The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federal High Court

  • Ex-PDP chairman, son granted bail

    Ex-PDP chairman, son granted bail

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has granted bail to former Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Haliru Mohammed Bello and his son, Abba Bello at N300m and two sureties each.

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed, in a ruling on their bail applications, said, in view of the applicants’ health conditions and that they have pledged to make themselves available for trial, the court cannot deny them bail.

    Abba is said to be suffering from asthma and arthritis, while Haliru is said to be undergoing treatment for injuries relating to the surgery he recently had, in his spinal area, in a United Kingdom hospital.

    Abba is to remain in Kuje prison, Abuja, while Halliru is to be restricted to the hospital where he is being treated (as per the court earlier orders of Tuesday) pending when they fulfill the bail conditions.

    Haliru was again brought to court yesterday in a wheel chair, accompanied by medical personnel from the Abuja Clinic. He was transported to the court in an ambulance bearing the inscription of “Abuja Clinic.”

    Haliru, his son and their company, Bam Projects and Properties Limited were arraigned on Tueasday on a four-count charge of money laundering. They were in a charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/389/2015‎, accused of receiving N300m from the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Mohammed Dasuki on March 17, 2015 for political campaign under pretext that it was meant for  a housing project named “Safe Houses”.

    In his ruling yesterday, Justice Mohammed noted that there was nothing before the court to suggest that the offences with which the defendants were charged attract capital punishment, that they could jump bail or that they would interfere with prosecution witnesses.

    He said the practice was for the court to adopt a liberal approach in considering whether or not to grant bail to an accused, who is entitled to bail in non-capital offences, having regard to Section 32(1) of the 1979 Constitution.

    “It is only where there are strong and weighty reasons suggesting that the accused person will not come back to take his trial or there is the likelihood of his committing more offences if he is granted bail that bail can be denied.

    “The complainant has not shown that the applicants’ claim of ill-health is false. Furthermore, the medical reports tendered support the applicants’ claim. The complainant’s contention that the applicants have not shown that the prison authorities cannot take care of their ill-heath cannot, in my view, be a ground to refuse the applicants bail.

    “This is because if the applicants are currently being treated in a hospital or clinic that can adequately take care of their ailment, then, it will be most unfair to refuse their bail applications. Furthermore, the applicants have deposed to affidavits that they will not jump bail, that they will provide credible sureties, that they will always attend court to take their trial.

    “I am further satisfied that the 1st and 2nd applicants (Abba and Haliru) are entitled to bail in view of the circumstance of this case. I therefore admit the 1st and 3rd defendants to bail pending the trial of this case,” Justice Mohammed said.

    The judge granted Abba bail at N300m and two sureties in like sum, one of who shall be a civil servant in the employment of the Federal Government or any of its agencies and must not be below Grade Level 12. The other, the judge said, must own a property worth N300m within the Federal Capital territory and must deposit its title documents with the court pending the completion of trial.

    In the case of Haliru, the judge granted him bail at the same amount, with two sureties, one of who must be a Federal Government employee and at the level of a director. The other surety is also to have a property in Abuja worth N300m.

    Abbah and his father are to deposit their travel documents with the court’s officials, who are also to verify all documents submitted by the sureties.

    The judge adjourned to February 16 for the commencement of trial.

     

  • Federal High Court: we didn’t grant bail to Dasuki, others

    Federal High Court: we didn’t grant bail to Dasuki, others

    Authorities of the Federal High Court have dissociated themselves from media reports that the court granted bail at N250 million to the immediate past  National Security Adviser (NSA), Colonel Sambo Mohammed Dasuki (rtd) and others being tried in relation to the $2.1 billion arms purchase scandal.

    The court’s Acting Chief Registrar, Emmanuel Garko, noted yesterday that the Federal High Court could not have granted bail to any of those being tried in relation to the arms deal because none of them was charged before the court.

    Garko, in a statement yesterday, said the clarification was necessary in view of misrepresentation in the media that the Federal High Court granted bail to Dasuki and others at N250 million each.

