The Nation Newspaper

Tag: judgment

  • Tackling worrying menace of judgment misinterpretation

    Tackling worrying menace of judgment misinterpretation

    There is a growing trend of parties to a suit claiming victory after judgment – each interpreting the orders as they suit them. Legal experts say the development undermines judicial authority and must be nipped in the bud, writes Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE.

    Until recently, it was unthinkable to defy court orders.

    But it is becoming a regular occurrence for parties to either disagree with judgments or act in a sub-judicial manner while cases in which they are parties are pending in court.

    This has partly been blamed on the weakening of some institutions due to political considerations.

    For instance, if a top government official who has significant influence over the police is cited for contempt and a judge orders his arrest, will the police comply with an order to arrest the contemnor?

    A judge was once urged by a lawyer to issue an arrest order for a top military chief for disobeying an order.

    The judge retorted: “Who will arrest him?”

    The response underscored how helpless the Judiciary is amid disobedience to its orders: it does not control the Armed Forces.

    Why judgments are disobeyed/misinterpreted

    Due to high-stakes political motivations, some may believe that complying with court rulings could weaken their position or empower opponents.

    Governments might argue that following a court order could endanger the country or citizens, although this reasoning is often controversial.

    Then, there is the perceived lack of integrity in the judiciary.

    With that arm of the government increasingly subject to attacks, some argue that the judiciary’s integrity is compromised, leading to a lack of trust in the system.

    One of the major causes seems to be weak enforcement of court orders.

    Some judgments are not enforced, making it difficult to hold parties accountable.

    The disregard for the rule of law also does not help.

    A general disregard for the rule of law and democratic process contributes to disobedience.

    Many judges have been sanctioned for abuse of discretionary powers, so at times some find reasons to repudiate orders.

    In effect, courts may grant orders that are not in line with the law, leading to disputes.

    The consequences of disobeying court orders are severe. It results in a loss of confidence in the Judiciary.

    When people lose faith in the judicial system, self-help may become more prevalent.

    Disobedience to court orders can lead to a breakdown in law and order, undermining the stability of the nation.

    There are also economic consequences.

    Disobedience can deter investors, lead to job losses, and exacerbate unemployment.

    Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, had warned both individuals and institutions against disobedience to court orders.

    The CJN stressed that no one, irrespective of social status, will be permitted to treat the courts with disregard.

    Speaking at a special Supreme Court session to mark the commencement of the 2024/2025 legal year, she said: “Obedience to court orders is non-negotiable.

    “No individual or institution, irrespective of their standing, will be permitted to treat the judgments of our courts with levity or disregard.

    “The judiciary stands resolute in ensuring that the sanctity of our legal decisions is upheld.”

    There have been a few recent instances that may be a source of concern for the CJN, who must now walk the talk.

    A former Second Vice President of the NBA, Monday Ubani, described as dangerous the trend of misinterpreting Supreme Court judgments rather than complying with them.

    He said: “In recent times, a disturbing and dangerous trend has emerged within the Nigerian legal and political landscape.

    “It is the deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of final court judgments, particularly those of the Supreme Court, by parties to suits.

    “Rather than submitting to the authority and finality of these decisions, parties now cherry-pick aspects of the judgments that suit their personal or political interests, often spinning misleading narratives that cause confusion, tension, and disorder within the polity.”

    This trend, he pointed out, has played out brazenly in several recent cases.

    He cited the case of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly, where parties to the dispute offered conflicting interpretations of the Supreme Court’s ruling, particularly in relation to the status and validity of the Assembly’s actions post-defection, as well as the governor’s compliance with purported agreements.

    Another instance is the PDP leadership tussle involving Samuel Anyanwu and Mr. Okorie Okoye, in which the Supreme Court’s pronouncement was supposed to end the internal wrangling.

    Yet, both sides claimed victory, creating further ambiguity and exacerbating the conflict within the party.

    There are also instances where parties have refused to await the outcome of litigations.

    For instance, it took a court order to restrain parties in the Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan vs Godswill Akpabio case from further litigating the matter in the court of public opinion.

    The highlight of such misinterpretations occurred in the Labour Party’s leadership crisis.

    The contending factions have continued to hold opposing positions, undermining the authority of the court’s decision.

    What the Supreme Court said in the LP case

    Following the Supreme Court judgment, Julius Abure claimed he was not sacked as the LP National Chairman.

    But the Nenadi Usman-led team, backed by the party heavyweights, have gone ahead to submit the certified true copy of the judgment to INEC.

    The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) also asked the Police and other security agencies to eject Abure- led executives from the party’s national headquarters in Abuja.

    A close examination of the CTC of the judgment shows that the Supreme Court overturned Federal High Court and Court of Appeal rulings, both of which recognised Abure as National Chairman.

    The Supreme Court, in the judgment by Justice Inyang Okoro, read by Justice Mohammed Idris, held: “Earlier in this judgment, I mentioned that the trial judge, after carefully reviewing the case of the first respondent—along with the attached exhibits and counter-affidavits—concluded that the central issue in the case was the leadership dispute within the first respondent, which the court lacked jurisdiction to address.

