The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federal High Court

  • Court stops council polls in Oyo

    A Federal High Court, sitting in Ibadan, Wednesday ordered the Oyo state Independent Electoral Commission (OYSIEC) to suspend the planned Local Government election into the newly created Local Community Development Authority (LCDA) pending the determination of the substantive suit before the court.

    Some aggrieved members of the All Progressive Congress (APC) from Ibarapa East Local Government had approached the Federal High Court over the creation of new wards, seeking an interim order to suspend the conduct of council poll slated for May 12, 2018 in the state.

    Justice Joyce Abdul-Malik of Federal High Court 2 in her brief ruling on the motion, granted the prayers of the aggrieved parties, retraining OYSIEC from conducting election into the newly created wards pending the determination of the substantive suit.

    The interim relief in favour of the aggrieved APC members was made in respect of the new wards’ delineation by the state government, restraining OYSIEC from conducting election into the new wards.

    Plans by the State Independent Electoral Commission to conduct election into local government and LCDA’s by May 12 is already at the peak.

    A similar scenario played out when some baales in Oyo West, Atiba and Oyo East local governments sought an order restraining the commission from conducting the planned election in 2017 pending the determination of the case which eventually led to shifting the date of the election from February 21 to May 2018.

    The state Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr Olusegun Abimbola said the government would take immediate step to vacate the order which he claimed was yet to be served on the government.

    He said ” the point is that the existing laws in the state forbid any interim order from any court in respect of any proceeding to affect the timing of scheduled election by that provision of Section 9 of the Oyo state Independent Electoral Commission law Cap 154 Laws of Oyo state 2000″

    Read Also: Man in court for allegedly slapping policeman

  • Court orders forfeiture of Patience Jonathan’s Abuja property

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the interim forfeiture of two buildings allegedly owned by former First Lady, Patience Jonathan.

    Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, in a ruling on Monday said the interim order granted based on an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), shall last for 45 days, but subject to renewal upon application by the EFCC.

    The property are identified as: Plot No: 1960 Cadastral Zone A05 Maitama District and 1758 Cadastral Zone A00 Business District, Abuja, located on Shehu Yar’Adua Way, along Mabushi-Kado Life Camp Expressway, Abuja.

    The property currently serve as the headquarters of two groups –  A. Aruera Reachout Foundation/Women For Change and Development Initiative – linked with the ex-First Lady.

    The judge also restrained the owners of the property from selling or mortgaging them while the forfeiture order lasts.

    Justice Dimgba said the orders were necessary to enable the EFCC conduct its investigation on the property.

    The said the applicant should, at the end of its investigation, file charges where the allegations against the respondents are established.

    The judge said: “I hereby accordingly grant reliefs 1 and 2 sought.  Relief 3 is refused, because it is not supported by the grounds of the application and thus unnecessary in the circumstances of the application.”

    The two reliefs granted are:

    *An order of interim attachment / forfeiture of the asset and property set out in the schedule attached herein. (Plot No. 1960 Cadastral Zone A05, MAitama District, Abuja; and Plot No. 1350, Cadastral Zone A00, Abuja).

    *An order stopping any disposal, conveyance, mortgage, lease, sale or alienation or otherwise of the property/asset described in the schedule herein

    The third relief refused by the court related to EFCC’s request for permission to appoint either a firm or individuals to manage the property.

    The judge added: “The order of court granting the reliefs shall last only for a period of 45 days within which the applicant must conclude their investigation and file necessary criminal charges where investigation reveals the commission of a crime.

    “The applicant is at liberty to apply for a renewal of the order on cause, provided that such an application to be valid is made before the expiry of the 45 days validity period granted by the Court.

    “Given the highly contentious nature of this application, I further order that where the applicant wishes to physically access the attached properties in execution of the order herein made, the applicant with the representatives of the respondent, shall take an inventory of all the contents and fixtures of the properties and shall file a report/result of such inventory to this court.”

    The judge dismissed the respondent’s objection to the suit. In dismissing the objection, the judge rejected the respondent’s argument that the suit was not properly commenced and that it was an abuse of court process.

