Tag: Federal High Court

  • Court refuses to scrap payment of money for bail 

    Court refuses to scrap payment of money for bail 

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected the request that it voids the legal provision requiring a defendant granted bail to make financial deposit.

    Justice Gabraiel Kolawole, in judgment Monday dismissed a suit filed in that regard.

    The judge held that the provision, contained in Section 165(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 was lawful and did not offend the Constitution.

    The plaintiff, Dr. A.C.B. Agbazuere, a lawyer, had urged the court to void Section 165(2) of the ACJA on the ground that it was offensive to the provision of Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution.

    He argued that “the applicability of Section 165(2) of the ACJA will deprive Nigerian citizens of their liberty, freedom and fair hearing. “With Section 165(2) of the ACJA, the accused is to pay money before his bail can be approved when the prosecution has neither proved the essential ingredients of the case not has the accused been found guilty. “By providing for the mandatory payment of money before bail is approved, section 165(2) of the Act has now presumed every person guilty when he has not been tried and found guilty.

    “It is an aberration and ambush against the people and should not be allowed to stand,” the plaintiff had argued.

    Defendants in the suit – the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the National Assembly – objected to the suit by filing two notices of preliminary objection

    They queried the competence of the suit and the plaintiff’s locus standi. They urged the court to decline jurisdiction.

    The defendant contended that the plaintiff did not prove that he is an accused person before any court, who has been asked to deposit money for bail.

    They also argued that the plaintiff failed to establish that his right was breached in any way.

    The defendants noted that the portion of the law complained of, provides that a court “may” impose money for bail, which implied that the monetary requirement was not mandatory.

     

  • Judge refuses to include Reps members in Jibrin’s suit against Dogara

    Judge refuses to include Reps members in Jibrin’s suit against Dogara

    …Fixes hearing of main suit for ‎April 28

     

    Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja has refused an application by two members of the House of Representatives, praying to be made parties in the suit by a former Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriation, Abdulmumin Jibrin.

    Jibrin, in the suit N1billion suit against House Speaker, Yakubu Dogara and others, is challenging his suspension from the House, for among others, questioning the decision the House o Reps leadership.

    In a ruling Thursday, Justice Tsoho dismissed the application by Nicholas Ossai and Orker-Jev Yisa, ans held that it lacked merit.

    Ossai was the Chairman of House Committee on Ethics, which recommended Jibrin’s suspension and Yisa was the House member who moved the motion Jibrin’s suspension.

    The judge described the two lawmakers as co-defendants to the suit as a busy-body and unnecessary parties in the case.

    Justice Tsoho adjourned to April 28 for the hearing of the substantive suit.

    Jibrin, from Kano State, filed the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/Bl2/2015, shortly before his suspension.

    He is seeking among others, an order voiding his suspension and reinstating him to the House.

    Jibrin, who was suspended on September 28, 2016, for 180 legislative days, eqully asked the court for N1bn as damages against the respondents for his alleged wrongful suspension.

    The Speaker of the House of Representatives, the House itself and the Clerk of the House are the first to the third defendants to the suit.‎

     

  • Firm initiates contempt proceedings against Seplat boss

    A firm, AOS Orwell Ltd, has initiated contempt proceedings against chairman of Seplat Petroleum Development Company Plc, Dr Ambrose Orjiako, for allegedly violating court orders.

    It is praying the Federal High Court in Lagos for an order committing Orjiako to prison for his “willful, deliberate and orchestrated disobedience to the interim orders which metamorphosed into interlocutory orders of this honourable court”.

    AOS Orwell, through its lawyer Mr Kunle Ogunba (SAN), sought an order that Orjiako “as lawfully and legitimately” cited for contempt, when committed, remain in prison or protective custody of any of the detaining security agencies or at a reformatory centre “until he purges himself of the contempt and majesty of this Honourable Court.”

    According to the petitioner/applicant, the court made orders restraining the respondent (Shebah Exploration and Production Company Ltd) or its agents from dealing with or tampering with the company’s assets, funds, shares and equipment within and outside Nigeria.

