The Nation Newspaper

Tag: forgery

  • YABATECH expels 73 for forgery

    The Academic Board of Yaba College of Technology, Yaba, Lagos, has expelled 73 students for presenting suspected forged results.

    A statement by the college made available to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) yesterday said the affected students were part-time pursuing National Diploma and Higher National Diploma programmes.

    Signed by the Deputy Registrar, Mrs Titilayo Obadimu, the statement said the affected students registered for the 2013/2014 academic session.

    According to the statement, the results were discovered during the verification of Senior Secondary School certificates and National Diploma results.

    It said 46 students for National Diploma and 27 for Higher National Diploma were affected.

    “All affected students are advised to hand over the property of the college in their possession, including Identity Cards, to their heads of department, the librarian and Dean of Students’ Affairs,’’ it said.

    Mr Charles Oni,  who heads the Public Relations Unit told NAN the college had zero tolerance for malpractices and social vices.

    He said all documents presented for admission  were subjected to rigorous screening.

    Oni urged prospective students to avoid forgery of results and other malpractices.

  • Is Rules ‘forgery’ Senate’s internal affair?

    Is Rules ‘forgery’ Senate’s internal affair?

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court has said the alleged Standing Orders forgery is the Senate’s internal affair. But, to the Inspector-General of Police and the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the issue is beyond the Senate. To them, a criminal allegation of forgery cannot be termed the legislature’s internal affair. ERIC IKHILAE examines the issues.

    Can a criminal allegation of forgery be validly treated as an internal af-fair of the Senate?  Are legislators immune from investigation under the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act?  Can the police be restrained from investigating criminal allegations against citizens on the sole ground that they are members of the National Assembly?

    These are some of the questions awaiting the decision of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

    The suit numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/646/2015 and filed on July 23 by a Senator representing Enugu East Senatorial District, Gilbert Nnaji, is in relation to the allegation that the Senate Standing Orders 2015 was forged.

    It was alleged that Senate’s 2011 Orders was secretly altered by some individuals to produce the 2015 edition.

    The alleged forgery relates to alterations to Rules 3(3)(e) and (k), which were said not to have been amended in accordance with the provisions of Rule 110 (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) of the 2011 Orders.

    While the 2011 Order Rule 3(3) (e) talks about manual voting and open ballot, the 2015 Orders allows electronic and secret ballot voting in the election of the President and Deputy.

    Also, while Rule 3(3)(k) of the 2011 Order makes it mandatory for all members to participate in the process of electing the President and Deputy, the reverse is the case under the 2015 Orders.

    The 2011 Orders, Rule 3(3)(k) provides that: “All Senators-elect shall participate in the nomination and voting for President and Deputy President of the Senate,” similar provision in Rule 3(3)(i) in the 2015 Orders reads: “All Senator-elect are entitled to participate in the voting for Senate President and Deputy Senate President.”

     

    Nnaji’s claims

    Nnaji is, by his suit, seeking primarily to ensure that the allegation of forgery in the production of the Senate Standing Rules 2015 (as amended), on which basis the Senate elected its current President and Deputy President, be treated as an internal affair of the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly and consigned to the past.

    It is his contention that, by virtue of the provisions of Section 30 of the Legislative House (powers and privileges) Act Cap L 12 Law of Nigeria, Sections 50(1) and 60 of the Constitution, activities and actions of the National Assembly cannot be inquired into by other arms of government within the context of the principle of separation of powers.

    Nnaji, who did not address the legitimacy or otherwise of the controversial Senate Standing Rules 2015, wants the court  to restrain the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), who are listed as defendants,  from further investigating the allegation and taking steps to prosecute those found culpable.

    The plaintiff stated, in a supporting affidavit,  that although he first saw the controversial Standing Rules 2015 at the inaugural sitting of the Senate on June 9, 2015, the questions regarding its production were resolved during the Senate’s sitting  of June 10 and 23, with the Senate President and Deputy, Abubakar Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu  presiding.  Saraki, Ekweremadu and other principal officers of the Senate are seen as major beneficiaries of the alleged forgery.

    He further stated that the decision by the IGP to investigate the case, already settled in-house by the Senate, was targeted at the Senate leadership, particularly Ekweremadu, representing Enugu West.

    Some of the reliefs he sought include: “An order of injunction restraining all the defendants, their agents and servants from taking any further steps or interfering in whatever manner with the legitimate duties of the Senate of the National Assembly, whether acting on their own volition or upon any written instrument from whatever source, particularly over the emergence of the leadership of the Senate in respect of its proceedings of June 9, 2015.”

    Section 30 of the Legislative Houses Powers and Privileges Act (LHPPA) provides: “Neither the President or Speaker, as the case may be, of a Legislative House nor any officer of a Legislative House shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of any power conferred on or vested in him by or under this Act or the standing orders of the Legislative House, or by the Constitution.”

    Section 50(1) (a) of the Constitution states that: “There shall be:-  a President and a Deputy President of the Senate, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves.”

    Section 60 provides that: “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Senate or the House of Representatives shall have power to regulate its own procedure, including the procedure for summoning and recess of the House.”

     

    Justice Kolawole’s position

    On August 4, Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who had ordered the defendants to show cause why he should not grant the plaintiff’s ex-parte prayer for interim restraining orders against the defendant was of the view that the allegation that the Senate’s Standing Rules 2015 was forged was internal to the Senate which it should be allowed to deal with by deploying its internal mechanisms.

