The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federal High Court

  • Police detention: Evans knows fate August 29

    Police detention: Evans knows fate August 29

    A Federal High Court in Lagos will on August 29 deliver judgment in a N300million fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by suspected kidnap kingpin, Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike a.k.a. Evans, challenging his continued detention by the police.

    Justice Abdul-Azeez Anka fixed the date Wednesday after taking arguments from Evans’ lawyer Olukoya Ogungbeje and lawyers for the police.

    The judge dismissed an argument by the police on Tuesday that the suit was not ripe for hearing, as well as the N300,000 punitive costs sought against Ogungbeje for alleged wrongful service, paving way for parties to state their case.

    The Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Nigeria Police Force (NPF), Commissioner of Police (COP) Lagos State and Lagos State Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) are the first to fourth respondents.
    Counsel for both the IGP and the NPF, Henry Obiazi, urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of merit.

    He said the case had to do with murder, armed robbery and kidnapping, which were all capital offences.

    Citing Section 35 (7) of Constitution, Obiazi argued that Evans’ fundamental rights were not absolute, adding that the ‘billionaire kidnapper’ would soon be arraigned by the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP).

    “Though the Constitution guarantees the fundamental rights of every Nigerian citizen, these rights are not absolute, particularly, when they have to do with capital offences. I urge the court to hold that the application is unmeritorious and dismiss it”, Obiazi said.

    In his submissions, lawyer representing the COP and SARS, Emmanuel Eze, argued that Evans had not shown any cause of action against his clients.

    He claimed that Evans was arrested by the Intelligence Response Team (IRT) set up by the IGP and not by any of his clients.

    Eze faulted claims that the applicant was subjected to media trial saying no material fact was placed before the court in that regard.

    According to him, the nature of the offences allegedly committed by Evans was conspiracy, armed robbery, kidnapping and murder.

    Besides, he alleged that prior to his arrest; Evans was involved in many robberies, including series of attacks on bullion vans where many policemen lost their lives.

    “My lord, it is not up to 90 days that the applicant was arrested. Besides, there is an order of the court for his remand. The applicant is an international kidnapper terrorizing states across the country.

    “I urge the court to dismiss this application with punitive costs so as to serve as a deterrent to others who may want to file such frivolous application in the future”, Eze said.

    But, opposing their arguments, Ogungbeje, urged the court to hold that the respondents had run foul of the law by detaining Evans since last June 10.

    He faulted the respondents’ arguments that a suspect suspected of committing a capital offence can be detained without a court’s order.

    According to him, the assertion may be applicable only at the point where the suspect is seeking bail after his arraignment.

    “The proper thing for the respondents to do is to have the applicant arraigned and then inform the court about the capital nature of the offence upon which he may then be remanded in their custody”, he said.

    After listening to parties’ submissions, Justice Anka adjourned till August 29 for judgment.

    In the suit, Evans, through Ogungbeje, is seeking an order directing the police to charge him to court immediately or release him on bail.

    He said his detention since last June 10 without charge was a violation of his fundamental rights enshrined in sections 35 (1) (c) (3) (4) (5) (a) (b) and 36 of the Constitution.

    For his alleged unlawful detention, Evans wants the court to award N300m damages against the police in his favour.

  • PDP crisis: South West, Ogun PDP Excos sue Makarfi, Obi, others

    PDP crisis: South West, Ogun PDP Excos sue Makarfi, Obi, others

    …Seek nullification of NEC, Convention resolution

    The South West Zonal Executive Committee of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has filed a suit before a Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking an order for the nullification of the 75th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the PDP and the ratification or adoption at the special non-elective National Convention of the party held last Saturday.

    The zonal executive, among other demands, also prayed the court to grant an order nullifying the ratification by and/or affirmative resolution of the convention approving or effecting the dissolution of the PDP South West Executive Committee and the appointment of a South West Zonal Executive Committee in replacement thereof.

    The suit was filed in the court on behalf of the members of the South West Zonal Executive Committee of the party by its zonal secretary, Chief Pega Otemolu.

    The suit, FHC/ABJ/732/2017, has the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the PDP, Senators Ahmad Makarfi and Ben Obi, Eddy Olafeso, Bunmi Jenyo and the Inspector-General of Police, as defendants.

    This is even as the Ogun State chapter of the party under the leadership of Engr. Adebayo Dayo is also praying the same court to set aside its purported dissolution by the National Executive Committee (NEC) and the National Convention.