    Lawyer to the respondent, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), while reacting to  the court’s decision said by the judgment, his client has lost nothing.

    “We did not lose,we  won. What the EFCC wanted was for the property in dispute attached and forfeited to the government but the court refused and instead gave them 45 days to further investigate and prosecute if they so wish with liberty to apply for renewal.

    “That is actually victory for us as the property was not forfeited,” Ozekhome said.

    Read Also: Court grants interim forfeiture of Patience Jonathan’s property

     

  • Why I was represented at the Senate – Police IG

    The Inspector General of Police  (IGP), Ibrahim Idris has explained why he was not physically present to honour the invitation of the Senate Chambers of the National Assembly.

    The IG explained that he was  absent because he was on an official assignment in Bauchi State with President Muhammadu Buhari.

    The Senate had summoned the IG to appear before it to answer questions on why Senator Dino Melaye was handcuffed by Policemen and the spate of killings and insecurity in various parts of the country.

    The IG sent the Deputy Inspector General of Police in charge of operations, Joshak Habilla to represent him but the Senate rejected the representation.

    The Police in a statement in Abuja on Friday while quoting the Constitution said the duties of the IG could be carried out by either a DIG or an AIG.

    The statement by the Force Spokesman, ACP Jimoh Moshood reads: “The functions, duties and responsibilities of the Inspector General of Police as listed in Section 215 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can also be carried out as mentioned in section 312 (1) of the Police Act and Regulation by a senior officer of the Force of the Rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Assistant Inspector General of Police who if permitted by the Inspector General of Police to act on his behalf or represent him in official capacity at any function, event or programme within and outside Nigeria can do so in consonant with the provisions of the Police Act and Regulation.

    “It is on the basis of the above that while the Inspector General of Police is on an official assignment in Bauchi State that he delegated the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Department of Operations to represent him and honour the invitation of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria in respect of the felonious offenses for which Sen. Dino Melaye was taken into Police custody, investigated and to be arraigned in the Federal High Court, Lokoja without further delay.”

    The statement further reads: “Consequently, the general public are hereby implored to note that the Inspector General of Police acted rightly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Police Act and Regulation and other extant laws by delegating the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Department of Operations to represent him at the Senate, National Assembly on 26th April, 2018 to present the Police report, actions and findings in a case of Criminal Conspiracy and Unlawful Possession of Prohibited Firearms and other sundry offenses indicting Senator Dino Melaye.”

    On Melaye’s case, the Police urged the Senate not to trivialize the case against Melaye adding that the Senate should allow the rule of law to prevail.

    “The Nigeria Police Force is a law abiding organization and holds the Senate and its leadership in high esteem, however the Force wishes to impress on the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria not to personalize or trivialize the criminal offenses (Criminal Conspiracy and Unlawful Possession of Prohibited Firearms and other sundry offenses) indicting Sen. Dino Melaye from confessions of two (2) suspected kidnappers and Armed Robbers namely: KABIRU SAIDU a.k.a OSAMA and NUHU SALISU a.k.a SMALL; but should allow the rule of law and justice to prevail.

  • Money laundering: I can’t be convicted – Metuh

    ….As court refuses request for foreign treatment

     

    Former spokesman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh said Thursday that his trial will not lead to conviction.

    Metuh said: “I will go to the witness box. There is nothing in my case that will ever lead to conviction.”

    He spoke in Abuja Thursday while reacting to a ruling by Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court on his (Metuh’s) motion for leave to travel abroad for medical treatment.

    Metuh and his company, Destra Investment Limited are being tried before the court on charges of money laundering.

    They are said to have unlawfully received N400m from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) in November 2014 to fund the party’s presidential campaign ahead of the 2015 poll.

    Metuh and Destra are also said to have engaged in cash transaction of $2m without going through a financial institution.

    Ruling yesterday, Justice Abang said his court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Metuh’s motion, since he failed to appeal the court’s decision in May 2016, rejecting similar a application by the defendant.

    The judge also said the motion, argued by parties last month, was without merit because it was not supported by a medical report.

    Metuh, who had on two occasions attended court on a stretcher and later on wheel chair, came to court yesterday with the aid of a walking frame.