    Dasuki and others were only granted bail on two occasions on December 18 and 21, last year, at N250 million by Justices Hussein Baba-Yusuf and Peter Affen of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    Dasuki is involved in three criminal cases pending before the Federal High Court, Abuja and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Maitama, Abuja.

    Garko said: “It will be in the interest of the reporters and editors  to note that these cases involving the accused persons are not all before the Federal High Court of Nigeria as reported by some national dailies, but before Justice Hussein Baba Yusuf and Justice Peter Affen of the High Court of the FCT.”

    He explained that the Federal High Court is different from the High Court of FCT.

    He urged the media to be cautious in their operations and always endeavour to cross-check facts before publication.

     

  • Leave Federal High Court alone

    Sir; “The Judiciary is the last hope of the common man”, is a very popular maxim in the country. Every one, both the high and mighty and the downtrodden places the judiciary in very high pedestal. Even without any funds to prosecute their cases the poor have willing and available public spirited lawyers to handle cases on their behalf.

    When therefore the abhorrent and divisive issue of politics rears its ugly head in the Judiciary every patriotic Nigerian should feel concerned and worried. It is in this light that one views the news item in The Nation of Tuesday November 17, page 5 titled Succession crisis hits federal high court over chief registrar’s post.

    It is unfortunate that these days the pages of reputed newspapers are used to serve particular interests. The news report gives the indication that the management of the Federal High Court are pushing for the appointment of the next Chief Registrar of the court, irrespective of the status on seniority cadre and “That there were indications that some workers might take the plot to distort the succession system to Prof itse Sagay-led Presidential Advisory Committee on War Against Corruption. The workers including some Deputy Chief Registrars have vowed to resist the aberration of seniority list for pecuniary political gains “.

    What do the sponsors of these publications want to achieve? After listing the names of past Chief Registrars of the Federal High Court whose appointments were allegedly based on seniority, the author of the publication then contradicted himself by stating  that “ Although seniority has been the norm in appointing all the Chief Registrars, there is no regulation or law saying appointment  must be made on seniority “. If this is the case, why is the noise and unnecessary dust being raised? Even in the Armed Forces, Police and other paramilitary organizations, is seniority the only basis in promotion exercise?

    Even under the President Buhari Administration many promotion exercises have been taking place without the promoted officers being necessarily the most senior.

    The brains or ghosts behind the present agitation in the Federal High Court are also distorting facts engaging in outright falsehood and what students of logic will describe as fallacy of hasty generalisation. For instance they allege that “this is the first time we are experiencing this kind of thing. Once the administrative cadre is altered, favourism will set in and it will be bad for the Judiciary at this level”.

    But in truth and in fact this will not be the first time seniority was not considered in promotion to Registrars of Federal High Courts.

    The present Registrar of the Supreme Court was not the most senior when he was appointed. He was even No 3 in hierarchy. Similarly the Registrar of the Court of Appeal was even no 6 in order of seniority. The Registrar of FCT High Court was not even in the service cadre of Federal High Court but was picked from Sharia Court of Appeal. He was only just recently promoted to Chief Registrar of FCT High Court.

    The agitators also neglected/refused to inform whoever cares to listen that the three Senior Deputy Registrars of the Federal High Court were promoted on the same day. How do you now determine who is the most senior to be promoted Chief Registrar.

    The present unease about the appointment of a new Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court is absolutely unnecessary.

    Happily the Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court has made elaborate clarification on this matter in her publication in The Nation of Thursday November 24, the most significant being that a substantive Chief Registrar of Federal High Court cannot be appointed while the sitting Chief Registrar has not been sworn in as a Judge and that there is no regulation or law that the most senior Deputy Chief Registrar must be the Chief Registrar.

    Can we now have some peace? Will the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court whose prerogative it is to recommend who among the Deputy Chief Registrars he will feel comfortable with, to the National Judicial Council for Promotion to the post of Chief Registrar be allowed to do his job?