    It said despite the service of the court orders on the company, Orjiako “proceeded to deal with, dissipate and/or alienate the shares/assets of the respondent contrary to the orders.”

    AOS Orwell said Orjiako “is the Managing Director, Chairman/alter ego and the Chief Executive Officer of Shebah Exploration and Production.”

    The petitioner, in a supporting affidavit deposed to by Hellen Atulukwu, a lawyer in Ogunba’s firm, Insolvency Forte, said Orjiako and the respondent “willfully disobeyed the extant orders of the Federal High Court made in this suit despite being fully aware” of them.

    The firm said there was urgent need to lift the veil of the respondent’s incorporation to enable the court to punish the cited human who has “seriously flouted the extant orders of this honourable court.”

    AOS Orwell had obtained the interlocutory orders seeking to stop the respondent’s directors from dissipating its assets pending the hearing and determination of the application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator for Shebah Exploration and Production over an alleged multi-million naira debt.

    The petitioner said despite the orders, Orjiako allegedly sold Shebah Exploration and Production’s shares to Petrolin Trading Ltd on January 6 and refused to purge himself of the contempt by reversing the sale.

    “The cited person has continued to flout and disobey the subsisting orders of court made in this suit,” the firm said.

    AOS said the alleged contemnor despite being aware of the orders continued to deal with the company’s assets, which was why it caused Form 48 (notice of consequence of disobedience of court order) to be issued on Orjiako.

    “Despite the service of the said Form 48, the cited person has continued to disobey the orders of court made in this suit by continuously dealing with the assets of the respondent, refusing to reverse the sale of the respondent’s shares,” the firm said.

    AOS Orwell said the Orjiako’s alleged disobedience to the orders amounts to contemptuous challenge of the court’s integrity and an attempt to undermine the administration of justice.

    “It is in the interest of justice and in accordance with our laws that an order for committal to prison of the cited person/alleged contemnor be made by this honourable court until or the occurrence of such as event that shows clearly that the cited party has purged himself of the contempt of this honourable court,” Atulukwu said in the affidavit.

    But, Orjiako, through his lawyer Dr K.O. Ezeoke of the firm of Anaka, Exeoke & Co, in response to letters by the petitioner, said his client “is at full liberty to deal with his shares or those of other companies he controls.”

    “You are therefore solicited to sheath your sword against Dr Orjiako and pursue your claims against Shebah Exploration and Production Co. Ltd if any,” the lawyer added.

    Justice Rabiu Shagari adjourned the case until May 4 for hearing.

     

  • Ladoja: Court threatens to arrest attorney-general for ‘contempt’

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Wednesday threatened to order the arrest of Oyo State Attorney-General Oluseun Abimbola and a staff of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Yinka Fatoki, for allegedly flouting its summons.

    Justice Mohammed Idris issued a summons on February 20 for Fatoki to produce some documents needed by the defence.

    The judge also issued a subpoena on February 24 for the Attorney-General.

    Defence counsel in the trial of former Governor Rashidi Ladoja applied to the court to order them to produce the documents.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) re-arraigned Ladoja for allegedly converting N4.7billion from the state treasury to his personal use.

    He was charged along with Waheed Akanbi on eight counts of money laundering and unlawful conversion of public funds.

    While cross-examining a prosecution witness – former Senior Special Executive Assistant to Ladoja Mr. Adewale Atanda, the former governor’s lawyer, Bolaji Onilenla, said efforts to get the required documents were unsuccessful.

    He said he wanted to tender them, including official mandates for the disposal of Oyo’s share’s under Ladoja, through the witness.

    “If by tomorrow (today) the Oyo Attorney-General does not produce the documents, we shall be compelled to invoke the consequences of non-compliance.

    “They have not offered any excuse but have been treating the order of court with disdain and levity.

    “The documents sought to be produced are quite central and germane to our defence. We will apply that a warrant be issued against them – we don’t care who they are,” he said.