    “The trial judge should have stopped there and struck out the suit.

    “Going further to make pronouncements, especially on relief number five (5) sought in the case, amounted to unjustifiably assuming jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the first respondent and declaring Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the party. This should not have been done.

    “I have also reviewed the judgment in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/1172/2024: Labour Party (LP) Vs. Chief Olusola Nehemiah Ebiseni, which the court below referenced in affirming Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the party.

    “To my surprise, I found that the subject of that appeal was about determining the authentic Labour Party candidate for the Ondo State Governorship Election held on November 16, 2024, between Chief Nehemiah Ebiseni and Dr. Olurunfemi Ayodele Festus.

    “The dispute centred on whose name should be published by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the party’s candidate.

    “The trial court favoured Chief Ebiseni, who emerged after a fresh election on July 18, 2024, following Dr. Ayodele’s alleged voluntary withdrawal.

    “The lower court’s judgment favoured Dr. Ayodele, having found that he did not withdraw from the contest.

    “There was no issue in that appeal regarding the leadership dispute within the Labour Party specifically presented for the court’s determination.

    “In this case, the court below, after recognising that the first respondent’s (LP’s) main relief was relief number five, based on the leadership of the first respondent and thus not justiciable, strayed beyond its jurisdiction into the realm where even the angels dread to tread to pronounce Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the 1st respondent.

    “The law applicable here is as expressed in the Latin maxim: Nihil non-expetant aedificare stare, meaning that ‘one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand’.

    Read Also: Edo: Why we are appealing tribunal’s judgment, by PDP

    “The first respondent’s suit at the trial court had no legs to stand in the circumstances and deserves to be struck out.

    “Permit me, at this point, to reiterate the trite position of the law that if a court is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the main relief in an action, it will not have the ancillary claim, and more so if the ancillary claim will inevitably involve a discussion of the main claim, as in this case.

    “In summary, both the trial court and the court below lacked jurisdiction to entertain the first respondent’s suit, whose main relief, as observed, was relief number five, treated as an appendage.

    “As a result, the decisions of both the trial court and the court below, which recognised Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the first respondent, are set aside, and Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1271/2024 is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

    “In the same vein, the first respondent’s cross-appeal in Appeal No. SC/CV/564/2025, stemming from the same judgment of the court below, is hereby dismissed.

    “Before I am done, may I admonish political parties and their members to endeavour to always allow their constitutions, rules, regulations and guidelines to guide them in choosing their officers as well as candidates.

    “That way, incessant internal rifts which always find their way to court would be reduced.

    “If the constitution of a political party has prescribed duration for tenure of office of an officer, such officer should be humble enough to at the expiration of the tenure.

    “In the final analysis, I find this appeal to be meritorious and is hereby allowed. Each party shall bear their respective costs. Appeal allowed.”

    Abure claims victory

    Surprisingly, LP hailed the judgment, saying it validated its earlier position that political matters are internal affairs of the party.

    Obiora Ifoh, speaking for the party, said: “The Supreme Court judgment didn’t sack Labour Party national chairman, Julius Abure.

    “Rather it rightly upheld the preceding and accumulated high courts and appeal court judgments upholding the immutability of responsibility of Labour Party structures to choose its leaders.

    “The judgement did not also set aside the Appeal Court judgment in Labour Party vs Ebiseni and 2 others (CA/ABJ/CV/1172/2024) delivered on 13 November 2024, which affirmed Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the Labour Party.

    “The judgment is still valid and subsisting and has not been appealed.

    “The implication is very clear. Abure remains the Labour Party national chairman.

    “The question is: who are the leaders of the party? The party constitution is clear as to who are the leaders of the party.

    “The leadership of the party has been the National Working Committee led by Barrister Julius Abure.”

    Lawyers deplore non-compliance

    Ubani stressed that the Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of justice in Nigeria, made pronouncements that ought to bring finality to the disputes.

    “Yet, parties have manipulated these judgments to suit their selfish agendas, leading to public confusion and a deepening of the very conflicts the court sought to resolve.”

    He said the development is dangerous because it undermines the finality of the Supreme Court.

    “If judgments of the apex court are subject to multiple interpretations by parties, it threatens the very foundation of our judicial system.

    “The authority and integrity of the judiciary are eroded when parties treat final court decisions as mere opinions rather than binding mandates.

    “It perpetuates endless litigation and conflict. If there is no common understanding and acceptance of a final judgment, then there can be no end to disputes.

    “The essence of judicial resolution is defeated when parties act contrary to the spirit and letter of a ruling.

    “It erodes public confidence in the judicial process.

    “When the public sees that court decisions do not bring resolution or certainty, they may begin to question the relevance of the courts.

    “This undermines the rule of law and fosters a culture of lawlessness and disrespect for judicial authority,” Ubani said.

    To arrest this growing menace, the former Ikeja Branch Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) called for greater clarity in judgments and commitment to ethics.

    He said: “The Supreme Court must make its judgments more explicit and unambiguous.

    “Where necessary, the court should provide clear consequential orders to eliminate room for manipulation and mischief by litigants or their legal representatives.