    Justice Kolawole said the involvement of the police in the case amounted to the National Assembly allowing other arms of government to supervise or regulate its internal proceedings.

    He threatened to void the investigation report produced by the police, which is now before the office of the AGF for further actions, should he find that the defendants took steps in relation to the issue after Nnaji had approached the court.

    The judge’s positions were contained in a bench ruling he delivered on whether he should proceed to grant the interim orders sought (as canvassed by plaintiff’s lawyer, Peter Nwokolo) or first decide the issue of jurisdiction raised by the defendants in their preliminary objection.

    ”My view is that in relation the instant suit, the allegation which relates to the alleged forgery of the Rules of the National Assembly is not an ordinary allegation which the court can approach with a pedantic mindset. It is so, because the issues as relating to the Senate Rules or Standing Orders are firstly the internal domestic matters.

    “But where allegation of forgery is made, it is for the court to reflect deeply whether it is not an allegation which the Senate’s Committee on Rules and of its Ethics can validly investigate and, within its internal proceedings nullify any of its Standing Orders found to be irregular and, to also sanction any of its members that is found culpable.

    One of the sanctions is to recommend such a member or members to the defendants for prosecution.

    “These are my thinking as a way to protect the integrity and independence of the National Assembly so that neither the Executive arm (as constituted by the defendants) nor the Judiciary should be allowed to pry into a matter which the National Assembly, as a legislative arm of government, can deal with, applying its own Rules and Standing Orders.

    ”This is to ensure that a dangerous precedent is not being set for the National Assembly, to have its internal proceedings being regulated, perhaps supervised by other arms of government of the federation (i.e. the Executive and Judicial Arms). “

     

    Defendants disagree

     

    But, in their separate notices of objection, the defendants disagreed with the judge. They are of the view that the allegation of forgery was criminal in nature, which only the police, created under Section 214 of the Constitution, and acting pursuant to its powers under Section 4 of the Police Act, could validly investigate, without being hindered by the court.

    IGP argued that the Senate Standing Orders 2015 forgery allegation was a criminal issue on which the police could not be restrained from investigating. He said the issue, which affects the integrity of the National Assembly and the country, was beyond what could be left for the Senators to address, deploying their internal mechanisms.

    Also, the Office of the Attorney-General has said it was in receipt of police’s investigation into the allegation and would begin its execution soon. It queried the powers of the court to restrain either the police or the AGF from performing their statutory responsibilities.

     

    IGP’s stance

    The IGP stated that from the investigation so far conducted, it has been discovered that the Senate was operating on a forged Standing Orders because there was no evidence that the 2011 Orders were ever amended before the introduction of the 2015 Orders.

    He said:“The matter at hand is not simply an issue on the floor of the National Assembly, the matter at hand raises issues of criminality. The 1st defendant owes Nigerians the duty to unearth the truth behind the allegations of forgery.

    “There are allegations of forgery of the Senate Standing Orders against some principal officers of the Senate. It is these allegations that the 1st respondent is poised to investigate. Forgery is a criminal Allegation. It is only investigation that can prove whether the case of forgery is true or false.

    “There was no time the current Senate sat to pass the 2015 Standing Orders. Senators were, at the inauguration, just handed a document from the blues titled: Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended). “

    He went on:“There was never any amendment of the 2011 orders by the immediate past Senate. Certain orders of the said 2015 amended Orders are inconsistent with the 2011 Orders. “There was never a notice written, calling for such amendment. Senators, who are complaining were never consulted before any such amendment.

    “The first defendant has a duty and responsibility to investigate all allegations of crime. To determine whether allegations of forgery are made out, who committed the said forgery and if there is forgery at all in the first place.

    “Investigating the allegations and determining the culpability or otherwise of the alleged culprits will lead to a just conclusion of the matter. Non-investigation of the allegations will engender mistrust among the disputing sides.

    “The first defendant is neutral in this matter. It has not taken sides, will not take sides and does not take sides on issues of this nature at all. Every Nigerian citizen can be investigated in all civilised countries, Nigeria inclusive.

    “Investigating allegation of forgery can only strengthen the integrity of the Senate and the Senate leadership. The 1st defendant’s duty will be impeded by the grant of the reliefs sought,” the IGP said in his counter affidavit to the plaintiff’s motion for injunction.

    In faulting the competence of the suit, the IGP faulted the plaintiff’s reliance on Section 30 of the LHPPA, noting that Nnaji is not the Senate President, the Deputy Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, nor is he an officer of the Senate.

    He added that the plaintiff is not aggrieved, he is not interested in this matter and that he is not accused of forging the amended Senate Standing Orders.

    On whether the alleged forgery amounted to an action taken by the Senate in the course of performing its legislative function, which is covered by the LHPPA, the IGP argued that the allegedly act of forgery predated the 8th Senate as the plaintiff cannot prove that the 2015 Standing Orders was passed by the preceding Senate, because the 2015 Standing Orders was never made nor passed by the immediate past Senate.

    “The new Senate has not passed any Standing Orders. As at the time of inauguration of this present Senate, no Standing Orders had been made. The practice is that, at inauguration, the incoming Senate uses the Standing Orders of the preceding Senate. The immediate past Senate did not amend the 201 Standing Orders. The 2011 Standing Orders have not yet been amended.

    “It is the 2011 Standing Orders of the Senate that should be used. The former Senate President did not pass any 2015 Standing Orders. The present Senate President was not in a position to have passed the 2015 Senate Standing Orders before his inauguration. The extant Senate Standing Orders are the 2011 Orders.