    The case with Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/701/2017 has Engr. Adebayo Dayo and Alhaji Semiu Sodipo as the first and second plaintiffs who sued for themselves and on behalf of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

    The defendants are the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    According to the suit filed by Otemolu, the PDP deliberately defied and subverted the order and judgment of the Federal High Court in SUIT NO. FHC/L/CS/605/16, delivered on the May 17, 2016 and June 24, 2016 respectively; and also contravened the terms and purpose of the interim order made on August 10, 2017, by the Federal High Court.

    The plaintiff contended that the PDP violated an order of interim injunction restraining the party from operating in the South West Zone of the party through any committee in which the applicant, Chief Pegba Otemolu and Chief Makanjuola Ogundipe are not members in the capacity of Secretary and Chairman respectively of the South West Zonal Executive Committee of the PDP pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

    The plaintiff further told the court that the party disobeyed an order of interim injunction restraining the PDP and its officers, organs and delegates from recognizing any harmonization, restructuring or disruption of the PDP Leadership structures in the South West Zone.

    Listing its prayers to the court, the plaintiff said it is seeking an “An order nullifying the decision taken by the 2nd defendant/respondent (PDP) at its 75th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting, which took place on the 11th day of August 2017 (and its ratification or adoption at the Special non-elective National Convention of the 2nd Defendant of 12th August) to the effect that the 5th and 6th defendants/respondents (Olafeso and Jenyo) be recognised as Chairman and Secretary of the South West Zonal Executive Committee notwithstanding the order of the Federal High Court made on the 17th day of May 2016 in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/605/2016 nullifying the purported South West Zonal Congress of 14th of May 2016 at which they claim to have been elected and for their inclusion in a Conciliation Committee and/or Executive/Caretaker Committee to usurp the functions and powers of the authentic officers of the South West Executive Committee as confirmed by the judgment of the Federal High Court in the said Suit No. FHC/L/CS/605/2016.

    “An order nullifying the ratification by and/or affirmative resolution of the Special Non-Elective National Convention of the 2nd defendant/respondent of the 12th day of August 2017 sanctioning, approving or effecting the dissolution of the PDP South West Executive Committee and the appointment of a South West Caretaker Committee in replacement thereof.”

    In the suit filed by the Ogun State PDP, the plaintiffs are seeking an order nullifying the decision taken by the national leadership of the party at its 75th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting.

    Specifically, it is praying the court for “an order nullifying the ratification by and/or affirmative resolution of the Special Non-Elective National Convention of the 1st defendant/respondent of the 12th day of august 2017 sanctioning, approving or effecting the dissolution of the PDP Ogun State Executive Committee and the appointment of a State Caretaker Committee in replacement thereof.

    “An order nullifying the decision or resolution of the PDP Special Non-Elective National Convention of the 1st defendant/respondent of 12th August 2017 directing or approving the conduct of a State Congress for the election of new members of the PDP Ogun State Executive Committee.

    “An order restraining the 1st Defendant from setting up a Caretaker Committee to take over the functions of the Plaintiffs as members of the Executive Committee of the PDP in Ogun State.”

    The Ogun State chapter of the party is also seeking an order restraining INEC “from supervising any congress in Ogun State or recognizing any congress of the 1stDefendant (PDP) in Ogun State during the subsistence of the tenure of the Plaintiffs as officers of the Ogun State executive committee of the PDP which expires in May 2020.”

    When the matter came up Tuesday, the court adjourned the matter till the 5th of September, 2017, for the hearing of all pending applications but warned against disobedience of its orders.

  • Customs seeks forfeiture of N50m ‘illegally’ imported goods

    Customs seeks forfeiture of N50m ‘illegally’ imported goods

    The Nigeria Customs Service Board Monday applied to the Federal High Court in Lagos, for an order forfeiting various illegally imported goods valued at N50,151,606 to the Federal Government.

    The agency’s Assistant Legal Adviser Federal Operations Unit, Zone A, Ikeja, Shehu Bodinga, brought the application via an ex parte motion before vacation judge, Justice Abdulaziz Anka.

    The goods, including loads of fairly used clothes, shoes, bags, bed sheets, porcelain plates, 7,163 bags of foreign parboiled rice, and 147 jerry cans of vegetable oil, were said to have been intercepted between April and June, 2017.

    Others were seven vehicles which values were, however, not stated.