    Justice Abang had, on May 25, 2016 dismissed a similar motion for the release of his passport to enable him seek medical attention in the United Kingdom.

    While dismissing the latest one yesterday, the judge upheld the argument by Sylvanus Tahir (for the prosecution) that Exhibit 3, relied upon by the applicant amounted to “a documentary hearsay” in as much as the doctor who issued it did not personally examine Metuh.

    Justice Abang noted that, besides failing to personally examine Metuh, the doctor who authored the document merely relied on other medical reports which were never produced before the court for scrutiny.

    Justice Abang said: “To the extent that the author of Exhibit 3 relied  on the content of two other letters or two other medical reports dated January 20, 2017 and January 30, 2018 to come to the conclusion that the defendant needed to be referred to the United Kingdom, the Exhibit 3 is a documentary hearsay which is not tenable. I so hold.

    “In the same vein, the applicant cannot rely on the document not brought before the court without producing the document before the court.

    “He (Metuh) ought to have known that it is no longer fashionable to use ill health to delay trial,” the judge said.

    Justice Abang noted that had the court not prevented Metuh from hijacking the proceedings, he would not have called the 10 witnesses that had appeared in court to defend him.

    He added: “On the account of the conduct of the 1st defendant (Metuh) since February 9, 2016 when the prosecution closed its case whereby the defendant has employed all manners of tactics to delay the case, I cannot exercise my discretion in his favour.

    “On whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the application, in the final analysis, I have no jurisdiction to entertain the matter on merit.

    “On whether the application has merit, the application lacks merit and accordingly dismissed.”

    The judge further noted that there was no medical report filed in support of the application even when the Supreme Court had ruled that for such application to be granted it must be backed by a convincing medical report to the satisfaction of the court.

    He said Metuh could not have filed a medical report since the court had, on January 25, 2016 prohibited him from filing such report since he had resorted to using his ill health to frustrate the trial.

    The judge was of the view that instead of filing a fresh motion for permission to travel abroad, Metuh ought to have appealed the 2016 ruling of the court.

    Justice Abang adjourned to today for further proceedings in the case.

    Reacting to the judge’s ruling after the court’s proceedings, Metuh described court’s decision as “frustrating” and “shocking”.

    He noted: “This is because, in the course of our filing the application we had contended with the fact that the judge said we should not bring medical report again.

    Metuh, who is currently conducting his defence, has called 10 witnesses.

    He noted that “in the course of defending this matter, there is nothing unlawful or illegal that we have done”.

    Metuh insisted that he was innocent. He said he was eager to defend himself and might have have to stop calling from his fresh list of 10 witnesses to enable him personally take the witness stand.

    He said: “I will go to the witness box. There is nothing in my case that will ever lead to conviction.”

    Read Also: Money Laundering: Court dismisses SAN’s, ex-minister’s no-case submissions

  • Court doubts Metuh’s claim of ill health

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, has expressed doubts as to whether the claim of ill health by Olisah Metuh, the embattled former National Publicity Secretary of the People’s Democratic Party, (PDP), is true.

    The trial judge, Justice Okon Abang, said on Thursday while delivering a ruling on an application seeking the release of Metuh’s international passport to enable him travel abroad for medical treatment.

    According to the judge, “I am wondering, if the defendant is really sick as he claims, why he not appealed the two earlier decisions of the court that refused to release his international passport.

    “I doubt that he is really ill as he wants the court to believe, if he is, he should have appealed the decisions of the court at the Court of Appeal.”

    The judge wondered why Metuh appealed decisions of the trial court that had nothing to do with his health but refused to appeal those that dealt directly with his health.

    Abang held that it seemed there was a hidden agenda by Metuh to present the court as inhuman by filing the same application before the trial court a third time rather than going on appeal.

    He said that he agreed with the arguments of the prosecution that filing the application for a third time was an unpardonable and reckless abuse of judicial processes.

    The judge maintained that the defendants ought to know that where a trial court decided a matter, it could not be brought before it again under any guise.

    He further said that since the prosecution closed its case in 2016, the defendant, rather than defending his case, had taken several steps to frustrate the trial.