    “It is only after inauguration that the current Senate could pass the Standing Orders. What he (the plaintiff) is bandying about is not an authorised Senate Standing Orders. The so-called 2015 Senate Standing Orders are forged.

    “It is at the conclusion of investigation that 1st Defendant can determine whether the Standing Orders are founded or unfounded. There are two Senate Standing Orders; one 2011 and the other, 2015. The 2011 Orders were used to govern the immediate past Senate,” the IGP said.

    He argued that the court cannot grant the plaintiff’s prayer to restrain the police from performing its statutory responsibility of investigating allegations of criminal conduct.

    He relied on the case of Hassan vs EFCC 2014, 1 NWLR (pt 1389) at 631 where it was held that “no court has the power to stop the investigation powers of the police or EFCC or any agency established under our laws to investigate crimes, whether there is reasonable suspicion of commission of crime or ample evidence of commission of an offence by a suspect.

    Relying on the case of Fawehinmi vs IGP 2002, 7 NWLR (pt 767) at 606, the IGP argued that principal officers of the Senate cannot hide under Section 33 of the LHPPA to claim immunity from investigation. He noted that, in fact, Section 25 of the LHPPA supports his position on the issue.

    Section 25 states: “Any person who prints or causes to be printed a copy of any Act or law now or hereafter in force, or a copy of any report, paper, minutes or votes or proceedings of a Legislative House as purporting to have been printed by the Government Printer or by or under the authority of a Legislative House or by the President or Speaker, as the case may be, of a Legislative House, and the same is not so printed, or tenders in evidence any such copy as purporting to be so printed having reasonable cause to know that it is not so printed, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of two hundred naira or imprisonment for twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment….”

    The IGP further stated that the court can only intervene where there are allegations that the police have wrongly applied its powers.

     

    AGF’s position

    The AGF argued, in its objection, that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi  (right to sue) to initiate the suit. It noted that by his averments, Nnaji has betrayed his true intention, which is to protect the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu.

    It contended that it was only Ekweremadu and others, who feel their interests or rights would be affected by police investigation of the forgery allegation that could validly sue.

    “We submit that the plaintiff can only seek declarations in court if he can establish that he has suffered or is going to suffer any injury  on account of the investigation. This is a suit that should rightly be instituted by the Senate as an entity or, better still, by Senator Ike Ekweremadu, whom, by the plaintiff’s affidavit, at paragraph 27, identified as the ultimate target of the petition.”

    The AGF argued that the court lacked the powers to “validly restrain other departments of government from carrying out their functions. The law is trite that where the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute a matter, reliefs and orders sought cannot stand.”

    Observers are of the view that since the case will no longer be heard by Justice Kolawole, who has since ceased to act as the court’s vacation judge, there will be no need for the defendants, who have objected to his position on the issue in dispute, to apply for a transfer or appeal or file an appeal.

    It was the position of some senior lawyer, who would not want to be named because the case was in court, that the issue of forgery cannot be rightly be termed an internal affair of any institution. They urged the court to be steadfast and stand up to protect the country’s democracy and the integrity of its institution.

    The leader of a group, the Integrity Watch, Nigeria (IWN) Abdullahi Sariki, said this was not the time for the Judiciary to turn its mind against the mood of the society. He said the Judiciary must support all efforts to unravel the mystery behind the controversial Senate Rules 2015 in the interest of the nation’s democracy.

    “We cannot because we want to allow societal peace, let some of these infractions to go like that. The Senate is an important institution in every democracy. So, we cannot afford to hand its leadership to people who are products of a forgery. It is better we dismantle this faulty foundation and rebuild than attempt to manage this faulty one. Of course, you know the consequences of a faulty foundation,” Sariki said.

  • Alleged forgery: Suit ‘meant to shield Ekweremadu, others’

    Alleged forgery: Suit ‘meant to shield Ekweremadu, others’

    THE suit seeking to stop investigation of the alleged forgery of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 by the police is intended to shield Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu and other officials of the Senate from probe, the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) said at the weekend.

    Ekweremadu and some senior officials of the Senate have been at the centre of police investigation into the secret alteration of some provisions of the 2011 Senate Standing Orders used by senators on their first sitting on June 9 as the Senate Standing Orders 2015 (amended).

    Some of them have been invited by the police, interrogated and made to write statements.

    It was in a bid to restrain the police and the office of the AGF from taking further steps in relation to the case that Gilbert Nnaji (representing Enugu East Senatorial District), on July 23, filed a suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/646/2015 before the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Senator Nnaji alleged that police investigation of the case “is inspired by a devious petition by the Secretary of the Unity Forum Senators, solely aimed at unjustly incriminating the office of the Deputy  President of the Senate” being occupied by Ekweremadu, representing Enugu West Senatorial district.

    In its objection to the competence of the suit, the AGF Office queried Nnaji’s locus standi to institute the suit for being neither a principal officer of the Senate, elected under the controversial 2015 Orders, nor being investigated by the police.

    It noted that by his averments, Nnaji has betrayed his true intention, which is to protect Ekweremadu.

    It contended that it was only Ekweremadu and others, who feel their interests or rights would be affected by police investigation of the forgery allegation that could validly sue.

    The AGF Office said in its written address to its objection: “In the light of the foregoing, we submit that it will be in the interest of justice for this matter to be struck out in its entirety as the plaintiff’s suit has not disclosed or shown that he has any personal remedy arising from the disclosed cause of action that exceeds that of Senator Ike Ekweremadu or the Senate as an entity.