    The present brickbats on this matter are absolutely unnecessary. Politicians should concern themselves with Ways and Means of solving the multifaceted problems of the society at this time and leave the judiciary alone.

     

    • Sam Ekpe,

    Abuja.

  • NAFDAC re-arraigns man for selling unregistered custard, sugar

    NAFDAC re-arraigns man for selling unregistered custard, sugar

    A 40-year-old man, Adumeta Nduka, was Tuesday re-arraigned before a Federal High Court in Lagos, for manufacturing and selling unregistered food products.

    Nduka, of No. 3 Saturday Close, Salolo, Lagos-Abeokuta Expressway, is facing a five-count charge proffered against him by the National Agency for Food Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC).

    When he was first arraigned on Dec. 9, 2014, the accused pleaded not guilty, and Justice John Tsoho granted him bail in the sum of N1 million with one surety in the like sum.

    The accused then failed to show up for his trial and a bench warrant for his arrest was issued on September 22.

    However, Tuesday, Justice Tsoho lifted the warrant following an explanation by the defence counsel Mr Oluwole Olusi.

    The court then granted the plea of the prosecutor, Mr Washington Adumen, for the accused to be re-arraigned.

    Mr. Adumen told the court that the accused committed the offence on November 6, 2014.

    He alleged that the accused manufactured Nourish Gold Banana, Vanilla and Chocolate Custard, as well as Falcon Refined Sugar without NAFDAC registration.

    He added that the products were packaged and labelled at No 3, Saturday Close, Salolo in Lagos and that the accused engaged in the sale of the unregistered products to members of the public contrary to the provision of the law.

    The offence contravened the provision of sections 1, 5 (a), and 17 of the Food and Drugs Act, Cap. F32, Laws of the Federation, 2004, the prosecutor said.

    The accused pleaded not guilty on all counts.

    Justice Tsoho ordered that the accused should continue to enjoy the bail earlier granted him and adjourned the case till February 9 for trial.

     

  • Succession crisis hits Federal High Court over Chief Registrar’s post

    Succession crisis hits Federal High Court over Chief Registrar’s post

    A crisis of confidence has hit the Federal High Court over the appointment of a new Chief Registrar for the court.

    This followed the appointment of the post’s outgoing occupant, Mrs. Rosemary Oghoghorie, as a judge.

    Instead of following the seniority list, as it has been the tradition of the court, its management was accused of allegedly trying to leave the appointment of chief registrar open.

    It was also learnt that the row was compounded after ethnic factor was introduced.

    It was gathered that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, is from Borno State in the Northeast and some forces were said to be pushing for the appointment of the next chief registrar from the same geopolitical zone, irrespective of status on seniority cadre.

    There were indications that some workers might take the plot to distort the succession system to Prof. Itse Sagay-led Presidential Advisory Committee on War Against Corruption.

    According to investigation, some external forces were said to be pushing for the circumvention of the succession system for pecuniary gains.

    Findings revealed that the forces were already making some permutations on 2019 and how to checkmate the governing All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Those allegedly pushing for the distortion of the succession system were also identified as brains behind the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) crisis in Rivers State before the 2015 poll.

    But workers, including some Deputy Chief Registrars, have vowed to resist the alteration of seniority list for pecuniary political gains.

    Those Deputy Chief Registrars in line for appointment as Chief Registrar and their postings are Hambali Okandeji (Head, Lagos Division), Emmanuel Gako (Litigations, Abuja) , Mrs. N.A. Omotosho (Head, Ibadan Division), Miss C.T. Clement Ende (Abuja), May U. Esealuka (Head,  Awka Division), and Abdulfatahi A. Tahir (Lagos Division).

    A top source in FHC said: “Some politicians are trying to infiltrate the Federal High Court system by trying to introduce ethnic politics. They want to sideline the seniority list for mediocrity in the choice of a new registrar.