    According to him, after the goods were intercepted and seized, their owners refused to show up to claim them.

    The lawyer said there was an urgent need to order the forfeiture of the goods because some of them are perishable.

    He told judge that the Customs had been ordered by The Presidency to distribute some of the seized items to victims of the Boko Haram insurgency living in the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camp in the North-East.

    In a 15-paragraph affidavit, Bodinga said the goods were imported in breach of Section 46(c) of the Customs and Management Act.

    In some cases, he added, the importers and their privies attempted to evade duty on the goods or the items they brought into the country were prohibited by law.

    He said: “Apart from acts of fraudulent evasion of duty, some of the defaulters brought in outright unlawful and prohibited items, which are so classified by the Customs laws and regulations.

    “I verily believe that because of the severity of the punishment and sanction attached to the offences, the defaulters, along with their collaborators, have refused and or failed to come forward to claim the goods from the Nigeria Customs Service, thereby, abandoning same and same seized.

    “In order to prevent complete deterioration of the said goods and total loss of revenue to the Nigeria Customs Service, the board now intends to sell the goods either by way of auction, allocation or by any other procedure.

    “I verily believe that searches have been conducted in the court registry and there is no evidence of any court actions pending against the application in respect of the items, hereby sought to be condemned as forfeited to the applicant.”

    Justice Anka adjourned till August 17 for ruling.

     

  • Recall: Melaye knows fate Sept 11

    Recall: Melaye knows fate Sept 11

    …Court adjourns for judgment

     

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed September 11 for judgment in the suit by Senator Dino Melaye, challenging his planned recall by voters of Kogi West Senatorial District.

    The court’s sitting vacation judge, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba announced the date today after listening to lawyers argued their client’s positions and adopted written arguments filed.

    In the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/567/2017, Melaye alleged among others, denial of fair hearing and queried the authenticity of some of the signatures of voters in the petition for his recall sent to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The court has just commenced hearing in a similar suit marked: FHC/ABJ/601/2017, filed by the Kogi State Chapter of the All Progressive Congress (APC) and 12 others.

    The other plaintiffs in the second suit are Alhaji ‎Haddy Ametuo, Hon. Shaibu Osune, S.T Adejo, Comrade Yahaya Ade Ismail, Chief Gbenga Ashagun, Ahovi S. Ibrahim, Ghali ND Usman, Isa Abubakar, I. Molemodile, Abubakr M. Adamu and Daniel Sekpe.

     

  • ‘Hidden’ N249b: Court strikes out FG’s case against seven banks 

    ‘Hidden’ N249b: Court strikes out FG’s case against seven banks 

    …Six banks get N200, 000 compensation each

     

    A Federal High Court in Lagos has struck out a suit by the Federal Government seeking to recover $793,200,000.00 (about N249, 659,700,000.00) from seven banks which it claimed they hid for ‘unknown’ government officials.

    The banks are: United Bank for Africa Plc, Diamond Bank Plc, Skye Bank Plc, First Bank Ltd, Fidelity Bank Plc, Keystone Bank Ltd and Sterling Bank Plc.

    Justice Chuka Obiozor, who gave the ruling yesterday, also ordered the government to pay N200,000 as costs to all of the commercial banks except Skye Bank which had no legal representation.

    He also barred the government from bringing the same action against the banks without the court’s permission.

    The ruling followed a notice of discontinuance dated August 7 brought on Tuesday by the Attorney-General of the Federation through Professor Yemi Akinseye-George SAN.

    Akinseye-George told Justice Obiozor that the government had decided to explore an ‘out of court settlement’ with the banks in the public interest.

    Last July 20, the government accused the banks of hiding $793m in contravention of the Treasury Single Account (TSA) policy.

    It sought and obtained an interim order directing the banks to remit the sum to a designated account at the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

    But on Tuesday the Federal Government applied to discontinue the suit on the instruction of the Attorney-General.

    Akinseye-George relying on Order 50 Rule 2 Subsection 1, Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules of 2009, moved the court to strike out the suit.

    The application was challenged by the six banks which urged the court to substitute the strike out order for an order of dismissal.

    The lawyers, including UBA’s counsel, Dr. Ajibola Muraina, Seyi Sowemimo (SAN) for Fidelity Bank; Abimbola Akeredolu (SAN) for Sterling Bank. N. A. Oragwu (Diamond Bank); E.A. Okorie (First Bank) and Babatunde Ogungbamila (Keystone Bank) also asked for costs of between N10million and N20million for each bank as compensation or damages.