    “Legal practitioners must uphold the highest standards of professional ethics.

    “Lawyers should advise their clients honestly and responsibly, even if the court’s decision is unfavourable.

    “It is unprofessional and dangerous for lawyers to become merchants of confusion by spinning judgments to favour their clients’ desires rather than the truth.

    “Contempt proceedings must be actively pursued against defaulters. Parties who willfully misinterpret or defy court judgments must be held accountable.

    “The courts should not hesitate to invoke their contempt powers to punish such conduct, which seeks to bring the judiciary into disrepute.”

    Ubani stressed that the judiciary remains the last hope of the common man, and if the sanctity of its decisions is not preserved and enforced, the very fabric of our democratic governance will be at risk.

    “All stakeholders – lawyers, litigants, political actors, and the media must play their part in respecting and upholding the finality and authority of the Supreme Court.

    “This is the only way to ensure peace, order, and the continued relevance of the judicial institution in our democratic experiment,” he added.

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Jibrin Okutepa, underscored for all to respect court judgments.

    He stated in a social media post: “The efficacy of judgments of courts and their finality are not in doubt. Judgments form parts of our laws.

    “They are rendered with binding force. But here in Nigeria, those who should respect judicial decisions desecrate it and treat it with levity and disdain.

    “Nigerian constitution says that the judgments of courts have binding efficacy on all persons and authorities. See section 287 of the 1999 constitution.

    “Yet authorities and persons who have duties and responsibilities to give effect to these judgments treat them as if they are just for decorations.

    “The judiciary itself is just there. It is not angry about the kind of treatment it is getting.

    “Its decisions are just being treated with disdain, yet this same judiciary will give favourable judgments to those who treat its decisions with disdain and scorn.”

    A former NBA President, Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), also decried the situation.

    Asked for his thoughts on the misinterpretation of judgments, he said: “That’s a problem. The judiciary isn’t what it used to be. My comments about the judiciary also reflect my general comments about Nigeria.

    “I will hope the CJN will understand that if confidence isn’t felt in the context of what Nigerians feel about the judiciary, then no one will go there, or if they go there, they do so feeling they can buy judgments.

    “Look at the case that came on appeal in respect of the governorship candidacy in Plateau.

    “Neither the appellant nor respondent knew who won. It appeared that the court gave judgment for both sides. That’s a problem.”

    Indeed, a problem that needs urgent solutions.

    For Chief Louis Alozie (SAN), such an anomaly occurs in political cases where the stakes are high.

    He said: “Most politicians in Nigeria have no other address. So, politics is their means of livelihood.  Desperation is common.

    “In nonpolitical cases, parties hardly misinterpret court judgments. 

    “Most of the time, they (parties in political cases) won’t pay attention to what the judges are reading.  They go to town with the little they hear. 

    “The claims are made even before the parties obtain certified true copies of the judgments. 

    “To redress the abnormality, parties should be barred from commenting on judgments they have not obtained or read.

    “The judges also should endeavour to avoid ambiguities in their judgments, to avoid misinterpretation by the parties.

    “Any inelegant reliefs sought by the parties through their counsel should be redrawn in such a way that no one can be in doubt as to what the courts are saying.”

  • Furore as controversial judgment renders widow, children homeless

    Furore as controversial judgment renders widow, children homeless

    • Demolition of multimillion naira home, shopping mall forces mother of five to sleep inside church auditorium
    • Distraught widow petitions Lagos Chief Judge, demands fair hearing

    Loveth Ndelekwute’s story evokes pity. Until March 2022, she was living in her husband’s six-bedroom duplex on Market Road in the Ayobo area of Alimosho, Lagos, and was running a multimillion-naira supermarket in one of her husband’s properties with many employees. But grief sneaked into her once happy life as she was thrown into sudden widowhood in early December 2021 when her beloved husband and businessman, Edmond Ndelekwute, died.

    As demanded by Igbo tradition, Ndelekwute’s burial was held in his hometown of Oboro in Oru West Local Government Area of Imo State, in January 2022 while the 47-year-old widow returned to her husband’s Lagos home shortly after the burial.

    But she and her five children have not known peace ever since as she was confronted with a threat to demolish the entire properties left behind by her husband, including her supermarket, based on a judgment from a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja. The suit was allegedly filed by one Hassan Ali, described as a land speculator and property agent purportedly acting on behalf of one Soremekun Family which had sold the land to Loveth’s husband.

    Ironically, the mother of five had initially dismissed the threat to demolish the properties in question as a joke since they were properly documented with registered Certificate of Occupancy (CofO) and official receipts issued by the land-owning family.

    To her utmost shock, however, bulldozers were rolled out against the complex that housed the properties and they were demolished one after the other while she and her children were thrown out in the cold.

    Loveth cut a pitiable sight as she spoke to our reporter at a manger cum welding workshop in the Amule area of Ayobo, a Lagos suburb, on Monday.

    She said: “I have been living with my husband in the house since I got married to him in 1997 and never for once saw a man called Hassan or received any court summons regarding the land on which the properties were built.