    “This is the first time we are experiencing this kind of thing. Once the administrative cadre is altered, favoritism will set in and it will be bad for the judiciary at this level.

    “Some people are saying that because of 2019, it is important to make some strategic appointments in the High Court.

    “We appeal to President Muhammadu Buhari and the Presidential Advisory Committee on War Against Corruption to avert a decision, which may lead to bad precedent.”

    Another source said: “The crisis began to manifest during the ceremony in Lafia, Nasarawa State to mark the beginning of the New Legal Year. Based on ethnic factor, a junior Deputy Chief Registrar was trying to unofficially assume the role of the Chief Registrar.

    “The outgoing Chief Registrar had to publicly caution the junior DCR and asked him: ‘who appointed you the CR? Why can’t you defer to the administrative structure?’

    “If these forces have their way, we may be forced to embark on strike. Once favoritism is the order of the day, then there will be no hope for many to climb up the ladder.”

    Investigation revealed that the court’s workers were also displeased that all the Deputy Chief Registrars have been neglected in treating official matters, including management of funds.

    A Senior Registrar said: “Since the outgoing chief registrar can no longer attend to administrative and financial issues, a syndicate is now managing a few things, especially disbursement of funds.

    “So, instead of allowing seniority to prevail, all the DCRs have been neglected by the system. Yet, were it the norm, a substantive Chief Registrar ought to be named by now.

    “This is a sign that there is a plot to impose a new CR on the system.”

    The past Chief Registrars of the Federal High Court, based on seniority, were as follows: Mrs. R.O. Olomojobi (1988-1991); Mr. A.O. Ajakaiye(1993-1998); Mrs. C.M.A. Olatoregun-Isola (1993-2000); Alhaji Salisu Saidu (2001-2002); Mrs. A.A. Okeke (2002-2008); Mr. N. Ayo-Emmanuel (2008-2012); and Mrs. Oghoghorie (2012-2015).

    A highly-placed source, however, said: “Although seniority has been the norm in appointing all our Chief Registrars, there is no regulation or law saying appointment must be made on seniority.

    “Any of the DCRs can be appointed as the Chief Registrar. This depends on the disposition of a sitting Chief Judge.”

     

  • Credit card fraud: Court okays suspect’s extradition to U.S

    Credit card fraud: Court okays suspect’s extradition to U.S

    Justice Saliu Saidu of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has granted an application by the Federal Government seeking to extradite Mr. Olugbemiga Adebisi to the United States to face credit card and other fraud charges.

    The office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) said three indictments were filed in the U.S District Court, New Hampshire, against Adebisi.

    He was charged in the Hampshire court with “access device fraud, receipt of stolen mail matter, aggravated identity theft and fraudulent use of social security number” on July 20, 2006.

    The alleged offences were in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, sections 1029, 1708, 1028A and Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 408(a) 7(b).

    Adebisi was also said to have been charged on April 5, 2005 in the Trial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex County, Concord District Court, U.S.

    He was accused of “larceny over $250 credit card fraud, forgery of a document, uttering false document and identify fraud.”

    The offences were said to be a violation of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 266, Section 30(1), 37(c)(e) and Chapter 267, Section 1 and 5.

    ‎Granting the application, Justice Saidu held that he was satisfied that “the U.S had formally requested for the extradition of the respondent within the requirement of the Extradition Act Cap E25 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.”

    He added: “The affidavit of Alfred Rubega (a United States Assistant Attorney) was signed before a magistrate judge of the District of New Hampshire, which has not been disputed by the respondent in the case.

    “And this affidavit was only attached to a certificate duly executed from the Department of State of the U.S.A. and the United State Department of Justice and further certified by one David Warmer, an Associate Director, Office of International Affairs Criminal Division, Department of Justice, U.S.A.

    “All these are enough evidence to give credit and validity to the affidavit of Alfred Rubega.”

    A lawyer from the AGF’s office, Akintah Ukaeyina, had argued that the offences for which Adebisi is being wanted in the U.S are also provided for and punishable in the contemplation of Nigerian laws.