    The judge said that he could not sit on appeal over his own judgment having already refused an application for the release of Metuh’s passport twice.

    He added that contrary to the claim by Metuh’s counsel, Mr Onyeachi Ikpeazu, (SAN), there were no new facts in the current application as the facts in it were the same as those in the last two applications.

    “The issues raised in this application have already been determined in the two previous rulings on the matter; there is nothing new in this application.”

    He held that on account of Metuh’s conduct since the prosecution closed its case, he could not order the release of his passport and that he lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter having decided it before.

    He therefore dismissed the application for lacking in merit and adjourned the matter until April 20 for continuation of trial.

    Metuh on March 14, for the third time, asked the court to release his international passport to enable him travel abroad for medical treatment.

    One of his counsel, Mr Emeka Etiaba (SAN), told the court that his client did not appeal the two previous applications which were refused by the court but added that this was a new and different application.

    Etiaba had told the court that the new application was premised on the grounds that Metuh had lost sensation in his legs adding that this never happened before.

  • Court refuses EFCC’s objection in ex-Air chief Amosu’s trial

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Wednesday refused an objection by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to an application by a former Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Adesola Amosu (rtd) to access the records of proceedings in his trial.

    Prosecuting Counsel Rotimi Oyedepo had opposed an application by Amosu’s lawyer Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN) for the record of proceedings.

    The SAN said the defence needed to compare their notes with the court’s records for a proper cross-examination of a prosecution witness Tosin Owobo, an investigator described as a star witness.

    He said: “On March 29 we wrote the court applying for the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the proceedings as recorded by the court. I will be applying that the court should direct the registrar to provide us with the CTC of the proceedings. We want to study it for us to properly cross-examine the witness”.

    But, Oyedepo faulted the request, saying the defendants had enough time and facilities to prepare for their defence.

    “The defendants were served with the proof of evidence on June 23, 2016. During proceedings, the defence was taking notes painstakingly and as such it cannot be said that records of proceedings were not available to them.

    “It would have been a different thing if the defence lawyers have not participated in the proceedings. The application is not in the interest of justice and I urged the court to refuse it,” he said.

    Justice Mohammed Idris overruled Oyedepo and held that that record of proceedings should be made available to the defence.

    Amosu, former Nigeria Air Force (NAF) Chief of Accounts and Budgeting, Air Vice Marshal Jacob Adigun and a former Director of Finance and Budget, Air Commodore Olugbenga Gbadebo were arraigned before Justice Idris.

    EFCC accused them of diverting about N21billion NAF funds, but they pleaded not guilty.

    An initial plea bargain talks with EFCC broke down after they reportedly refunded some money to the Federal Government.

    Justice Idris adjourned until May 2.

    Read Also:EFCC gets court’s nod to appeal ruling quashing charges against Jonathan’s cousin, wife

  • EFCC gets court’s nod to appeal ruling quashing charges against Jonathan’s cousin, wife

    A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday granted permission to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to appeal the March 29 ruling of the court, partially upholding the no-case submission of Robert Azibaola, a cousin to ex-President Goodluck Jonathan.

    Justice Nnamdi Dimgba had in the ruling, fully upheld the no-case submission made by Azibaola’s wife, Stella and quashed the charge against her, but partially upheld the no-case submission by the husband and their firm, One Plus Holding Nigeria Limited.

    The judge, in partially upholding the no-case submissions by Azibaola and One Plus, voided counts counts 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, leaving only two – counts 2 and 3 of the 9-count charge on which the three were arraigned in a charge filed in 2016.

    The EFCC arraigned Azibaola, Stella and One Plus on a 9-count charge of conspiracy to covert money and money laundering.

    They were accused of diverting the $40million they allegedly received from the Office of the National Security Adviser, which was meant for the purchase of tactical communication kits for special forces.

    The three were said to have laundered the money by trading with the funds through bureau de change companies instead of deploying the money for the purpose it was intended.

    At trial, the prosecution called a number of witnesses and closed its case, following which the defendants made a no-case submission.

    In a ruling on March 29 this year, Justice Dimgba quashed the 8 counts relating to Stella, on the grounds that the prosecution could not lead evidence to support the counts.

