The Nation Newspaper

Tag: judgment

  • Judgment in The Nation’s suit against Senate for Dec. 4

    Judgment in The Nation’s suit against Senate for Dec. 4

    The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday fixed December 4 for judgment in The Nation’s suit against the Senate and National Assembly.

    Justice Mohammed Yunusa adjourned after the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Wahab Shittu, adopted and argued his processes.

    Vintage Press Limited (Publisher of The Nation), the Editor, Gbenga Omotoso and a correspondent, Imam Bello, are the applicants.

    Shittu told the court that to date, the respondents have not filed any response to the suit.

    “They have neither filed a memorandum of appearance, nor have they joined issues with the applicants. In the circumstances, we seek the leave of the court to adopt our processes,” he said.

    After identifying the motions he filed, Shittu prayed the court to enter judgment in the applicants’ favour.

    According to him, Nigeria was a democracy governed by the rule of law. Therefore, the Senate’s invitation to the applicants amounted to unlawful interference with the functions reserved exclusively for the press.

    The 45 days within which the lawmakers were to respond to the action lapsed without them filing any defence or asking for an extension of time.

    Justice Yunusa had granted an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, whether by themselves, their members, committees or agents from summoning the applicants or any of their agents before any Senate committee.

    According to the proof of service, the suit was received by the Office of the Senate President on September 1. The National Assembly was earlier served on August 27 through the Office of the Deputy Clerk to the National Assembly.

    The Senate had, in an August 4 letter, invited Omotoso and Bello to appear before it unfailingly over the story: “Motion: 22 APC Northern senators ‘working against Buhari’”, published on July 30.

    The Senate wrote again on August 11, threatening to invoke Section 89 (1) (D) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to compel the applicants’ appearance.

    But the court barred the lawmakers from requesting the applicants to produce any papers, notes or other documents in respect of the story.

    The judge also restrained the respondents from issuing a warrant to compel the applicants’ attendance before the Senate committee set up to investigate the publication.

    The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that as media organisation/journalists, they are entitled to the protection and enforcements of their rights to freedom of expression and the press as guaranteed under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act of 2004.

    They also want the court to hold that the respondents are not entitled to interfere or derogate from the applicants’ fundamental rights to freedom of expression and the press.

    Among others, they sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents whether by themselves, their members, committees or agents from summoning or directing the applicants’ appearance before the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions or any other committee and/or requesting the production by the applicants of any papers, notes or other documents before any such committee or the giving of any evidence by the applicants or any of their agents before any such committee.

    In his written address, Shittu argued: “It is our humble submission that the competing rights of the parties in this suit must be protected and balanced.

    “It was averred in the affidavit in support of this application that the second respondent has caused a letter to the applicant threatening to compel the attendance of the second and third applicants if they fail to show up at the committee meeting in order to disclose the sources of their information, contrary to the ethics of journalism profession and in contravention of the provisions of Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) guaranteeing their freedom of expression and the press under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution.

    “The action of the respondents may occasion great injustice on the applicants.

    “We submit that sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) do not derogate from the rights guaranteed by the Constitution under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    “It is our submission that Section 88 was made subject to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and it relates to oversight function of the respondents on agencies of government and does not include interference to operation and freedom of the press as guaranteed under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    “It is our submission that the actions of the respondents in the circumstances are designed to harass, intimidate, interfere and molest the applicants’ fundamental rights as constitutionally guaranteed and prevent the applicants from discharging their professional obligations to the Nigerian public thereof and to forcefully extract from the applicants the source of information leading to the story ‘Motion: 22 APC northern senators working against Buhari’, written by the third applicant (Bello).

    “We state that the content of the publication has not been disputed or challenged, neither was any contrary information regarding thereto made available by the respondent to the applicants for publication and there has been no formal complaint by the respondents to the applicants regarding the content of the referred publication.

    “It is not open to the National Assembly or any of its committees to clothe itself with the aprons of the courts and purport to make decision on issues of legal rights and liabilities in blatant breach of the rule of the separation of power.

    “The National Assembly has no power to make judicial decision, with judgmental flavour by means of political resolution or otherwise. The investigative power of the National Assembly does not extend to the grant of judicial relief or redress.

    “We submit that in the event that our application for interlocutory injunction is refused, the first respondent whose illegal actions are being challenged would, through its unfettered power, compel the attendance of the applicants to disclose the source of their publication even without any formal complaint against such publication.

    “With profound respect to my Lord, we urge the Honourable Court to hold that the applicants have legal rights to be protected in this suit and the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicants.”

     

  • Otti set to appeal tribunal judgment

    Otti set to appeal tribunal judgment

    The All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) governorship candidate in Abia State, Mr. Alex Otti, is set to appeal the judgment of the Election Petition Tribunal, which last week upheld the victory of Governor Okezie Ikpeazu, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). In the weeks preceding the judgment, APGA supporters in Abia State were upbeat on their candidate winning his petition at the tribunal, but that was not to be, as Ikpeazu’s victory in the April 11 governorship election was affirmed.