    But Adebisi’s lawyer, Toye Latilo, urged the court to refuse the extradition application because it was only initiated after his client had challenged his prolonged detention without charge.

    “The respondent was arrested at the Murtala Mohammed International Airport by the Interpol on the basis of a warrant of arrest issued in the United States and from that time till date he has been in the prison custody.

    “It was when the respondent applied to enforce his fundamental right that the applicant was prompted to initiate these proceedings before this court,” the lawyer said.

     

  • ARCO vs NAOC: Court fixes October 26 for hearing

    ARCO vs NAOC: Court fixes October 26 for hearing

    Justice Lambo Akambi of a Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has adjourned till October 26, this year for hearing, the motion on jurisdiction in a case between Arco Group Plc and Nigerian Agip  Oil Company  (NAOC) Limited.

    Justice Akambi yesterday assumed jurisdiction to entertain the motion on jurisdiction by the defense parties.

    ARCO, an indigenous engineering company, in suit number FH/PH/CS/02/2015 filed before the court against NAOC, an Italian multinational company is seeking explanations from AGIP (NAOC) for violating the provisions of Nigeria Local Content Law.

    The plaintiff in the affidavit attached to the originating summons to the suit outlined the various ways the oil and gas giant has continuously and deliberately ignored, failed to reorganise the provision of the law in the award of contracts and purchase of equipment and parts, thereby short changing the government and indigenous companies in areas of its economy, capital flights, transfer of technology as well as unemployment.

    At the last sitting early June, the defence counsel, Charles Ajuya, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), raised a motion to challenge the Jurisdiction of the court in the matter, insisting that the motion(on jurisdiction), be determined before the case could continue.

    But Wole Olanipekun (SAN) submitted that the defense counsel did not file a memorandum of appearance to enable him appear properly to challenge the court’s jurisdiction.

    The court struck out the defence application on jurisdiction with an order to the defendant to appear properly before him so that his application could be heard.

    The court urged Ajuya, to serve process to parties before yesterday’s adjourned date to enable him hear the application.

    However, the plaintiff was served with the memorandum of appearance during the court sitting. Olanipekun applied for time to study the document before making his arguments.

  • Another Igbinedion gets a tap on the wrist

    Another Igbinedion gets a tap on the wrist

    N3m fine for involvement in N25bn money laundering is laughable

    Last week’s judgment by Justice A. M. Liman of the Federal High Court, Benin, sentencing Mr Michael Igbinedion, to a mere six years jail term, or N3 million, option of fine, for his involvement in a N25 billion money laundering charges rankles the ordinary mind. For us, and we guess many other lay people, the law surely works in mysterious ways. Indeed, the possibility of such a lowly punishment for such a serious crime, perhaps explains why for many, the law is referred to as ‘an ass’; and if we may add, probably available to be ridden by all manner of persons, as they desire. But, if that sentence is justifiable under the law, then the in-coming administration must post-haste, take steps to amend the law.

    That tap on the wrist punishment, meted out to Michael, the son of the Esama of Benin, Chief Gabriel Igbinedion, and the brother of the former Governor of Edo State, Lucky Igbinedion, was for his involvement in a fraud against the government of Edo State, during the reign of his brother. In the 81-count charge of money laundering, proffered by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Michael and his aide, Patrick Eboigbodin, were charged with their four companies, Messrs Gava Corporation limited, Roming Nigeria limited, PML Securities Company limited and PML Nigeria limited.

    In the judgment, Patrick, was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, without an option of fine, while PML Limited was to forfeit her assets to the Federal Government of Nigeria, and pay a fine of N250,000. Also, while Michael was found guilty on three counts, his aide was found guilty on 10 counts, out of the 81-count charges. In our lay view, the import of the judgment is that for the crime of laundering N25 billion naira, the principal accused person, Michael, would pay a mere N3 million for his freedom; even as the purse of Edo State and her people have lost the sum of N25 billion naira.