    However, following Akinseye-George’s argument that the banks were not entitled to any cost because, among others, they did not file any affidavit to particularise the nature of the damage they claimed to have suffered, Justice Obiozor adjourned till Wednesday for ruling.

    Delivering his decision Wednesday, the judge found, among others that since the suit did not proceed to trial the justice of the case was in favour of an order to strike it out, rather than a dismissal.

    He said: “I have also considered the reason given for the discontinuance – the demand, as it were, of public interest. I have also considered the fact that when a notice of discontinuance is duly and validly filed, it cannot be recalled, as the suit ceases to exist the moment it is effectively discontinued, subject to the payment of costs.

    “I find that as I have not adjudicated on claims in the action before me for a pronouncement on the merits of the issues arising therefrom, the proper order to make, with respect to this matter, is one striking out this suit and not of dismissal and I so hold.

    In the instant case before me, the matter is yet to proceed to trial. I do not find that the justice of this case demands that this matter should be dismissed.

    Regarding the costs demanded by the banks, the judge said: “Nevertheless, I shall not turn a blind eye to the effect of the interim order on the defendants. This case cannot now go on. I find no reason not to compensate the defendants with costs at least to those of them who have appeared in this matter.”

    He however declined to grant the amount demanded as costs, saying “I find the request for N10million or N20million as costs to the defendant not to be founded on, with respect, established principles.”

    The judge added: “The defendants deserve compensation which I assess and put at N200,000 against the favour of and to be paid to each of the first, second, fourth, fifth sixth and seventh defendants.

    “In the final analysis, the suit is hereby struck out and the plaintiff shall not re-list this suit without the prior leave of court. The interim order of this court made on the 20th of July 2017, are hereby set aside, truncated and discharged.”

  • Court forfeits Diezani’s $37.5million Banana Island property to FG

    Court forfeits Diezani’s $37.5million Banana Island property to FG

    …Ex minister loses $2,740,197.96, N84, 537,840.70

     
    A Federal High Court in Lagos has permanently forfeited to the federal government a $37.5million Banana Island property bought in 2013 by a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke.

    A vacation judge, Justice Chuka Obiozor, made the order Monday following a motion on notice argued by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The judge also ordered that the sums of $2,740,197.96 and N84, 537,840.70 realised as rents on the property be permanently forfeited to the federal government.

    Details later…

     

  • Alleged fraud: Absence of prosecution counsel stalls Badeh’s trial

    Alleged fraud: Absence of prosecution counsel stalls Badeh’s trial

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, has adjourned the case of the former Chief of Defence Staff, Alex Badeh, until Oct. 23 for continuation of trial.

    Justice Okon Abang adjourned the matter following the absence of the lead prosecuting counsel, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) in court on Wednesday.

    Mr A.O. Atolagbe, a member of the prosecuting team, had told the court that Jacobs could not be in court because he was indisposed.

    He asked for a date within the court’s vacation period.

    But all the defence counsel objected to the application, but rather asked that the matter be heard in the new legal year, after the court’s vacation.

    Justice Abang in a short ruling adjourned the matter until Oct. 23 for continuation of trial.
    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), reports that the court had on July 4, adjourned the matter until July 26.

    The case was adjourned for arguments for and against the admissibility of documents the prosecution sought to tender in evidence.

    Jacobs had attempted to tender documents that a prosecution witness made reference to in the course of his testimony, but the defence raised objections.

    Mr Akin Olujimi (SAN), counsel to Badeh, said that some of the documents sought to be tendered were photocopies and not certified.

    NAN also reports that Badeh is standing trial for allegedly abusing his office by diverting N3.97 billion for his personal use.

    The diverted money was meant for arms purchase to tackle insurgency by the Boko Haram sect in the North-East.

  • Another suit wants court to compel FEC to declare Buhari incapacitated

    Another suit wants court to compel FEC to declare Buhari incapacitated

    A new suit seeking to compel the Federal Executive Council (FEC) to declare ailing President Muhammadu Buhari incapacitated and unfit to continue in office was filed Thursday before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

    The suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/ 671/2017 filed by a group, Kingdom Human Rights Foundation International (KHRFI) is coming three weeks after a similar suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/508/2017 was filed before the same court by a United States-based Nigerian, Toyin Dawodu.