    Justice Idris noted that his record shows that the Attorney-General and Fatoki were duly served with the summons and subpoena.

    According to him, they had a duty to appear in court having received the summons duly issued, signed and served, adding that “they have no choice”.

    Justice Idris said: “This court frowns at public officers who refuse to appear in court when summons have been issued for them to appear. They have no right to refuse to appear.

    “Therefore, when this court is properly called upon, the court will issue a warrant for their arrest and production in court if they refuse to appear.

    “Let the Attorney-General and Fatoki be warned that they must appear in court.”

    Testifying Wednesday, Atanda said lawyers who defended Ladoja following his impeachment charged him N50million when the case was at the High Court.

    “When there was success at the Court of Appeal and a date had been fixed at the Supreme Court, the team of lawyers said the initial fee was just for the High Court, and that they didn’t know the case would get to the Supreme Court.

    “So, they revised their fees to N350million. Ladoja promised them that if we’re successful at the Supreme Court, we’ll pay the amount because we didn’t have money then.

    “They demanded for a good faith payment, which was why I took a loan and paid them N35million,” Atanda said.

    The witness said he also served as chairman of Oyo State Housing Corporation under Ladoja and had the privilege of sitting in the executive council meetings as an aide.

    He was the shares disposed of by the Ladoja administration was up to 300million units and that they were sold to a firm which offered the best price for the purchase.

    The EFCC accused Ladoja and Akanbi of converting N1,932,940,032.48 belonging to Oyo to their personal use through the Guaranty Trust Bank account of a company, Heritage Apartments Limited despite knowing that it was proceed of crime.

    The prosecution said Ladoja removed £600,000 (about N240,219,945) from the state coffers in 2007 and sent it to Bimpe Ladoja in London.

    Ladoja also allegedly bought an armoured Land Cruiser jeep with N42million for himself using public funds.

    EFCC said he converted N728,600,000 and another N77,850,000 at different times in 2007, and allegedly transferred N77, 850,000 to Bistrum Investments, which he nominated to help him purchase a property named Quarter 361 in Ibadan, Oyo State capital.

    The alleged offence contravenes sections 17(a) and18 (1) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004, punishable under sections 14(1), 16(a) (b) and 18(2).

    Ladoja and Akanbi pleaded not guilty.

     

     

  • Court to shield prosecution witnesses in trial of ex-Boko Haram leaders

    Court to shield prosecution witnesses in trial of ex-Boko Haram leaders

    Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja Tuesday granted the request by the prosecution for the shielding of its witnesses’ identity in the trial of some ex-Boko Haram leaders.

    Justice Tsoho directed that prosecution witnesses should be protected by being allowed to give evidence behind a screen to be provided by the court.

    The judge also directed that the identity of the prosecution witnesses would also be shielded from members of the public by addressing witnesses in pseudonyms in the course of the trial.

    The judge’s directives were sequel to an application moved Tuesday by prosecution lawyer, Shuaibu Labaran.

    The defendants, including an alleged leader of a splinter group of Boko Haram, Mohammed Usman (aka Khalid Albarnawi), his “second wife”, Halima Haliru, and five others were arraigned on March 14 on an 11-count charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/36/2017.

    Other defendants are Mohammed Saleh, Umar Bello (aka Abu Azzan); Mohammed Salisu (Datti), Yakubu Nuhu (aka Bello Maishayi) and Usman Abubakar (Mugiratu).

    The defendants were among others; charge with terrorism, hostage taking and murder of a total of nine expatriates, offences they allegedly committed between 2011 and 2013.

    Besides Haliru, the other defendants are said to be members of   Jama’atu Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan (a.k.a Ansaru), a group described by the prosecution as a breakaway from Boko Haram.

    Haliru is mentioned in just count 11 in which he was accused of having “information which you know to be of material assistance in preventing members of Boko Haram splinter group known as Jama’atu Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan a.k.a ANSARU from carrying out acts of terrorism but failed to disclose it to the relevant security agencies you thereby committed an offence punishable under S.8 (1) (a) of Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 as amended in 2013.