  • Rivers governorship election: Anxiety in Wike’s camp as tribunal delivers judgment today

    Rivers governorship election: Anxiety in Wike’s camp as tribunal delivers judgment today

    There is palpable tension in the camp of the Governor of Rivers State, Chief Nyesom Wike, ahead of the delivery of judgment today in the state’s governorship election filed by the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Dr. Dakuku Peterside.

    The Rivers State Elections Tribunal is led by Justice Mohammed Ambrosa and has been sitting in Abuja.

    The exchange of addresses by counsel to the petitioners—Peterside and the APC—as well as the respondents—Wike, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)—took place on Thursday, with the tribunal adjourning indefinitely for judgment.

    Information, however, filtered out in Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital yesterday afternoon that the tribunal would deliver judgment in the case at 10 a.m. today.

    Some international observers and other stakeholders who monitored the April 11 governorship election in Rivers State, as well as eminent personalities who testified before the tribunal had described the poll as a sham, saying that it was characterised by violence, massive rigging, intimidation of voters and snatching of ballot boxes.

    Wike, a former Minister of State for Education, and the Rivers State Chairman of the PDP, Chief Felix Obuah, however, maintained that the election was free, fair, credible, peaceful and violence-free, describing the turnout of the electorate as impressive, massive and unprecedented.

    The Publicity Secretary of the PDP in Rivers State, Samuel Nwanosike, said yesterday that he and other members of the PDP in the state were awaiting the tribunal’s judgment, stressing that the lawyers to the Rivers governor, PDP and INEC had done a good job.

    Asked what Wike and other members of the PDP in Rivers State would do if the judgment went in favour of the governorship candidate of the APC, he said that it would be subjudice to comment on a matter before a court or tribunal.

    On his part, the Publicity Secretary of the APC in Rivers State, Chris Finebone, said he had no comment.”

     

  • Deposed monarch appeals judgment

    The monarch of Igbindo community in Ondo West Local Government Area of Ondo State, Mr. Olanji Ogundoju, who was sacked by a court has appealed the judgement.

    Ogundoju, who is from Ogbowo Okun Ruling House, was sued by some Princes from the same ruling house, led by Adetutu Fashole and Okunade Makinde Fashole on the grounds that he was not eligible for the throne. 

    Their grudge against him was that the embattled Prince hails from the female lineage of the Ogbowo Okun Ruling House and he is not entitled to the throne. 

    In his ruling on July 28, Justice O. A. Adegbehingbe of the State High Court held that since only sons from the male lineage could be made monarch, “Ogundoju is not eligible to contest and ascend the vacant stool of the Akinnuwa of Igbindo from the Ogbowo Ruling House, whose turn it was to fill the vacant stool, having hailed from the female line of the ruling house”. 

    In Ogundoju’s appeal filed by his lawyer, Mr. Kunle Adetowubo, urged the appellate court to set aside the lower court’s judgment and return his client as the rightful occupant of the throne. 

    In the eight grounds of appeal, the lawyer said the trial court ignored testimonies of the witnesses presented by his client to establish the fact that children from the female line of Otutubiosun Ruling House reigned as kings of community at different times. 

    He added that the lower court also failed to appreciate both written and oral testimonies of appellant’s witnesses which substantially complied with the provisions of section 18(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended). 

    The lawyer said: “That the court failed to establish the fact that members of the Ogbowo Okun Ruling House properly concluded the nomination of Ogundoju as the traditional ruler of the town. 

    “It is not the law, custom and tradition of the Igbindo people that only male from the ruling houses are qualified to aspire, be nominated, as Akinnuwa of Igbindo.  

    “We want the court to establish this that the appointment of Ogundoju as the Oba of Igbindo was approved by the entire members of Ogbowo Okun houses, including those who took him to court and the kingmakers.” 

     

  • APGA supporters protest judgment

    APGA supporters protest judgment

    •Be law abiding, chairman urges

    Supporters of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) in Abia State have protested the tribunal verdicts which did not favour their party. They said there would be consequences if the judgments were not reversed.

    APGA lost the cases decided so far at the tribunal.

    The protesters carried placards and chanted solidarity songs. Riot policemen were, however, on ground to curtail violence.

    Some of the placards read: “APGA leaders, can you recover our mandate?”; “We need justice at the election tribunal”; “Tribunal judgments is unfair”.

    Leader of the group Chukwuemeka Mba told party leaders that they had come to register their anger because “the change we need here in Abia was not being realised because of the verdicts coming out of the tribunal, which we believe are wrong”.

    Mba said: “The verdict of the tribunal that gave legal stamp to fictitious results has justified our fears, and we have been gripped with anxiety that the remaining cases might not favor our candidates.

    “If the leaders allow the remaining cases to go the same way, our reactions will not be palatable for there is a limit to human endurance.”

    A youth leader, Friday Obinna lamented that Abia youths were getting the short end of the stick and vowed that if the verdicts continued to go against APGA, they would take to the streets.

    Receiving the protesters, state chairman Rev Augustine Ehiemere praised them for conducting themselves peacefully. He assured them that the party would not rest until it recovered its lost mandates.