    The suit filed Thursday has the Acting President Yemi Osinbajo, the Executive Council of the Federation (otherwise known as the Federal Executive Council), the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), and the National Assembly as defendants.

    KHRFI also filed an ex parte application to seek a mandatory leave (permission) of the court to commence the main action under the judicial review procedure of the Federal High Court.

    When granted the permission sought, the suit, the plaintiff, by virtue of the adopted procedure, intends to ask for a judicial review of whether or not the four respondents to the suit – Osinbajo, the ECF, the AGF, and the National Assembly, had failed to perform their constitutional mandate and obligation under section 144(1)(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution in relation to Buhari’s health status.

    It intends to seek among others, an order of mandamus compelling FEC to pass the resolution declaring Buhari “incapable of discharging the functions of his office”.

    It The plaintiff’s position that the declaration by the Executive Council of the Federation will  enable the Senate President “to constitute a medical panel that will verify the declaration of the Executive Council of the Federation pursuant to section 144(4) of the Constitution.”

    In a supporting affidavit, lawyer KHRFI; Patricia Chigbundu said the ongoing medical vacation embarked on by the President on May 7, 2017 was the third in the series of such trips.

    She said the President has spent over 60 days abroad since May, yet “Nigerians were not informed on the health conditions of the President.

    “That the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, had also embarked on medical vacation on January 19 to March 12, 2017 and stayed for over 60 days and Nigerians were not informed on the health conditions of the President.

    “The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, embarked on medical vacation from June 6, 2016 and Nigerians were not also informed on the health conditionsof the President.

    “Before the latest medical vacation on May 7, 2017, the President was not able to preside over the Federal Executive Council meeting.

    “All these series of medical vacations are affecting good governance in Nigeria and Nigerians deserve to know the true condition of the state of health of their President.”

    KHRFI wants among others:

    *A declaration of the honourable court that the  Executive Council of the Federation has failed to perform its constitutional duty by failing, refusing and neglecting  to pass a resolution declaring the  President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari who has been away for more than 60 days on third medical vacation since the assumption of office as the President  in 2015 incapable of discharging   the functions of   office;  in view of section 144 (1) (a) and (b) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

    *A declaration of the honourable court that the  Executive Council of the Federation  that in the circumstances of the Executive Council of the Federation not passing a resolution  declaring the President incapable of discharging the  functions of his office, the  Senate President  should not go ahead    to constitute   a medical panel  to examine the health condition of the President,   to determine if the President is suffering from  infirmity of body and mind,  and whether the President   has become permanently incapable  to discharge the functions  of  his office;  in view of section 144 (4) of the 1999 constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria (as amended).

    *An order of mandamus compelling the  Executive Council of the Federation to immediately and without any further delay  perform its constitutional duty by   passing  a resolution declaring the  President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari who has been away for more than 6o days on third medical vacation since the assumption of office as the President  in 2015  incapable of discharging   the functions of   office;  in view of section 144 (1) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

    *An order of mandamus compelling the  Senate President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria    to go ahead    and constitute   a medical  panel  to examine the health condition of the President Muhammadu Buhari    to determine if the President is suffering from  infirmity of body and mind and to determine whether the President   has become permanently incapable  to discharge the functions  of  his office;  in view of section 144 (4) of the 1999 constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria (as amended).

    Daudu, in his case, wants the court to declare that the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, has the powers to set up the medical panel to determine Buhari’s health status in the absence of a resolution of the Executive Council of the Federation declaring the President unfit to continue in office as provided under section 144 of the Constitution.

    The suit is now before Justice Adamu Abdu Kafarati, awaiting a hearing date.

     

  • Evans’ N300m suit stalled over lawyer’s ‘failure to pay N20, 000 fine

    Evans’ N300m suit stalled over lawyer’s ‘failure to pay N20, 000 fine

    A Federal High Court in Lagos Thursday declined to entertain the N300m fundamental rights enforcement suit filed against the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) by suspected kidnap kingpin, Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike a.k.a. Evans.

    Justice Chuka Obiozor reached the decision following the failure of Evans’ lawyer, Mr. Olukoya Ogungbeje, to pay the punitive cost of N20, 000 awarded against him at the last adjourned date.

    Justice Obiozor, a vacation judge, adjourned further hearing till July 27, for Ogungbeje to comply.