    Justice Tsoho has adjourned to April 25, for ruling on another application by the prosecution for a variation the court’s earlier order, directing that the defendants be remanded in prison after their arraignment on March 14 as against the prosecution’s preference for DSS custody.

     

  • Judge orders DSS’ DG to produce Suswam in court

    Judge orders DSS’ DG to produce Suswam in court

    …Ex-governor’s absence stalls planned arraignment on a fresh charge

     

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Lawal Daura to ensure the production of former Beunue State governor, Gabriel Suswam before his court on May 11.

    The order by the judge was necessitated by the failure of the DSS, in whose custody Suswam was currently being kept, to produce him Tuesday in court for arraignment on a fresh 32-count charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/48/2017, bought against him and two others by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    Suswam, former Finance Commissioner in the state, Omodachi Okolobia and Benue State Government House Administration’s Accountant, Janet Aluga (named in the fresh charge filed March 27) are accused among others, of diverting the sum of N9.79billion, part of which was meant for Police Reform Programme and Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE-P).

    Of the three defendants, only Suswam was absent in court when the case was called Tuesday. And, upon enquiry by the judge why the ex-governor was absent, lead prosecuting lawyer, Aliyu Akilu told the court that Suswam was being detained by the DSS, but that he was aware of the day’s proceedings and allegedly chose not to attend court.

    Akilu said:“The 1st defendant is on administrative bail granted him by the police.  But he is currently in the custody of the DSS. We made effort to serve him with the charge there, but he refused. We decided to serve his lawyer, who is in court today.

    He ((Suswam) is aware of today’s proceedings. We wrote him, but he refused to attend court. The provision of Section 87 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), the court can compel his presence. We asked the court to exercise that power,” Akilu said.

    Akin Adedeji, who said he appeared for Suswam in protest, faulted the prosecution’s decision to serve the charge on his office as against the requirement that a defendant must be served in criminal cases personally.

    Adedeji said:”By 2pm Tuesday, two officers of the Nigerian Police walked into our office, seeking to serve a charge on us, in relation to this case. We accepted the charge out of respect for this court.

    “That we are representing the 1st defendant in another case did not mean he will engage us to represent him in this. Section 36(c) of the Constitution says, upon service of a charge on a defendant, he has a right to brief any legal practitioner of his choice. The 1st defendant has been in the custody of the DSS since February 25,” Adedeji said.

    Lawyer to Oklobia and Aluga, David Iorhemba noted that since the case was a joint trial, it was impossible for the court to conduct proceedings in the absence of the 1st defendant. He sought an adjournment.

    After listing to the lawyers, Justice Kolawole said since Suswam was being held by the DSS, the prosecution should serve a copy of the charge on the Legal Department of the DSS for onward delivery to the 1st defendant.

    The judge further directed the Director General of the DSS to ensure that the ex-governor is brought to court on the next adjourned date (May 11) to enable him answer to the charge pending against him, if he is not released before then.

    A similar scenario played out on March 28 this year when DSS’s failure to produce Suswam stalled proceedings in another case involving him and Oklobia before Justice Ahmed Mohammed (also of the Federal High Court, Abuja).

    Suswam and Oklobia are, in the case, being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) for allegedly diverting N3.1billion belonging to Benue State Government. 

    The DSS’ refusal to produce Suswam forced Justice Mohammed to adjourn the case to May 9.

  • EFCC: Court upholds competence of witness on Kalu’s trial

    EFCC: Court upholds competence of witness on Kalu’s trial

    A Federal High Court on Monday in Lagos upheld the competence of a witness, Christiana Ohiri, in the ongoing trial of a former Governor of Abia, Orji Uzor kalu, charged with money laundering.

    On Oct. 31, 2016, the EFCC preferred a 34-count charge bordering on N3.2 billion fraud against Kalu and a former Commissioner for Finance during Kalu’s administration, Ude Udeogo.