    On the part of Azibaola and One Plus, the judge partially upheld their no-case submission by quashing some counts, leaving counts 2 and 3 on which the two defendants were expected to enter defence.

    Yesterday, prosecution lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir moved a motion for leave to appeal an aspect of the ruling on grounds other than law alone.

    The prosecution attached its proposed notice of appeal to the motion.

    Kanayo Okafor, who represented the defendants did not object to the prosecution’s motion, which the judge granted.

    By yesterday’s development, the prosecution can proceed with its appeal.

    The proposed notice of appeal sighted on Wednesday contained four grounds on which the prosecution faulted the March 29 ruling.

    In ground one, the prosecution argued that the trial judge erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he upheld Azibaola and Stella’s no case submission on the charge of conspiracy to launder money without allowing the two defendants to lead evidence proving that they were couple of a Christian marriage.

    It argued: “the trial court, without any shred of evidence placed before it, jumped into the conclusion that the 1st and 2nd respondents are husband and wife legally disabled from committing conspiracy with each other.

    “The trial court made a case for the 1st and 2nd respondents without hearing evidence from them on their marital status.

    “The trial court jettisoned the time honoured principle that, at the stage of no-case submission, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses should only raise a prima facie case, not that the court should evaluate the evidence as in the case of proof beyond reasonable doubt which comes later.”

    The prosecution also faulted the trial judge for discharging Stella on the offence of “directly taking possession or control of the sum of $39.9m (contained in count 2) and directly converting the said sum, along with the 1st and 3rd respondents. (in count 3).

    It argued that while the trial judge rightly held that Stella was a director of One Plus and a signatory to its account, went ahead to exonerate her “by speculating that she was probably charged because she is the spouse of the 1st defendant.”

    The prosecution accused the trial judge of misdirecting himself in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he discharged the 1st and 3rd defendants on the charge of laundering the sum of, 650m (in count 7), the prosecution having  led credible evidence to show that the money was “used to buy a property – Plot 2245 Maitama Cadastra Zone No. A06 – in the name of the 3rd respondent.”

    It argued that the decision of the trial judge “was unreasonable and unwarranted in the circumstances of this case.”

    Follwoing the agreement by parties yesterday that the trail should continue on the remaining two counts despite the leave granted the prosecution to appeal, Justice Dimgba has adjourned to June 4 for  continuation of trial.

     

  • Cost of Buhari’s London treatment: CBN, Emefiele know fate June 5

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed June 5 for judgment in a suit seeking to compel the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and its Governor, Godwin Emefiele to provide information on the amount the country paid for President Muhammadu Buhari’s treatment in London last year.

    Justice John Tsoho chose the date on Tuesday after parties adopted their final written addresses and made their final submissions.

    Chukwuwike Okafor, for the applicant – the Incorporated Trustees of Advocacy for Societal Rights Advancement and Development Initiative (ASRADI) – urged the court to discountenance the respondents’ argument and grant his client’s reliefs.

    Babafemi Durojaiye, for the 1st and 2nd respondents (CBN and its Governor), prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

    He argued among others, that the applicant’s grievance was misdirected.

    ASRADI had filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1142/2017 last year following the alleged failure of the CBN and its Governor to respond to a Freedom of Information request on what the bank released for the payment of Buhari’s treatment in London.

    ASRADI stated that the CBN and its Governor refused to honour its Freedom of Information request contained in a letter of October 19, 2017 for information on the amount released for Buhari’s medical treatment in London and the amount paid on behalf of the Nigerian government as parking fees for keeping the presidential aircraft and crew in the UK while the President’s treatment lasted.

    The group wants the court to declare that the failure of the respondents to provide it with information it sought through its letter of October 19, 2017 (on the expenditure of the President’s London treatment) “amounts to a wrongful denial of information and is a flagrant violation of the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2011.”

    The applicant also seeks an order compelling the respondents to furnish it with information sought in the letter of October 19, 2017, and a further order, mandating the CBN and its Governor to pay the plaintiff N10million in damages “for the wilful refusal of the 1st and 2nd respondents to release information in respect of the applicant’s letter dated 19th Ocober 2017.”