    What this judgment tells us is that those who have access to humongous state resources may easily feel encouraged to steal. Indeed, it may not be far-fetched to regard the judgment of Justice Liman as incentive to those with the predilection for crime to pursue it, knowing as Michael’s case may suggest, that the consequences are not that grave. We know that many Nigerians will see that judgment as a travesty of justice, and so there is the need for the EFCC to appeal against the sentencing, if not the whole judgment.

    Unfortunately, Michael Igbinedion’s judgment may not be much different from similar cases in the past, where for grand larceny many of our privileged class got away with little or no punishment. That perhaps explains why corruption, particularly the variety of looting public treasury, is very high in the country. Notably, just like his junior brother Michael, Lucky Igbinedion was also charged for grievous cases of corruption, and like his junior brother now, he also got out, on a dubious leeway of so-called plea-bargain. Again, like in the current instance, it was the common wealth of the people of Edo State that the two brothers, with proven itchy fingers, helped themselves to.

    But beyond the Igbinedion brothers, there are similar charges of corruption across the country which have languished in the courts for donkey years. Many of the governors who served with Governor Igbinedion between 1999 and 2007 were also charged with one corruption case or the other. Nearly eight years after the charges against his colleagues were filed in the courts, many of those cases are still battling with preliminary applications, while the main charges have been left in limbo. As if to confer the status of un-seriousness on our criminal justice system, many of those charged with the grievous crimes have brushed the cases aside, and have enthusiastically sought fresh positions of authority, even as their earlier misdemeanours languish in courts.

    Of course, as we have many times argued on this page, there is the need to re-jig our criminal justice system, if we hope to lay any claim to seriousness in the fight against corruption. As the in-coming president, Gen Muhammadu Buhari, has severally stated, if we don’t kill corruption, corruption will kill us. While some have suggested a special court to deal with corruption, others have proffered the designation of specific time, to deal with corrupt cases before a judge. Some have also suggested that our criminal procedure laws, particularly with respect to the law of evidence, be tinkered with. Luckily, the in-coming vice president, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, is a reformist lawyer, and so should gel with our anti-corruption president, to fight the debilitating corruption that wants to kill the country.

  • Alleged forgery: Court orders law student’s probe

    The Federal High Court in Umuahia, the Abia State capital, has ordered the police to investigate a forgery allegation against a law graduate, Ejem Onuma Agbaeze.

    Justice F. A. Olubanjo awarded N1million against Agbaeze and his friend, Arua Ifegwu for failing to prove a case of violation of their fundamental rights.

    The judge urged the Council of Legal Education to exercise caution while considering whether Agbaeze, said to be a student of the Nigerian Law School, Abuja, should be called to the Bar.

    Justice Olubanjo held: “That the issues outlined for determination in this application for the enforcement of fundamental rights are resolve in favour of the first to fourth respondents; that the applicants have woefully failed to prove that their fundamental rights have been violated by or at the instance of the first to fourth respondents; that the reliefs sought are refused and the application is dismissed.

    “That the Council of Legal Education should exercise caution while considering whether the first applicant should be called to the Bar; that the Assistant Inspector-General of Police in charge of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja through the Commissioner of Police Abuja is hereby directed to liase with the Medical Director of Bwari General Hospital with a view to investigating the allegation of forgery and charging those who are found culpable to court; that cost of N1 million is awarded against the applicants in favour of the first to fourth respondents.”

    Agbaeze and Ifegwu claimed  their rights were violated by Abia House of Assembly Speaker Sir Ude Oko Chukwu, Francis Okpe, Orji Emeghe and Ude Ogbu Ude in 2011. They demanded N346, 000, 000 damages for allegedly abducting, detaining and torturing them during the 2011 general elections.

    Agbaeze had attached some pictures and medical papers dated May 26, 2011 which he claimed was issued by Bwari General Hospital, Abuja.