    Also charged is a company, Slok Nig. Ltd.

    The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges.

    At the hearing last month, the defence team had raised objection to the competence of Ohiri, a manager of a branch of the UBA at Umuahia.

    Ohiri is described as second prosecution witness.

    Ruling on the objection, Justice Mohammed Idris held that the witness was competent to testify in the trial.

    Idris held that the witness could give evidence in the case, since the provisions of the Evidence Act had been complied with by the EFCC.

    The court declared that the signatory to the proof of evidence was not in doubt, adding that there was substantial compliance with the provision of the rules.
    The judge held that “the proof of evidence before this honourable court is competent”.

    In continuation of her evidence before the court, the witness said that no payment was made to the former governor from the government house account.

    Under cross-examination by Kalu’s lawyer, Chief Gordy Uche (SAN), over a document containing information about 36 bank drafts, the witness said that no draft was either paid by Kalu or issued in his name.

    Responding to a question from the silk, the witness said: “the first defendant (Kalu) did not personally come to me to purchase any draft and his name was not included on any of the drafts.

    “His name or photograph also does not feature in the mandate cards of the signatories to the Government House Account.’’

    The witness had earlier informed court that between September and October, 2006, the UBA head office had contacted her branch, requesting for some documents about some transactions that were done earlier in the year.

    She said that some of the transactions were listed while others were retrieved from the bank’s archives and sent to Lagos.

    Ohiri said that she did not know what the head office wanted to do with the documents.

    She said that by 2007, she was invited by the EFCC, which asked her some questions about the documents her bank sent to the commission.

    “I was invited to the EFCC four times in 2007 and I made three statements at the commission’s office,” she stated.

    When Uche suggested to the witness that her statements were contradictory and inconsistent, she replied, “I disagree’’.

    Further proceedings has been adjourned until April 11.

    In the charge, the accused were alleged to have committed the offences between August, 2001 and October, 2005.

    Kalu was alleged to have used his company to retain N200 million in an account in First Inland Bank, now FCMB.

    The money is alleged to be part of funds illegally derived from the coffers of the Abia State Government.

    In one of the counts, Kalu’s company, Slok Nig. Ltd. and one Emeka Abone, said to be at large, were also alleged to have retained in the company’s account the sum of N200 million on behalf of the first accused.

    They were alleged to have used Manny Bank (now Fidelity Bank Plc), Spring Bank Plc, the defunct Standard Trust Bank and Fin Land Bank, now FCMB.

    In counts one to 10, the accused were alleged to have retained about N2.5 billion in different accounts, whose funds were said to belong to the Abia government.

    Cumulatively, the accused were alleged to have diverted over N3.2 billion from the Abia government’s treasury during Kalu’s tenure as governor.

    The offence is said to have contravened the provisions of Sections 15(6), 16 and 21 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2005.

    It is also said to have contravened the provisions of the Money Laundering Act of 1995 as amended by the amendment Act No.9 of 2002 and Section 477 of the Criminal Code Act, Laws of the Federation, 1990.

     

  • Ex-first lady Patience Jonathan sighted at Skyebank in Abuja

    Ex-first lady Patience Jonathan sighted at Skyebank in Abuja

    Former first Lady, Patience Jonathan was on Monday sighted at the Maitama branch of the Skye bank in Abuja.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that this may not be unconnected with her  5.9 million dollars which was recently unfrozen by a court order.

    NAN also reported that the former first lady was at the bank until 4:05 p.m. when she departed but declined to speak to hordes of reporters who sought to know why she was at the bank.

    A source, however, told NAN that while at the bank, Jonathan briefly met an Executive Director of the bank.

    One of her aides, who declined to disclose his name, told newsmen that “everything was okay”.

    A Federal High Court in Lagos, on Thursday vacated its order which in 2016 froze the Skye Bank account of the ex-first lady.

    The account had a balance of 5.9 million dollars at the period.