    “We submit that the plaintiff can only seek declarations in court if he can establish that he has suffered or is going to suffer any injury  on account of the investigation.

    “This is a suit that should rightly be instituted by the Senate as an entity or better still by Senator Ike Ekweremadu, whom, by the plaintiff’s affidavit, at paragraph 27, is identified as the ultimate target of the petition.”

    On the plaintiff’s argument that no other arm of government could pry into the activities of the Legislature under Section 30 of the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act, the AGF argued that the 8th Senate was inaugurated after the alleged forgery had taken place, which informed why all the senators saw the 2015 Orders at their inaugural sitting on June 9.

    “My Lord, by paragraphs 16 and 24, most especially paragraph 24 of the plaintiff’s affidavit, the said Standing Orders, the subject of the investigation, came into the hands of the plaintiff (Nnaji) for the first time when the house was inaugurated.

    “How then can the plaintiff be justified in challenging the investigation into an allegation that occurred prior to his inauguration and how has it affected his interest?” The AGF said in urging the court to dismiss the suit.

    The alleged forgery of the Senate Orders 2011 relates to the alterations carried out, particularly in relation to Rules 3(3)(e) and (k), which were said not to have been amended in accordance with the provisions of Rule 110(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) of the 2011 Orders.

    While in the 2011 Order Rule 3(3) (e) talks about manual voting and open ballot, the 2015 Orders allows electronic and secret ballot voting in the election of the President and Deputy.

    Also, while Rule 3(3)(k) of the 2011 Order makes it mandatory for all members to participate in the process of electing the President and Deputy, the reverse is the case under the 2015 Orders.

    In the 2011 Orders, Rule 3(3)(k) provides that: “All Senators-elect shall participate in the nomination and voting for President and Deputy President of the Senate,” similar provision in Rule 3(3)(i) in the 2015 Orders reads: “All Senator-elect are entitled to participate in the voting for Senate President and Deputy Senate President.”

    Nnaji’s case has been adjourned to September 8 by Justice Gabriel Kolawole, who served as the court’s vacation judge until August 7.

    He had, at the last hearing before him suggested that the forgery case be left for the Senate to resolve, using its internal disciplinary mechanisms.

    The judge threatened to void all steps taking by the defendants (the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the AGF) should he find that they (the defendants) take further steps on the issue while the case was pending.

  • IGP: rules forgery beyond Senate

    IGP: rules forgery beyond Senate

    The last may not have been heard of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 forgery, which a court has described as the upper chamber’s internal affair.

    Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Solomon Arase believes the allegations are criminal matters, which the police cannot be restrained from investigating.

    According to him, any issue affecting the integrity of the National Assembly and the country is beyond what could be left with  Senators to address.

    Also, the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) has said it has the police’s report on the allegation and will soon begin its execution .

    It queried the powers of the court to restrain either the police or the AGF from performing their statutory responsibilities.

    The IGP’s and AGF’s position are contained in their separate notices of preliminary objection filed in a suit initiated by Senator Gilbert Nnaji.

    Nnaji is seeking among others, to restrain the police from proceeding with its investigation of the forgery allegation and to also stop the AGF from prosecuting any person indicted in the report.

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole, at the resumed hearing in the case on Tuesday, said the National Assembly should be allowed to handle the Standing Orders forgery internally.

    But the IGP stated that by the investigation so far conducted, it has been discovered that the Senate was operating on a forged Standing Orders because there was no evidence that the 2011 Orders were ever amended before the introduction of the 2015 Orders.

    In the objection deposed to by an official of the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID), Joshua Yohanna, the IGP stated that “the matter at hand is not simply an issue on the floor of the National Assembly. The matter at hand raises issues of criminality. The 1st defendant owes Nigerians the duty to unearth the truth behind the allegations of forgery.

    “There are allegations of forgery of the Senate Standing Orders against some principal officers of the Senate. It is these allegations that the 1st respondent is poised to investigate. Forgery is a criminal Allegation. It is only investigation that can prove whether the case of forgery is true or false.

    “There was no time the current Senate sat to pass the 2015 Standing Orders. Senators were, at the inauguration, just handed a document from the blues titled: Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended).

    “There was never any amendment of the 2011 orders by the immediate past Senate. Certain orders of the said 2015 amended Orders are inconsistent with the 2011 Orders.

    “There was never a notice written, calling for such amendment. Senators, who are complaining were never consulted before any such amendment.

    “The 1st defendant has a duty and responsibility to investigate all allegations of crime. To determine whether allegations of forgery are made out, who committed the said forgery and if there is forgery at all in the first place.

    “Investigating the allegations and determining the culpability or otherwise of the alleged culprits will lead to a just conclusion of the matter. Non-investigation of the allegations will engender mistrust among the disputing sides.

    “The 1st defendant is neutral in this matter. It has not taken sides, will not take sides and does not take sides on issues of this nature at all. Every Nigerian citizen can be investigated in all civilized countries, Nigeria inclusive.

    “No senator, not even the distinguished Senator Kabiru Marafa has disrupted the proceedings of the Senate since July 28, 2015 till date. Investigating allegation of forgery can only strengthen the integrity of the Senate and the Senate leadership. The 1st defendant’s duty will be impeded by the grant of the reliefs sought.

