- deserved rest and to prepare for the tasks and activities of the New Legal year.”

    The statement advised litigants to approach Abuja, Lagos, and Port Harcourt divisions of the court for matters of extreme urgency during the period.

    Justice Emeka Nwite and Justice Peter Lifu of the Abuja Division; Justice Akintayo Aluko and Justice Isaac Dipeolu for Lagos Division; and Justice A. T. Mohammed and Justice P. M. Ayua for PortHarcourt were appointed vacation judges.