    The applicant hinged its prayers on the ground that the applicant, being a civil society organisation, that advocates for public interest issues and engages in anti-corruption and other related campaigns, was entitled to the information sought under the FOI Act.

    In a supporting affidavit, ASRADI’s Executive Director, Adeolu Oyinlola stated that his group had, through a letter of October 19, 2017 filed under the FOI Act, applied to the CBN and it Governor for information on the country’s expenditure on President Buhari’s treatment in London, but was ignored by them.

    He stated that it was within the responsibilities of the CBN and its Governor to provide the requested information they “are responsible for all foreign currency transactions of the Nigerian government or transactions involving the Federal Government of Nigeria and foreign institutions as it concerns transfer of money outside the shores of Nigeria.”

    Oyinlola further stated that it was in the interest of the Nigerian public that the court grants his group’s prayers to compel the respondents to declare the requested information because ASRAD was daily inundated by demands from the public to investigate the amount of tax payers’ money spent by the Federal Government in the course of the treatment of President Buhari in London and what it cost to keep the Presidential aircraft at the Stansted airport for the duration of the treatment.

     

  • Money Laundering: Court dismisses SAN’s, ex-minister’s no-case submissions

    The Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday dismissed a no-case submission made by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mr Dele Belgore in a money laundering charge brought against him and a former National Planning Minister Prof Abubakar Suleiman.

    Justice Rilwan Aikawa held that they had a case to answer.

    He directed them to open their defence.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) accused them of money laundering.

    Former Petroleum Resources Minister Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke is also named in the charge.

    EFCC said she is “at large”.

    Belgore and Suleiman, through their counsel Mr Ebun Shofunde and Tunji Ayanlaja, both SANs, said the prosecution did not make out a prima facie case against them.

    Suleiman aligned himself with Belgore’s no-case submission, urging the court to discharge and acquit them.

    But EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo urged the court to dismiss the no case submission.

    He said: “Our case against the defendants is that they failed to follow the statutory banking procedure. The defendants by their status cannot say that they don’t know what conventional banking procedure is all about. They ought to be called upon to explain why they took possession of proceeds of unlawful activities.

    “The evidence of the second prosecution witness, Usman Zakari, is not hearsay because he narrated what transpired during investigation of the case and this was corroborated by other documents, witness’ evidence and the unequivocal admission of the first defendant (Belgore)”.

    Ruling, Justice Aikawa upheld the prosecution’s arguments, agreeing that a prima-facie case had been made out against the defendants.

    “Consequently, I hereby overrule the no-case submission made by the learned senior advocate. The first and second defendants may therefore wish to enter their defence,” he held.

    After the ruling, defence counsel Seni Adio (SAN), who stood in for Shofunde, said he had a pending application dated January 16 in which Belgore is praying the court to order the EFCC to produce all the statements he made.

    But Oyedepo argued that the prosecution tendered all the statements Belgore made and had closed its case.

    “All the statements were frontloaded by the defence. There was nothing the witness volunteered that was not tendered in court. This application is just designed to delay the opening of their defence,” he said.

    Besides, he said the issue of incomplete statement was raised in the no-case submission, which had been decided. He said the prosecution having closed its cases, the application, filed since January, was therefore incompetent.

    “The application is an abuse of court process and is incompetent. In view of the service of the application on me today (yesterday), I urge the court to strike it out,” Oyedepo prayed.

    But, Adio insisted that the additional statements were needed to enable Belgore defend himself.

    “The issue we have raised goes to the heart of our case. It is part of what the Constitution requires that they provide for the defence. The defendant knows how many statements he made. We need those statements to be complete and on record,” the SAN argued.

    Justice Aikawa then directed Oyedepo to file a formal objection to the application to produce the additional statements.

    He adjourned for hearing of the application.

    In the nine-count amended charge, EFCC accused Alison-Madueke, Belgore and Suleiman of making cash payment of N10million to a Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) in Kwara State Dr Emmanuel Onucheyo.

    The commission said they also paid N10million to a Commissioner of Police in the state Garba Saliu.

    According to EFCC, they allegedly made the payments on March 27, 2015 without going through a financial institution.