    “The plaintiff is neither the Senate President, the Deputy Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. Nor is he an officer of the Senate.

    “He is not aggrieved. He is not interested in this matter; he is not accused of forging the amended Senate Standing Orders.

    “The present Senate has not enacted any Standing Orders yet. As at the time of inauguration of this present Senate, no Standing Orders had been made.

    “Till such Standing Orders have so far been made. The practice is that, at inauguration, the incoming Senate uses the Standing Orders of the preceding Senate. The immediate past Senate did not amend the 2011 Standing Orders. The 2011 Standing Orders have not yet been amended.

    “The plaintiff cannot prove that the so-called 2015 Standing Orders were passed by the preceding Senate. The So-called 2015 Standing Orders were never made nor passed by the immediate past senate.

    The new Senate has not passed any Standing Orders. It is the 2011 Standing Orders of the Senate that should be used.

    “The former Senate President did not pass any 2015 Standing Orders. The present Senate President was not in a position to have passed the 2015 Senate Standing Orders before his inauguration. The extant Senate Standing Orders are the 2011 Orders.

    “It is only after inauguration that the current Senate could pass the Standing Orders. What he (the plaintiff) is bandying about is not an authorised Senate Standing Orders. The so-called 2015 Senate Standing Orders are forged.

    “It is at the conclusion of investigation that 1st Defendant can determine whether the Standing Orders are founded or unfounded. There are two Senate Standing Orders, one 2011, the other, 2015. The 2011 orders were used to govern the immediate past Senate.”

    The office of the AGF said charges will soon be filed against those found culpable in relation to the Senate Rule forgery.

    Head of Civil Litigation, Federal Ministry of Justice, Taiwo Abidogun, told the court on Tuesday that the investigation report has been submitted to the ministry by the police.

    He said the report “is waiting our execution. So, I do not know what the plaintiff wants to stay. He cannot stay a completed act.”

    The AGF argued, in its objection, that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi  (right to sue) to initiate the suit. It noted that by his averments, Nnaji has betrayed his true intention, which is to protect the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu.

    It contended that it was only Ekweremadu and others, who feel their interests or rights would be affected by police investigation of the forgery allegation that could validly sue.

    The AGF Office said: “We submit that the plaintiff can only seek declarations in court if he can establish that he has suffered or is going to suffer any injury on account of the investigation.

    “This is a suit that should rightly be instituted by the Senate as an entity or better still by Senator Ike Ekweremadu, whom, by the plaintiff’s affidavit, at paragraph 27, is identified as the ultimate target of the petition.”

    The AGF argued that the court lacked the powers to “validly restrain other departments of government from carrying out their functions. The law is trite that where the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute a matter, reliefs and orders sought cannot stand.”

  • Court rejects Saraki’s protest against Senate forgery suit

    Court rejects Saraki’s protest against Senate forgery suit

    A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday rejected a complaint by Senate President Bukola Saraki against a suit seeking to sack him and other principal officers of the Senate elected under the controversial Senate Standing Orders 2015.

    His counsel Sikiru Oke told the court yesterday that he appeared for the Senate President “in protest” and has not filed “memorandum of appearance” which must be filed before a lawyer could enter appearance for a party in a case.

    The proceedings were in relation to a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/651/2015 filed by senators who are opposed to the emergence of Dr. Saraki as the Senate President.

    They are: Senators Abu Ibrahim; Kabir Marafa; Ajayi  Boroffice; Olugbenga Ashafa and Suleiman Hunkuni. Defendants to the suit are Saraki, Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu; the National Assembly, the Clerks of the National Assembly and the Senate.

    The plaintiffs seek among other prayers  an order nullifying the Senate Standing Orders 2015 as well as the election of Saraki as the Senate President and that of Ike Ekweremadu as the Deputy Senate President, for being products of the alleged illegal rules.

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole had at the last hearing in the case on July 28, adjourned the case to yesterday for the hearing of the plaintiffs’ motion on notice seeking an order restraining Saraki and other defendants from going ahead to constitute the standing committees of the Senate, pending the determination of their suit challenging the validity of the Senate Standing Orders 2015.

    Oke contended that court processes in the case were served on his office instead of being served personally on his client, as prescribed by the Federal High Court Rules 2009.

    Plaintiffs’ counsel Dele Adesina (SAN) in a counter argument, contended that there are obligatory provisions of the same court rules which envisages and validates service on Saraki through his office.

    Adesina also argued that Oke could not be heard since he had yet to file memorandum of appearance to appear for the first defendant (Saraki).

    Ruling, Justice Kolawole upheld Adesina’s position and disqualified Oke from appearing for Saraki during the proceedings.

    He directed that the case be transferred to another judge, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, who will take over as the vacation judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja onAugust 10.

    He adjourned to August 13.

    Justice Kolawole had, in a ruling on July 28, dismissed an exparte application by the plaintiffs in which they had earlier sought a restraining order against the constitution of the senate standing committees.

    In the ruling, Justice Kolawole said the disputes arising from the alleged forgery of the Senate Standing Orders constituted internal legislative affair of the Senate which the court would not want to intervene in.

  • Rules forgery is Senate’s internal affair, says court

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja has said the allegation that the Senate’s Standing Rules 2015 was forged was internal to the Senate.

    Justice Kolawole said the involvement of the police in the case amounted to the National Assembly allowing other arms of government to supervise or regulate its internal proceedings. He threatened to void the investigation’s report produced by the police.