    “We returned from the burial held in Oboro, Imo State towards the end of January 2023. On March 27, 2023, Hassan came with a team of policemen and thugs numbering 50 to take possession of our property, claiming that there was a November 15, 2015 judgment delivered by Justice IAF Oluyemi (Mrs) of a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja against our ownership of the landed property.

    “I told him that there was never a time that we were served with any court summons or notice to defend ourselves, but Hassan and his men forcibly ejected me and my children and they started breaking into the property. They removed the roofing sheets and sold them immediately.

    Read Also: We are on course on subsidy removal – FG

    “They also brought down other buildings; shopping malls comprising over 50 shops, my supermarkets where I had several people working for me. They left only our six-bedroom duplex and left our compound.”

    The precondition to the appearance of a defendant in court under the Administration of Criminal Justice, Act 2005, is that a defendant who is not in custody must be served with a copy of the charge along with a proof of evidence and notice of trial.

    Loveth further explained that she requested that the judgment be set aside because neither her late husband nor herself was aware of the suit filed by Hassan Ali before Justice Oluyemi delivered the judgment.

    However, while a date was fixed by the court to rule on the prayer that the judgment be set aside, the matter took a turn for the worse when Hassan again led soldiers to her compound and demolished the duplex where she lived with her children, in violation of the order that status quo be maintained pending the determination of the application before the court.

    She said: “I engaged lawyers to challenge the judgment  that was given without our knowledge. We were not served to defend ourselves, neither was my late husband aware of the case. So I asked that the judgment be set aside.

    “The application for the judgment to be set aside was filed before Justice Oluyemi, the same judge who gave the controversial judgment, asking for a stay of further execution and a review of the judgment since we had no idea of the case before the judgment was purportedly given.

    “Hassan and his allies were duly served and I had hoped that that would put a stop to his threats to pull down our residence.

    “Surprisingly, a few days to the day the matter was scheduled for review by Justice Oluyemi, Hassan Ali led a team of soldiers to our house, forcibly ejected us and demolished our six-bedroom duplex.

    “Since then, I have been living from hand to mouth, squatting in church and with family members.

    “I was living with my children in the house built by my husband. I only left for his hometown for his burial only to return to Lagos a few days later and become homeless.

    “I sleep in a church at Oshodi and live on charity and benevolence of members of the church while my children currently squat with one of my brothers at Ishefun.

    “Seeing me now, no one would know that I once lived in affluence before all our properties were snatched by a land speculator with the complicity of the judiciary that should save people from oppression.

    “Otherwise, how can a judgement be  delivered in a matter that the other party is not aware of or served any court summons?

    “The Shoremekun family has disowned the same Hassan. The family said they have disengaged his services as their land agent several years ago.

    “We found that a suit was fraudulently filed against us since 2012 without our knowledge. We were n ever served. Neither me nor my late husband was aware of the case. What kind of justice system is that?

    “Yet, judgment was given and our properties were demolished and they have begun to sell parts of the compound to people to build houses.”

    Loveth is unrelenting in her search for justice over the controversial demolition of the properties. Only recently, she wrote a petition to the Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Kazeem Olanrewaju Alogba, and the National Judicial Council (NJC) in Abuja, accusing Justice IAF Oluyemi of poor handling of the case that led to the unlawful demolition of her family properties.

    Also, Loveth asked that the case be reassigned to another judge as she could no longer guarantee the impartiality of Justice Oluyemi if she continues to handle the matter.

    A copy of the petition dated January 12, 2024 obtained by our reporter reads in part: “I am the widow of the named defendant – MR. EDMUND NDELEKWUTE now deceased in suit No. ID/1081/12.

    “A mother of five (5) children living at No. 2, New Market Road, Ayobo, Lagos before my family property was completely demolished acting on the undefended court judgment delivered on 15th November, 2015 which has been challenged via application filed on my behalf to set aside the purported judgment still pending before justice L.A.F Oluyemi (Mrs.) and with motion moved and with court ruling scheduled to be delivered on 14th of December, 2023.

    “He, Hassan Alli, had carried out this ignoble act under the watchful eyes of the judge with reckless abandon, nuisance and rascality in lawless fiefdom.

     “This is indeed a perverse act, an exercise devoid of sober judgments and very ridiculous, shameful indeed and deserves immediate sanction and correction. 

    “From all indications, it is crystal clear that the judge had compromised his office and position by romancing and hobnobbing with the plaintiff – Hassan Ali and he has never hidden his feelings to this effect by boasting publicly to those who care to listen that he had bought the judge over. 

    “This was largely demonstrated by the judge’s repugnant attitude and her dislike for my person in the courtroom when she openly said that she would send me to prison over a case she had not treated in (sic) partisan consideration.

    “In view of the above ugly scenario, I urge you therefore sir, to use your good offices to please assist to reassign the case file to a new and impartial judge, and I vehemently pledge to abide by the outcome of the court verdict in this regard in good faith sir, because I have no faith, hope, trust or confidence any longer in the poor handling of my case by Justice L.A.F Oluyemi (Mrs.) whom I so therefore believe is completely biased and whose body language and actions is tilted towards the plaintiff and so cannot give me a fair hearing. 