    But the respondents’ lawyer Chidozie Ogunji applied to the hospital to verify the documents. Last November 24, the  Medical Director, Dr. Ekpe Philips said the medical report was forged, including the hospital’s stamp, phone number, letter head, doctor’s name, the signature and the hospital’s card.

    Said the hospital: “Thank you for your request to authenticate the attached medical report of Ejem Onuma Agbaeze …, which he claimed to have received from our institution, Bwari General Hospital, Abuja.

    “We wish to confirm that following detailed investigation from our records, that everything about the medical report was forged viz: letter headed paper, stamp, hospital number, the ref. no, name of the doctor, signature and hospital card.

    “We are, indeed, interested in arresting Mr. Ejem Onuma Agbaeze, who is our suspected culprit or who will lead us to whoever gave these entire forged documents to him on behalf of Bwari General Hospital. On no account should these documents be considered as emanating from Bwari General Hospital, Abuja.”

  • Soldiers and polls

    Soldiers and polls

    •The courts have spoken and the government is duty bound to obey the law

    If anyone is in doubt about what the role of the military should be during elections in the country, such doubts ought to have gone with court judgments on the matter in recent times. The latest of such judgments was delivered by a Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday.  While delivering judgment in a suit filed by Mr Femi Gbajabiamila, a member of the House of Representatives and chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Justice Ibrahim Buba said deployment of soldiers for polls was unconstitutional. Mr Gbajabiamila had taken President Goodluck Jonathan, the Chief of Defence Staff, Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Air Staff, Chief of Naval Staff and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to court over the legality of deploying soldiers for elections.

    The Court of Appeal and a Federal High Court in Sokoto had earlier said that troops cannot be deployed for elections as President Jonathan did during the Anambra, Ekiti and Osun governorship elections; and as he is even threatening to do in the forthcoming general elections. As a matter of fact, soldiers had already been deployed in some states for this purpose. With these judgments, it should be stridently clear to President Jonathan that he has no powers to unilaterally deploy soldiers for elections. And, if at all they must be involved, Justice Buba said the president has to go through the National Assembly.

    These judgments are timely and profound, especially given the penchant of the Jonathan administration to deploy troops for elections. The way the present government has been using soldiers for election duties, albeit illegitimately, is most deplorable. Indeed, it is as if we never conducted elections before its coming to power. In Ekiti State, the soldiers’ role has become so messy and contentious with the video release by Captain Sagir Koli that implicated top military officers in shameful connivance with chieftains of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to tilt the result of the polls in favour of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). But for the eternal vigilance of the voters in Osun State, perhaps the soldiers would have replicated what they did in Ekiti in Osun, if only with their intimidating presence during the polls.

    We align with Justice Buba that there is nothing peculiar about the nature of elections and electioneering in Nigeria, as painted by the defence counsel, Dele Adesina, to justify the president, as commander-in-chief, unilaterally deploying soldiers to maintain law and order during elections. Apparently those who drafted the constitution took cognizance of a time like this when our kind of incumbent president would not be comfortable having elections without soldiers deployment, when preparing the document.

    We equally wonder why the same soldiers who were serially being court-martialled for mutiny, with some of them straying into neighbouring country on ‘tactical manouevring’ show unusual excitement when deployed for election duties; a job primarily meant for the police. The military itself should know by now that its involvement in elections has altered its perception as the military of the ruling party rather than that of Nigeria. This is unhelpful of professionalism and is a potential time bomb that could explode unless we stop involving soldiers in partisan election matters.

    With the pronouncement by the courts on the matter, it will amount to presidential impunity to deploy soldiers for the polls this weekend. The law is higher than any administration or government. That is the meaning of the rule of law.

    Those hinging presidential deployment of troops for elections on the Armed Forces Act no longer have any valid case because even if that is expressly stated in the Act, such provision is a nullity to the extent of its inconsistency with constitutional provision. What we need to do is to reduce the influence of soldiers in elections and this can be done by empowering the police to be able to cope with the demands of the period. In the past, soldiers were seldom seen in public; we have to return to that glorious past.