    The judge’s view is contained in a bench ruling he delivered at the resumed hearing of a suit by a member of the Senate, Gilbert Nnaji, challenging, among others, police involvement in the investigation of the allegation that the Senate’s Standing Rules 2015 was forged by some individuals in the National Assembly.

    “My view is that in relation the instant suit, the allegation which relates to the alleged forgery of the Rules of the National Assembly is not an ordinary allegation which the court can approach with a pedantic mindset. It is so, because the issues as relating to the Senate Rules or Standing Orders are firstly the internal domestic matters.

    “But where allegation of forgery is made, it is for the court to reflect deeply whether it is not an allegation which the Senate’s Committee on Rules and of its Ethics can validly investigate and, within its internal proceedings nullify any of its Standing Orders found to be irregular and, to also sanction any of its members that is found culpable. One of the sanctions is to recommend such a member or members to the defendants for prosecution.”

    At the resumed hearing of the case yesterday, lawyers to the IGP and Attorney-General’s office, David Abuo and Taiwo Abidogun, did not comply with the court’s order to show cause, but filed separate notices of preliminary objection, challenging the plaintiff’s locus standi  (right to sue), competence of the case and the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Another lawyer, M. M. Osuma (SAN) informed the court that his client, a member of the Senate, Suleiman Hunkuyi(representing Kaduna North) has applied to be joined in the suit as a defendant.

    Abuo and Abidogun, who said they were not averse to Hunkuyi’s motion,  argued that it was proper for the court to first determine their objections and the joinder motion, before enquiring whether it was necessary for them to still comply with the order to show cause. They contended that once the court finds that the suit was incompetent, the need for the defendants to show cause becomes unnecessary.

    Plaintiff’s lawyer, Peter Nwokolo said he was opposed to Hunkuyi’s motion and the position suggestion by defendants’ lawyers in relation to how the court should proceed. He urged the court to grant his client’s orders for interlocutory injunctions against the defendants on the ground that the defendants failed to show cause as ordered by the court.

    Justice Kolawole consequently adjourned to September 8 for the hearing of Hunkuyi’s motion and all other pending applications. Further proceedings in the case will however be conducted by Justice Adeniyi Ademola, who will service as the court’s vacation judge from August 11.

    Preliminary objection filed the existing defendants,” the judge said.

    validly make orders in a case.

    The judge however noted that before proceeding to hear a case, a court must be satisfied that the case before it is properly constituted in terms of parties. He added that whether or not that applicant (Hunkuyi) should be joined is not an issue on which the court can make a decision at this stage of the proceedings without taking arguments on the joinder application.

    “While the court is required to accord the primacy of hearing to notices of preliminary objection filed by the defendants, the court is required to approach the said objection, especially in the light of the extant orders made on July 27, 2015, this court being one of the superior courts created pursuant to the provision of Section 6(5)(c) of the Constitution, it is by law, required to approach the challenge to jurisdiction from the point of view that it has jurisdiction, unless and until the contrary is shown.

    “My view is that the notices of preliminary objections filed and the ground on which they were filed challenge the substratum of the plaintiff’s suit, but in view of the jurisprudential analysis I have made, that the jurisdiction of a superior court of record is presumed, will the filing of a notice of preliminary objection against a suit be a process within the contemplation of the provision of Order 26 Rules 13 and 14 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009?

    “My answer is in the negative, because what was adjourned was a further consideration of the proceedings in relation to the ex-parte application which was neither granted nor outrightly refused when the 1st defendant was ordered to show cause.

    “By filing a notice of preliminary objection, the 1st defendant has not shown cause. One would expect that the consequential order which the court should make will be in line with the submissions of the plaintiff’s counsel.

    “Although I recognize the constitutional status of the 1st defendant pursuant to sections 214(10 and 215(1) of the Constitution as well as its statutory duties as spelt out in Section 4 of the Police Act. It is not the law that courts created pursuant to the Constitution are limited from granting an order restraining the 1st defendant from conducting investigation into any allegation of crime once a report of it is made to it.

    “It is however an issue in which the court will exercise great  caution perhaps, circumspection lest, the court may be erroneously perceived as exercise its judicial powers  to inhibit the performance of the statutory duties of the 1st defendant and thereby shielding the suspect of the crime alleged from being investigated and possibly from being prosecuted.

    “I will not make the orders which the plaintiff’s lawyer prayed for. But my position still remains that regardless of the outcome of the motion on notice for joinder, this court has and retains the jurisdiction to make orders to set aside the report which the 1st defendant may prepared in its investigation.

    “And can exercise its judicial powers pursuant to Section 6(6)(a) and (b) of the Constitution to set aside the report even if a criminal charge has been preferred based on it, if the court comes to the decision that the 1st defendant, once it became aware of the pendency of the instant suit and the orders being sought in the motion on notice, ought not to carry on its statutory assignment without caution and due regard to what will be the outcome of the instant suit.

     

  • Forgery and fudge in the senate

    And whilst we are still on the subject of the fearsome confrontation between the old order and the forces of rampaging political modernity, it is meet to report that after the initial hiccups and frontal insubordination to the dictates of the majority party, the House of Representatives is settling down to good and honest business at last.

    Snooper monitored the proceeding last Wednesday and was very impressed by the depth and clarity of presentations. Particularly outstanding in deportment and submission was Honorable Shehu-Shagari.      The Speaker, Yakubu Dogara, was masterfully in charge, evoking calm comportment and regal equanimity. It was all redolent of promise and good tidings.