    “Up till now, I have visited the court on several occasions only to be told that only the judge can list the case for hearing again. My patience is running out because I am tired of sleeping in the church like a refugee not bargain for, as a law abiding citizen. “Conversely, let the judge brace up to her responsibility in upholding the sanctify of the law and to be more careful in her dealing with friends who may want to use her to fight a war that does not exist in order to shame those who have secret agenda to pursue like Hassan Alli, to protect her integrity and career.

    “So therefore (sic), let your untiring efforts in fighting this menace and scourge remain a landmark Sir.”

    Loveth added: “We were in court on the day the judge was to rule on our application to set aside the judgment when she told us that she had handed off our matter following a petition to the office of the Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Kazeem Alogba, who has since asked her to submit the case file to him.

    “However, the judge has refused to comply while my children and I continue to grapple with hopelessness, homelessness and poverty as we cannot take care of ourselves.”

    In a telephone conversation with our reporter, Hassan Ali said Loveth’s late husband was duly served the court summons when he was still alive and that she received and signed the document on behalf of her husband.

    He said: “The woman is lying. Her husband was duly served the notice of trial when he was alive and we still have the proof of service.

    “Loveth Ndelekwute collected and signed the notice and the copy she signed is in the case file and we have been able to prove that in court.

    “Loveth had sold a portion of the land to someone before we came to take possession of the property, and she even took us to various police formations including Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID), Alagbon, Lagos and Zone 2 Police Headquarters, Lagos, all to no avail.

    “It was after she reneged on her promise to do ratification on the property that we took possession of the property.”

  • Day of judgment

    Day of judgment

    I had finished writing the above piece when news broke that the Supreme Court will today deliver judgment in the Atiku Abubakar’s and Peter Obi’s appeals against the September 6 verdict of the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC), which affirmed President Bola Tinubu’s victory in the February 25 election. I concluded the piece by saying that I was looking forward to the verdict.

        The Supreme Court sent notices to the parties yesterday to that effect. Will the apex court uphold or upturn the Tribunal’s decision? The public will know where the pendulum swings in a few hours. But some of the parties are already jittery, going by their statement in the social and traditional media. They need not be anxious. The Supreme Court will do justice in this matter, according to the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

    Read Also: NACA partners journalists, social media influencers on HIV/AIDS stigma

       Anyone expecting the court to go outside those provinces is living in delusion. Hopefully, the nation will take a breather from the unnecessary acrimony over the election after this final decision which will lay the issue to rest forever, whether or not any party is satisfied with it. I rise.

  • PEPT judgment: Matters arising

    PEPT judgment: Matters arising

    • By Ashimi Jamiu Adewale

    Amajor revelation from the proceedings and the landmark judgment at the presidential election court is that all the negative noise about the unfair conduct and outcomes of the 2023 elections are very wrong. The two major opposition parties could not provide evidence to justify their claims of stolen mandate. Even the technicalities they wanted to use failed because they could not prove anything. Though, there were skirmishes and pockets of violence in some parts of the country during the 2023 presidential election, INEC deserves to be commended for doing a good job. Of course, there are rooms for improvement especially on logistics but generally the elections went smoothly. In places where violence was reported, the umpire ordered that fresh elections be held to prevent disenfranchisement of registered voters.

    With the high quality of job done by the five members of the election tribunal, it would be another waste of money, time and energy for the losers to approach the Supreme Court. They presented very weak petitions. They should expect a similar outcome from the Supreme Court.

    As for the winner, it is time to concentrate efforts in the daunting tasks of nation-building. There is a lot of work to be done within the next four years. The Buhari administration through its focus on provision of critical infrastructures, review of the constitution to devolve powers to the states especially on generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, the review and consolidation of business laws and other measures to promote ease of doing business, has laid the foundations for the transformation of our raw materials exporting economy to raw materials processing industrial economy that generates jobs and alleviate poverty. This is in line with the thinking of Professor Michael Porter on three stages of economic development.

    It is therefore pertinent to build on the solid foundations by completing the critical infrastructures and further consolidate on creating enabling environment to attract genuine investors who will harness our numerous raw materials to produce several products for our consumption and export excess to bring in foreign currencies.

    To do this we must provide critical infrastructures including 24/7 electricity, efficient road network and transportation system, create enabling environment and improve ease of doing business to attract genuine investors who will harness our numerous raw materials to produce several products for our consumption and export.

    We therefore need two sets of investors: Investors who can invest in provision of critical infrastructures such as electricity, transportation system etc. on public private partnership agreements. We also need investors who are ready to invest in research and manufacturing to transform our raw materials to several finished products to meet the demands of the huge Nigerian market and export excess. This will not only create jobs and alleviate poverty, a lot financial capital will be brought into the country from these exports.