    Justice Abdulaziz Anka, who awarded the cost against Ogungbeje on July 13, said the lawyer would not be given audience in court until he paid the N20,000 to the police.

    At the commencement of proceedings yesterday, counsel for the Lagos State Commissioner of Police, Effiong Asuquo, noted that Ogungbeje gave him a post-dated cheque for N20,000.

    He said he rejected it, since that was not the order of court.

    Justice Obiozor agreed with Asuquo and directed Ogungbeje to comply with the cost order.

    The judge also directed Ogungbeje to ensure service of his suit on the IGP in Abuja.

    In his fundamental rights enforcement suit, Evans, through Ogungbeje, is seeking a court order directing the police to charge him to court immediately or release him on bail.

    Ogungbeje argued that Evans’ detention since June 10, 2017 without being charged to court was a violation of his client’s fundamental rights enshrined in sections 35 (1) (c) (3) (4) (5) (a) (b) and 36 of the Constitution.

    For his alleged unlawful detention without being charged to court, Evans wants the court to award N300m damages against the police in his favour.

     

  • Melaye’s recall: INEC asks court to set aside interim order

    Melaye’s recall: INEC asks court to set aside interim order

    …Seeks prompt hearing of suit by Senator

     

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has prayed a Federal High Court in Abuja to set aside its July 6 order directing parties in a suit by Dino Melaye, a Senator from Kogi State, to maintain status quo pending the determination of the plaintiff’s motion on notice.

    INEC has also urged the court to discard Melaye’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunction and proceed to promptly determine the substantive case on the grounds that time was of the essence, as it (INEC) has 90 days under Section 69 of the Constitution, within which to conduct a referendum for Melaye’s recall having received a petition from the Senator’s district to that effect.

    It argued that it does no one any good for the court to waste its precious time considering Melaye’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunction when it could safely proceed to hear and determine Melaye’s main case filed on June 23, 2017.

    INEC’s said these in three separate documents it filed on July 14, which were brought to the court’s attention Thursday.

    The documents include a summons for accelerated hearing of the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/567/2017; motion on notice for and order setting aside the order made on June 6 and defendant’s counter-affidavit against plaintiff’s originating summons filed on June 23, 2017.

    INEC said the order made in its absence has served the sole purpose of preventing it from performing its constitutional responsibilities. It said it had planned to make public its report of the verification on August 19.

    It noted, “in a supporting affidavit, that the court, having made the order directing all parties to “maintain the status quo as it stands today 6th July 2017 pending the hearing of the plaintiff’s motion on notice,” the court adjourned to September 29 for hearing.

    INEC accused Melaye of misrepresenting facts and suppressing material facts in allegedly misleading the court to grant the ex-parte order.

    It added: “Since the ex-parte interim order of injunction to maintain status quo was served on the defendant/applicant (INEC) on 10th July 2017, the order has hindered the defendant from further action on the recall process notwithstanding the fact that time is of the essence in carrying out its duties.

    INEC argued that under Section 69 of the Constitution, it has the duty to process the petition against Melaye and conduct a referendum with 90 day, a duty it believed the court cannot stop under any guise.

    “The defendant has 90 days from June 21, 2017 (when it received the petition for Melaye’s recall) to conduct referendum in line with the approved time table and schedule of activities for the recall of the Senator representing Kogi Wets Senatorial District of Kogi State (Melaye) and the period of 90 days will lapse on September 18, 2017.

    “The last day for submission of application by interested observers, last day for submission of names of verification agents for the member sought to be recalled, stakeholders meeting, conduct of verification and declaration of the outcome of verification have been slated to hold on July 31, August 10, 15 and 19.”

    Attacking the competence of Melaye’s suit, INEC noted that it was merely predicated on questions bordering on the propriety or otherwise of the petition for his recall by registered voters in his senatorial district.

    It added: “The plaintiff has no legal right in the matter of the petition to seek for any order of this court to restrain the defendant from performing its duties. The plaintiff will not be prejudiced if the reliefs sought for in the originating summons is refused and dismissed as the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff.

    Thursday, INEC’s lawyer, Suleiman Ibrahim informed the court about the three documents filed by his client. Lawyer to Melaye, Nkem Okoro confirmed that he has been served with the documents.

    Okoro said the documents were served on him on Tuesday and that he was entitled to seven days under the court’s rules to respond to the three motions.

    Trial judge, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba agreed with Okoro and adjourned to July 27 for hearing.