    The Judge, Justice Mojisola Olatoregun, set aside the ‘No-Debit Order’ which the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission earlier placed on the account on allegations that the money found in it was a proceed of crime.

  • PCN can regulate sales, dispensing of veterinary drugs – Registrar

    The Pharmacists Council of Nigeria (PCN) says it can regulate the sale and dispensing of veterinary drugs, vaccines and animal life (biological) as part of its statutory mandate.

    The Council’s Registrar, Mr. Elijah Mohammed, made this known in a statement made available to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on Monday in Abuja.

    Mohammed said that ensuring sanity and standard was part of its mandate to regulate the practice of pharmacy in all ramifications in the country.

    NAN recalls that the Federal High Court in Abuja on March 24 gave a judgment that the provisions of the Animal Diseases (Control) Act did not impinge on the PCN’s powers in respect to registration of premises where animal drugs are kept.

    The Nigerian Veterinary Medical Association (NVMA) had sued the council, challenging its powers to regulate and control pharmacy education, training and practice in all aspects.

    The association had also argued that the mandate of the PCN should be restricted to manufacturing, distribution, sale and dispensing of human drugs.

    NVMA further maintained that the veterinary surgeons should have the authority and rights to handle, sell and dispense veterinary drugs, vaccines and animal biologicals.

     

     

  • IPOB: Court reserves ruling on review to April 25

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday reserved ruling on whether or not it will reverse its order on witness protection in the ongoing trial of IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu to April 25.

    Justice Binta Nyako, on March 27, insisted that she would not review her judgment on the issue of protecting the identity of the witnesses as long they were security operatives.

    “I will not vary my order on protection of security operatives; It is either they wear a mask or are behind a screen.

    “Security operatives need to be protected not because of this case but because of the future, and so as long as the witnesses are security personnel, they will be taken behind a screen,” Nyako said.

    But counsel to the defendants maintained that since some of the charges against the defendants had been struck out, there was need for the order to be reviewed to reflect the current charges.

    At the resumed hearing on Thursday, the prosecuting counsel, Mr Shuaibu Labaran, told the court that the matter was slated for argument on the application to review the court’s decision on witness protection.

    Counsel to Kanu, Mr Ifeanyi Ejiofor told the court that he had filed an application asking the court to review its stand on protecting the identity of witnesses in the case.

    Ejiofor said that part of the reason he filed the application was on the grounds that six out of the initial 11-count charge against the defendant were struck out.

    He prayed the court to vacate the order it made allowing the prosecution witnesses to give evidence behind a shield and to instead order the witnesses to testify in an open court.

    Mr E.I Eseme, counsel to the third defendant, Benjamin Madubugwu, in his argument, also prayed the court for the same relief, adding that his application was brought pursuant to Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution.

    He urged the court to review the order it made on Dec. 13, 2016, to shield witnesses, set aside the order and direct that all witnesses should testify in public.

    Eseme added that his client was not standing trial for any of the offences that required witness protection.

    According to him, Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution provides that it is mandatory for proceedings in all criminal trials to be public.

    He noted that there was no counter- affidavit from the prosecution, adding that it could only mean that the facts were not contradicted and so they were not opposing the application.

    Mr Chukwuma Ozougwu, counsel to the fourth defendant, David Nwawuisi, also towed the same line of argument and urged the court to grant the application in favour of his client.

    Labaran, in his reply, prayed the court to dismiss the three applications on the grounds that they were frivolous and a deliberate attempt to delay the prosecution of the case.

    He told the court that the claim by the defence counsel that since he did not file a counter affidavit, the court should assume that he was in support of the application should be discountenanced.

    According to him, if the defendants have a problem with the ruling of the court that witnesses should be protected, they should appeal the decision.

    He added that moreover, it was only journalists and the general public that would not see the witnesses but only hear them as all the defendants, the lawyers and the judge would see the witnesses.

    He said the order was granted based on the discretionary powers given to the judge by Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

    Justice Nyako adjourned the matter until April 25 to rule on both the application to review the witness protection order and bail.