    Read Also: Lagos West: APC’s Adebule floors Aeroland at Appeal Court

    It is very important that we should allocate resources for the implementation of this economic development strategy. Hence, the management of foreign currencies realised from crude oil export should be used to support these two sets of investment strategies by devoting at least 60% of foreign exchange earned from sale of crude oil to provision of critical infrastructures and create enabling environment for the two sets of investors so that we can achieve our goals. In this regard, we should have a first tier government regulated and strictly monitored foreign exchange market and a second tier all-comers foreign exchange market. The second tier foreign market should be allocated not more than 40% of the foreign currencies realised from sale of crude oil together with foreign currencies earned through exportation financed by banks, remittances from Nigerians abroad and other sources to finance other imports wish. Strict monitoring mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that the first tier market arrangements are not abused. In this regard strict and transparent regulatory measures must be put in place to monitor every step from the beginning to the end of each request and transaction. Men and women of high integrity and character will be needed to ensure the success of this critical resource allocation mechanism.

     The Tinubu administration has taken major decisions on the removal of the fuel subsidy and cancellation of multiple foreign currencies exchange rates. It is important to ensure that necessary support is provided to ensure that all our refineries commence production by 2024. The federal government must not approve the proposal that our refineries should pay in dollars to NNPC for crude oil. All payments must be done in naira. According to NNPC, the cost of production of crude oil per barrel is $17. We can sell this to our refineries at naira equivalent of $30. If we can do this, our refineries will be able to produce at globally competitive price and we may end up attracting more investments and investors in our petrochemical industry. 

    It is very important that whatever palliative measures to cushion the impact of the tough measures introduced so far are implemented without further delays so that disgruntled elements will not capitalise on the hardships being experienced by our people to cause problems.

    On the long run, the government should work with farmers and support them with inputs, assist them to harvest, establish storage and set up commodity boards to buy whatever is produced by our farmers. The boards shall sell the products from the farms for internal consumption and use. The excess can be stored or exported to bring in needed foreign currencies. 

    Also we will need to address the issue of nation development through implementation of social measures for reorientation of our citizens through a critical review of our education system to redesign courses that are skill and knowledge focused to meet the demands of modern economy.  The curricula must emphasise the critical role and contribution of each professional in national development and the need for team work within each organisation and between organisations in the system. The content of the curricula must reflect the needs of modern economy such that our graduates can drive the implementation of our economic transformation strategy to become raw materials processing industrial economy that generates jobs and alleviate poverty. We cannot afford to continue with the wasteful system that produces graduate who will be driving tricycle.

    A lot of damage has been done to the psyche of our African people that we are inferior to other races especially the white race. This wrong narrative has been promoted for centuries through various platforms such as education, religion, media and so on. These narratives have been proven to be untrue because the body of knowledge that had brought about the level of technological development globally had, and still having substantial contributions from the black race. We need to establish platforms to project this correct narrative so that we can promote we can do it mentality among the black people in their countries most especially in Nigeria. 

     For these three policy thrusts to be successfully implemented, we will need to implement, institutional and policy reforms in the public service and embark on capacity building for the public servants. The future is bright and renewed hope agenda will definitely propel Nigeria to be among the developed countries of the world in not too distant future. The responsibility is huge. There is a lot of work to be done

    •Adewale is a retired Permanent Secretary, Lagos State.

  • Tribunal fixes judgment in Osun governorship tussle for Friday

    THE  Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal sitting in Apo, Abuja, has scheduled this Friday for judgment in the petition by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the September 2018 governorship election, Senator Ademola Adeleke.

    PDP and Adeleke are, by their petition, challenging the declaration of Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The date for the judgment was communicated to parties via hearing notices sent to them yesterday to that effect by the tribunal’s secretariat, a copy of which The Nation sighted in Abuja.

    The tribunal chairman, Justice Ibrahim Sirajo, had, on March 7, this year, after parties adopted their final written addresses, announced that judgment in the case would be reserved till a later date.

    Justice  Sirajo said the parties would be informed, at least, 48 hours before the date of delivery of the judgment.

    Wole Olanipekun (SAN) appeared for Oyetola; Akin Olujinmi (SAN) represented  the APC and Lasco Pwahomdi appeared for INEC on March 7. The petitioners’ legal team was led by Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN).

    In adopting their separate final addresses, Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Pwahomdi urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their case.

    On his part, Ikpeazu urged the tribunal to uphold the petition and grant all the reliefs prayed by the petitioners.

    Olanipekun, while adopting his final address, noted that the petition was full of confusing claims and betrayed the petitioners’ lack of understanding of the nation’s election petition jurisprudence.

    In identifying what he described as the many contradictions in the petition, Olanipekun noted that “in pages 37, 38 and 39, the petitioners are presenting a different case entirely from their pleadings”.

    “The petition is a bedlam of confusion,” he said.

    Olanipekun noted that the petitioners have admitted breaching the electoral law by seeking that some of their votes be quashed.

    He added: “They are also asking the tribunal to quash some of their votes. A self-confessed petitioner, who has in writing, admitted infringing the law, cannot be asking to be returned as a winner of the election.

    “In their relief seven, they want the court to nullify the certificate of return, but they failed to present the certificate before the tribunal. Where is that certificate? Can the tribunal nullify what is not before it?

    “They said the certificate of return is with us. If it is with us, should they not have given us a notice to produce it? They did not give us notice to produce,” Olanipekun said.