    The sums, the commission said, exceeded the amount authorised by law and violated Section 1(a) and Section 16 (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act of 2012 and punishable under Section 16 (2) (b).

    The defendants were also accused in the amended charge of making cash payment of N61,656,000 to Isa Biu on the same day, exceeding what is authorised by law.

    EFCC said they also paid N87,962,000 to Sola Adeoti and Hajiya Dankaka on the same day “without going through a financial institution.”

    EFCC said they “directly took possession of the sum N450million,” adding that they “reasonably ought to have known [that the money] forms part of the proceeds of unlawful act.”

    It also accused them of “indirectly” using the sum of N450million on March 27, 2015 and making cash payment of N450million, which exceeded the amount authorised by law.

    According to the commission, Mrs Alison-Madueke, Belgore and Sulieman, on the same day, made cash payment of N50million to one Sheriff Shagaya, an amount exceeding what is authorised by law.

    They pleaded not guilty.

    Justice Rilwan Aikawa adjourned until April 30 for hearing.

  • Recall process: Dino Melaye heads for Supreme Court

    …Seeks voiding of Appeal Court’s judgment affirming INEC’s power on recall

     

     

    Senator Dino Melaye (All Progressives Congress – Kogi West) has lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court against the March 16, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which affirmed the power of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a referendum for the purpose of recalling a legislator unhindered.

    Melaye, in a notice of appeal dated April 3, 2018, filed by his lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), urged the Supreme Court to among others, set aside the Court of Appeal judgment, which upheld an earlier judgment by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    INEC had in July last year, on receiving a petition from some registered voters from Melaye’s constituency, requesting his recall on grounds of non-performance, wrote to notify him about the petition and further steps it intended to take.

    On learning about the petition, Melaye filed fundamental rights enforcement suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja, accusing INEC of not affording him fair hearing by not serving him with a copy of the petition to enable him respond.

    Before the suit could be heard, Justice John Tsoho (also of the Federal High Court, Abuja) entertained an ex-parte application from Melaye, and granted it, restraining INEC from taking any further steps in relation to the petition.

    Justice Dimgba, who later heard the substantive suit, dismissed it for being unmeritorious. The judge, in his judgment, held that Melaye’s suit was “hasty, premature and presumptuous.”

    Melaye appealed to the Court of Appeal, which, in a unanimous judgment of a three-man panel on March 16, 2018, dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.

    Justice Tunde Awotoye, who read the Court of Appeal’s lead judgment, upheld the decision of the Federal High Court and said the trial court ought not to have wasted time hearing Melaye’s suit, but should have struck it out for not disclosing any cause of action.

    Justice Awotoye said: “Such statutory bodies like the INEC should be allowed to exercise their statutory powers without interference by the court. The appellant cannot claim that his right of fair hearing was infringed upon. His right to fair hearing has not been violated since INEC, as a statutory body, is not a tribunal neither is it a court of law.

    “The appellant has not disclosed any cause of action and the suit ought to have been struck out by the trial court for not disclosing any cause of action. I agree with the decision of the trial court.

    “Ordinary, it ought to have struck out the suit for non-disclosure of cause of action. This is because where there is no cause of action, the court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit.  Having resolved all the issues in the appeal against the appellant, I hereby struck out the suit and dismiss the appeal,” Justice Awotoye said,

    It is this decision of the Court of Appeal that Melaye now seeks to challenge at the Supreme Court with his notice of appeal of seven grounds.

    As against the finding by the Court of Appeal that INEC was still within time to conduct Melaye’s recall process, the Senator wants the Supreme Court to hold otherwise.

    Melaye wants the Supreme Court to, among others, declare that the statutory 90-day period for INEC to conduct a recall process, provide in Section 69(b) of the Constitution, having elapsed by effluxion of time on September 23, 2017, INEC can no longer validly proceed on the basis of the petition for his recall, presented on June 23, 2017.

    He equally wants an order of perpetual injunction, restraining INEC from commencing or further proceeding with the process of acting on the petition presented to it by his supposed ‎constituents.

    Read Also: INEC to proceed with Melaye’s recall as his appeal fails