    Meanwhile as this was happening in the lower chamber, the upper chamber, the senate, compromised in the eyes of discerning compatriots by forgery and fudge and by the sheer illegality and illegitimacy of progeny and provenance of its leadership, was digging in. The old axiom that when you are in a hole, you stop digging does not cut any ice with its leading lights or lightlessness. They are furiously digging in.

    The senate began business with a rousing acclamation of its errant leadership. This motion was supported by a whopping two and a half dozen senators purportedly elected under the APC platform. That just about did it. The aromatic smell of food in the guise of imminent juicy committee memberships could induce a feeding frenzy and unhinge the most loyal party members. This is not the time for fancy theories about party supremacy. As one of the senate’s leading luminaries has famously put, “the senate is not a party secretariat”.  The goat eats where it is tethered.

    In a classic case of chutzpah, the senate even had the great immoral courage and the brazen temerity to admonish members of the public against media-slamming of its members and to caution the security agencies against witch-hunting family members of distinguished senators. The Rip van Winkle at the EFCC who has just woken up after a millennial nap, must take this serious admonition to heart or be prepared for more mass invasion from the Tartar hordes led by the infamous brawler from Kogi.

    It is clear that this lot are beyond soap and water, and there is no point in any further remonstration or appeal to logic and national interest. Since tenacious occupation irrespective of legality confers partial ownership in the eyes of the law, the senate may yet get away with blue murder. Worn down by sheer attrition, the ruling party and the public may decide to move on and overlook the historic infringement. In a typical Nigerian judicial and constitutional fudge, it might even be argued that there is no point in disrupting legislative harmony and stability no matter how it is conjured.

    But that is assuming that a leopard can ever change its spots. After securing its flanks, this senate will resume its destabilization of the executive and the country as a whole in a most vicious manner. Its leadership, having been outed as retrogressive charlatans, can only find relevance on the corpse of a new Nigeria. They will fight tooth and nail to maintain the dead order and its diseased detritus.

    In the event, President Buhari must be prepared to take his case directly to the Nigerian people. There can be no doubt who at the moment is the overwhelming favourite of the Nigerian populace, no matter the shameless antics of the ousted party and its unreconstructed collaborators in the ruling party. Something tells snooper that this may yet end in a stormy confrontation.

  • Ekiti PDP faction alleges forgery of signature on cheque

    Ekiti PDP faction alleges forgery of signature on cheque

    The crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ekiti State deepened yesterday as the faction loyal to Governor Ayo Fayose claimed that the cheque issued to pay for the rent of the party secretariat was forged.

    The party was given an eviction notice by the landlord, Ropo Adesanya, following unpaid rent.

    Power supply to the building has been disconnected by the Benin Electricity Distribution Company (BEDC) due to unpaid bills.

    Adesanya, a two-term PDP state chairman, defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC) a month ago.

    Adesanya, who said the party should pay him N1.5 million for rent owed, added that he was shocked when he (Adesanya) was “issued” a dud cheque.

    The Ekiti PDP Elders’ Forum, led by Clement Awoyelu and party chairmen in the 16 local governments, have declared support for the chairman of the faction loyal to Fayose, Idowu Faleye.

    They also backed Fayose who they said was offering the people and the party the right leadership.

    The elders accused the All Progressives Congress (APC) of masterminding the internal strife in the party.

    Faleye is in a battle for the control of the party with Tunde Olatunde, who heads a faction, which has 14 State Working Committee (SWC) members elected in the March 2012 state congress.

    The Olatunde faction had in May “removed” Faleye on the grounds that his appointment violated the PDP constitution.

    According to the elders, APC chieftains were sponsoring the factional crisis to destabilise the PDP.

    Awoyelu said: “We view Tunde Olatunde and Secretary Tope Aluko as moles because they are being financed by the APC and other external forces to destabilise our party.”

    Clearing the air on the signature forgery mess surrounding the cheque issued to Adesanya, Awoyelu, who spoke through a forum member and former state chairman, Bola Olu-Ojo, said the development was intended to embarrass the party.

    Awoyelu alleged that the bank where the party’s account was domiciled refused to honour the cheque because a change of signatories was carried out “without the chairman’s authorisation”.

    He said: “The cheque was not honoured because there was change of signatories without authorisation.

    “That cheque was forged because the signature was not the chairman’s signature.

    “This was a calculated attempt to embarrass the party because he (Adesanya) has left the party for the opposition (APC).”

    Responding to questions on why Faleye had not been operating from the party secretariat, Awoyelu claimed that he (Faleye) comes there regularly “but in certain situations one needs to be security-conscious”.

    On the position of the Olatunde faction that Faleye and the state youth leader were from the same ward, which runs contrary to the party constitution, Awoyelu said the SWC did not have the final say on the issue but the  State Executive Committee (SEC).

    He explained that the SWC passed the decision to the SEC for ratification, which would then be forwarded to the national secretariat.

    Awoyelu said party elders have intervened by holding peace meetings with the two factions but “the Olatunde faction has not been cooperating to ensure the resolution of the crisis”.

    He said party elders would continue to work to resolve the crisis, maintaining that “Faleye remains the authentic chairman” of the party and enjoys the backing of majority of members in all wards, council areas and senatorial districts.

    Chairman of the Forum of PDP chairmen in the 16 local governments Kola Lawal said the group supports Faleye, adding that there was no place where a meeting was held to remove him (Faleye) from office.