    He relied on a decision of the Court of Appeal in the motion filed by the PDP presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar and urged the tribunal to decline the petitioners’ prayer to void the guideline issued by INEC for the conduct of the election.

    In similar argument, Olujinmi faulted the evidence given by 63 polling agents called as witnesses by the petitioners.

    He noted that though the petitioners called 80 witnesses in all, 63, who were polling unit agents gave common evidence by saying similar things and using almost exactly the same words.

    Olujinmi also argued the evidence by the petitions’ 74th witness, who was the state polling agent, amounted to hearsay evidence because he admitted getting the information from the documents submitted to him.

    He urged the tribunal to ignore the various documents tendered by the petitioners, which he said they merely dumped on the tribunal without demonstrating their link to the case.

    Olujinmi also noted contradictions in the case of the petitioners and the evidence they led.

    Read also: Ogun APC warns banks over Amosun’s alleged loan requests

    He noted that while the petitioners want the tribunal to declare them winner of the first part of the election held on September 22, 2018 and void the supplementary election held on September 27, 2018, their 74th witness said they have no cause of action as it relates to the election of September 22, 2018.

    Ikpeazu, in his counter argument, urged the tribunal to disregard the issues raised by the respondents’ lawyers.

    He faulted the written addresses by the second and third respondents, which he argued, were not filed as required by law.

    Ikpeazu said there was no confusion as it relates to the case of the petitioners. He said the respondents’ claim of existence of confusion betrayed their misunderstanding of the case.

     

     

     

  • Ekiti governorship election tribunal fixes judgment for tomorrow

    The Ekiti State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja will on Monday deliver judgment in the petition by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and one other.

    The PDP and its candidate in the last governorship election in Ekiti State, Kolapo Olusola are, by their petition, challenging the decision by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to declare the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Kayode Fayemi, winner of the election.

    The Nation learnt on yesterday that parties to the petition, marked: EPT/EKS/GOV/01/18. – PDP, Olusola, INEC, APC and Fayemi, have been informed about the date of judgment via notices of hearing, issued by the tribunal’s Registry. The tribunal, led by Justice Suleiman Belgore had, on January 9 this year, adjourned indefinitely, but told parties they would be informed 48 hours before the day to be set for the delivery of the judgment.

    Justice Belgore announced the adjournment after parties adopted their final written addresses and prayed the tribunal to grant their prayers. The tribunal Chairman praised the conduct of lawyers and parties in the case. He particularly noted that the senior lawyers were professional and mature in their conduct. Charles Edosomwan (SAN), Akin Olujinmi (SAN) and Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) adopted the final addresses of INEC, APC and Fayemi, while Yusuf Ali (SAN) adopted the petitioners’ address.

    Edosomwan, Olujinmi and Fagbemi urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition by the PDP and Olusola.

  • Probe: Court fixes Oct 8 for judgment in Benue’s suit against EFCC

    •Commission insists on power to investigate state, officials

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled judgment for October 8 this year in a suit by Benue State Government, seeking to stop the ongoing investigation of some of its key officials by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Justice Nnamdi Dimgba chose the date on Wednesday after parties adopted their written briefs and made their final submissions.

    Plaintiff’s lawyer, Emeka Etiaba (SAN), in his final argument, urged the court to hold that the EFCC has no powers under any law to investigate the account of a state government.

    Etiaba was of the view that only the state’s House of Assembly and its Auditor- General (listed as 4th and 5th defendants), have the power to investigate or inquire into the accounts and /or appropriations, disbursements and administration of the funds of Benue State Government by virtue of the provisions of sections 1(1) and (3), 125(2), (4) and (6), 128 and 129 of the Constitution.

    ?He argued that the EFCC went beyond investigating top government functionaries of Benue State to probing sensitive financial documents of the state. Etiaba urged the court to uphold his client’s case and grant all the reliefs sought.

    Joe Abaagu, who represented the Benue State House of Assembly, the Speaker, the Clerk and the Auditor-General, Benue State (listed as 2nd to 5th defendants), argued in similar manner as Etiaba and prayed the court to grant the plaintiff’s reliefs.

    In a counter-argument, EFCC’s lawyer, Slyvanus Tahir urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the reliefs contained in the plaintiff’s originating summons were misconceived.

    Tahir argued that by the provisions of sections virtue of sections 6, 7 and 38(1) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act 2004, the agency has the power to investigate the accounts of both a state and its officials.

    He informed the court that the EFCC acted based on petitions written against the state by some indigenes of the state including Abubakar Tsav, in which they accused some key officials of the state of engaging in massive corruption.

    Tahir contended that the powers donated to the state’s House of Assembly and the Auditor General under section 125, 128 and 129 of the Constitution were merely oversight functions, but not prosecutorial powers.

    He urged the court to hold that the EFCC solely possesses the statutory powers to investigate and prosecute financial crimes in the country.

  • Senate resolution on IG: Court fixes Sept 25 for judgment

    A FEDERAL High Court in Abuja has scheduled judgment for September 25 in a suit by Inspector General (IG) Ibrahim Idris against the Senate and its President, Bukola Saraki.