    Awoyelu was joined by senior party members, including former House of Assembly Speaker Olatunji Odeyemi, former Secretary Gboyega Akinola, former Vice Chairman Bodunde Daramola, former Assembly member Gbadebo Ibuoye, among others.

  • Forgery: Senators jittery over police investigation

    Forgery: Senators jittery over police investigation

    •Lawan group ignores governors

    Senators were yesterday jittery over the backlash of the ongoing police probe of the forgery of the Senate Standing Orders 2015.

    There were fears that the probe might either force the Senate to start the election of principal officers afresh or create a prolonged crisis in the Upper Chamber.

    The National Assembly reopens today. It went on recess on June 23.

    Last-minute moves by an APC Governors Forum committee did not yield results. It was boycotted by members of The Unity Forum.

    Governors Adams Oshiomhole and Atiku Bagudu met with The Like Minds (pro-Saraki) senators on Sunday night at the National Assembly.

    Saraki appeared briefly before the committee and left his allies to complete the talks.

    But the session was boycotted by the members of The Unity Forum, who are backing Senator Ahmed Lawan for Senate President.

    The Lawan group retired into a meeting last night to strategise ahead of today’s plenary.

    The outcome of the Lawan group’s meeting was unknown last night.

    It was, however, learnt that the confirmation of the forgery of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 – in a probe  led by Deputy Inspector-General (DIG) Danazumi Job Doma has rattled some of the senators.

    A source said: “We are all worried about the establishment of forgery against some officials of the National Assembly because it will be a setback for the Senate. If the Clerk to the National Assembly or any management staff is arraigned in court, it can lead to a stalemate in the conduct of the affairs of the chamber.

    “There will also be a moral dilemma for the Senate, if it resists the ongoing investigation of the alleged forgery.

    “So, we have a dilemma at hand and the forgery is going to haunt the Senate for a while.”

    Another senator said: “The forgery allegation has created tension in the Senate because of a plot to suspend the six senators who wrote a petition to the Senate.

    “If they suspend these six senators, there cannot be peace in the chamber. We have a delicate situation at hand.

    “There is need to apply wisdom in managing the situation at hand.”

    A high-ranking Senator, who spoke in confidence, said: “We are battling to reconcile and save the image of this institution. No one is happy because we may all be the losers at the end of the day.

    “The forgery issue is compounding the crisis in the Senate. We are also divided on the investigation by the police.

    “The disagreement centres on the fact that Paragraph 110(1) of the Senate Standing Orders 2007 (as amended) was not strictly followed in producing the so-called Senate Standing Orders 2015.”

    Paragraph 110(1) of the Senate Standing Orders 2007 (as amended) says: “ Any Senator desiring to amend any part of the Rules or adding any new clause shall give notice of such amendments in writing to the President of the Senate, giving details of the proposed amendments.

    “The President of the Senate shall within seven working days of the receipt of the notice, cause the amendments to be printed and circulated to members. Thereafter, it shall be printed in the Order Paper of the Senate.

    “The Mover or Movers of the amendments shall be allowed to explain in detail the proposed amendments. Thereafter, the Senate shall decide by simple majority votes whether the amendments should be considered or rejected.

    “If the decision is to consider the amendments, then another date shall be set aside by the Rules and Business Committee whereby opportunity would be given to senators to further propose amendments but must strictly be confined to the original amendments.

    “Two-third majority shall decide the amendments and such amendments shall form part of the Rules of the Senate.”

    Meanwhile, the APC Governors Committee, being coordinated by Governors Adams Oshiomhole and Atiku Bagudu, on Sunday night met with members of The Like Minds who are backing the President of the Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki.

    The meeting was however boycotted by members of The Unity Forum.

    A source added: “Notwithstanding, Oshiomhole and Bagudu appealed to The Like Minds to create room for reconciliation with those in the Unity Forum.

    “The governors, however, promised to reach out to the Unity Forum to ensure a hitch-free resumption of the Senate.”

    As at press time, members of the Unity Forum were meeting last night over reconciliation terms from Oshiomhole-Bagudu Committee and the alleged plot to suspend some of its members.

    A member of the Forum, who spoke at 7.36pm, added: “We are just going into a meeting now to weigh all options, including plans to suspend some of our members.”

  • Forgery: Court refuses to stop probe of Ekweremadu, others

    Forgery: Court refuses to stop probe of Ekweremadu, others

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has declined to stop the police from its investigation of the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, and others for the alleged forgery of the 2015 Senate Standing Rules.

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole, in a ruling yesterday, refused an ex-parte application filed by Senator Gilbert Emeka Nnaji, with which he sought to, among others, restrain the police from proceeding with the investigation and making public the report of the inquiry.

    Nnaji had sought interim orders to restrain the defendants in the case – the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) – pending the determination of his substantive suit.

    The plaintiff is challenging the constitutionality of the investigation within the context of the doctrine of separation of power.

    Justice Kolawole said he could not grant the prayer sought by the plaintiff at ex-parte stage when his court possesses the power to conduct a judicial review of the action complained about in the substantive suit.

    He also refused the plaintiff’s request to abridge the time within which the defendants could respond.

    The judge held that while the court’s rules allow defendants 30 days within which to respond, a reduction in the period must be with the consent of parties in the suit.

    He ordered the defendants to appear on the next day and show cause why he should not grant the prayers sought by the plaintiff in his ex-parte application.

    Justice Kolawole adjourned to August 4 for the defendants to show cause.