    Justice John Tsoho chose the date yesterday after listening to IG’s lawyer, Alex Izinyon (SAN), argued on behalf of his client and urged the court to grant the plaintiff’s prayers.

    The IG is challenging the propriety of the May 9, 2015 resolution of the Senate, which described him as “an enemy of democracy and unfit to hold any public office within and outside Nigeria”.

    He is praying the court to, among others, quash the resolution on the grounds that it lacked the powers to so act.

    At the beginning of proceedings, Izinyon told the court that his client has complied with it June 7 ruling, granting leave to begin the suit for judicial review and to serve processes, including the ruling on the respondents, through the Clerk of the National Assembly.

    He said despite being served, the respondents have failed to file any process (document) in response to the suit.

    After going through the court’s record, Justice Tsoho said it was true that the plaintiff complied with the order of the court made on June 7, and that the defendants did not file any response, which shows that they are not willing to defend the case.

    The judge then granted the request by the plaintiff’s lawyer to have the case decided on the processes filed by the plaintiff.

    Izinyon consequently identified the processes filed by his client, adopted same and prayed the court to grant the plaintiff’s reliefs.

    The lawyer particularly prayed the court to quash the purported gazette by the Senate, that declared that the plaintiff as unfit to hold public office within and outside the country.

    Izinyon argued that the Senate, being a legislative arm of government, lacked the constitutional capacity to reach such conclusions and make such pronouncements.

    The IG, in a supporting affidavit, described the May 9 resolution of the Senate as “legislative judgment”.

    He argued that the conduct of the respondents in the proceedings leading to resolution was borne out of the “hatred and undisguised contempt” they allegedly harbour against him.

    The suit in which Justice Tsoho reserved judgment yesterday, is one of two suits filed by the IG against the Senate and its President.

    In the second suit, scheduled for hearing on June 29, is challenging the propriety of the Senate’s insistence that he must appear, in person, before it in relation to the Senate’s purported probe of the ongoing trial of its member, Dino Melaye, on criminal charges.

  • Firm obtains judgment in loan dispute

    A firm, Austin Laz and Company has obtained  judgment against the Bank of Industry (BoI) in a loan dispute.

    In his lead judgment dated May 17, 2018, Justice Mudashiru Nasiru Oniyangi of the Court of Appeal, Benin, Edo State, set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, Benin delivered on July 6, 2015, holding that the trial court ruling in favour of BoI was premature and incompetent.

    The Appeal Court further ordered BoI to vacate the premises of Austin Laz and Company Limited forthwith, awarding a cost of N100, 000 in favour of the appellants (Austin Laz Company Ltd and Austin Lazarus Asimonye) and against BoI, the respondent.

    The Chief Executive Officer of the company, Austin Lazarus Asinmonye, a former National Vice President, Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN), Western Zone, said the company approached BoI in 2011 for N120million five-year term facility to augment the setting up of a new production line of which approval was given. He regretted that  the bank could not release the money in full to it which hindered the completion and take-off of the new production plant.

    On the ground of disagreement between him and the investment bank, the bank sealed the company two years into the five year term loan, and four other companies belonging to him through a lower court ruling citing failure to repay the loan installment.

    Contacted, a BOI official, who asked not to be named, said the bank has nothing to add as the matter has been adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction.

  • Court fixes July 4 for judgment in Bafarawa’s case

    Justice Bello Abbas, of the Sokoto High Court I, has fixed July 4 for judgment in the case against former Governor Attahiru Bafarawa.

    Justice Abbas, yesterday, adjourned judgment after the complainant, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and defendants, adopted their written addresses.

    Bafarawa, with Beedash Nigeria Limited, Nasdalbap Nigeria Limited, Nasiru Bafarawa and Salihu Maibuhu-Gummi, are facing a 33-count charge of unlawful sales of shares belonging to the Sokoto State government.

    The charges also include misappropriation of government funds, criminal breach of trust, receipt of stolen property and unauthorised payments.

    According to the charge sheet, the offences were committed when Bafarawa was governor between 2003 and 2007.

    Lead defence counsel Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) argued that the complainant abandoned 11-count charges without evidence.

    He added that the complainant doesn’t have enough materials to prove the other 22 charges.

    Fagbemi said justice had no sentiment or emotion, stressing that Bafarawa should be referred to as “An Honest Complainant turned Accused Person” in view of antecedents that he first reported the case to EFCC in 2006.

    According to him, Bafarawa made the right decision as a whistle blower before circumstances turned him into an accused.

    Fabegmi added that the prosecution need to prove the charges, and prayed the court not to accept its 22 charges.

    EFCC’s lead counsel Jacob Ochidi said prosecution proved the charges besides the 11 mentioned.

    Ochidi urged the court to convict the accused based on testimonies and exhibits led in evidence.

    The court earlier discharged and acquitted Munti Trade Golobal Concept and Bashir Mamman-Nasarawa, who were joined in the suit.

    However, Abbas adjourned the case till July 4 for judgment and ordered the bail earlier granted the accused to continue.