    “I want to assure you that we are keeping in touch with both the judicial and political leaders at the highest level to ensure that those who are part of the criminal connivance to sell justice to the highest bidder against the law are made to bear the consequences.”

    National Chairman Dr Victor Ike Oye has urged party faithful to be law abiding and shun violence, even in the face of extreme provocation.

  • Security tightened ahead of tribunal’s judgment

    Security agencies in Abia State have tightened security ahead of the tribunal’s sitting today.

    It was gathered that political parties had been anxious due to the uncertainty of who the judgment will favour.

    A source said there were reports that some supporters of some parties have threatened mayhem if the ruling does not favor them.

    The source added that plain-clothed officers have been dispatched to volatile areas.

    Commissioner of Police Joshiak Habila, in a telephone chat said the police were working with sister agencies to stall a possible breakdown of law and order, adding that any attempt by any group of persons or political parties to cause a breach of the law would be met with stiff resistance.

    “This time we are very much aware of the fact that either way it goes there are likely to be people who want to get laws into their hands and so we have drawn an operation order and we have sensitised our men.

    “We earmarked and drew a posting that will take care of the vulnerable points; areas where we have government facilities and other likely places that aggrieved people might try to invade when the ruling goes either way. We are also collaborating with other security agencies in doing what we called the convoy patrol, stop and search.

    “Let Abians and politicians know that politicking is disagreement to agree. It is about Abia and nobody else and whatever the judgment is, people should take it in good fate. There are other proper channels of registering grievances and appeal,” Habila said.

  • Who buys judgment?

    Who buys judgment?

    Michael Daly Hawkins was a former senior judge in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While reacting to harsh public criticism of several Supreme Court Justices, among other notable judges in the United States of America in his book, titled ‘’Dining with the Dogs: Reflections on the Criticism of Judges’’, he had this to say: ‘’We certainly have not seen the end of criticism of judges. Robust free speech, even of the coarse and inaccurate variety, may simply be one of the prices of a free society. Today’s judges may draw some relief from the knowledge that modem critics are normally not as colorful or as sharp of tongue as Horace Greeley or Teddy Roosevelt, as nasty as George Wallace, or as violent and aggressive as David Terry. In the end, while judges may not like what they hear and may be sorely tempted to respond to their critics, history does seem to teach us that our predecessors endured far worse, and both they and the Republic seem to have survived’’.

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) had on February 17, 2012 vowed to expose how politicians used “consultants” to buy election cases with “incredible sums of money.”

    The legal body, which made the allegation at a valedictory court session that was held in honour of late Justice Anthony Nnaemezie Christopher Aniagolu, said it was aware of all the senior counsel and eminent retired judicial officers that served as conduit between election courts and parties in electoral matters, saying it would forward their names to relevant anti-graft agencies for prosecution.

    In a speech that was presented by the then NBA President, Mr J.B. Daudu (SAN), said: “Corruption is now a live issue that is threatening to tear apart the foundations and fabric of the society. The Bar believes that as it does not possess the machinery and infrastructure to battle this scourge such as the EFCC and ICPC possesses, but it can be proactive in its battle against this vice which left unchecked will sink the whole ship of state.

    “We are no doubt aware that some of our colleagues including very senior counsel and at times eminent retired judicial officers go about offering their services as ‘consultants’ particularly in election cases for incredible sums of money so as to act as conduit between his client and the election court.

    “The end result is to facilitate ready-made justice for the persons they are acting for. We must strongly deprecate this practice. Our members and members of the public should feel free to avail themselves of the services of this NBA anti-corruption body. We do ourselves the greatest disservice if we fail to fight this ill which renders irrelevant the work and skills of hardworking lawyers who daily toil in and out of courts and who do not have the advantage of knowing with certainty the outcomes of cases as these ‘consultants’ are privileged to know.

    “Secondly, this charge falls at the feet of the Bar particularly counsel who for political manoeuvres or the gratification of ‘varying interests’ misuse the process of the Supreme Court and other courts by bringing applications that are clearly frivolous or contemptuous.

    “I have approached the Attorney-General of the Federation to call a meeting of the General Council of the Bar so that inter alia, the existing rules of Professional Ethics can be amended to include such areas that will safeguard the dignity of the courts and integrity of judicial process. Let us call ourselves to order in this regard. The essence of a just judicial system is to provide prompt qualitative justice for the people. Justice is meaningless when it is delayed, hurried or perverted”, it stressed.

    Since it has become seemingly attractive to revel on ‘’Judges’ Corruption Mantra’’, the current NBA President, Augustine Alegeh (SAN), seized the opportunity of the mammoth crowd that gathered for the special session of the Supreme Court to mark the commencement of the 2015-2016 legal year and the swearing-in of newly conferred Senior Advocates of Nigeria to accuse some judges of rendering judgments for a fee. The Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Professor Yemi Osibanjo (SAN) was also in attendance.

    Alegeh said: “It is indeed very worrisome that certain judicial officers still engage in rendering judgments for a fee.

    “Instances abound where judicial officers have resorted to turning the law on its head and making pronouncements which are at variance with the provisions of the law.

    “A few others have formed the bad habit of ignoring judicial precedents even when such authorities are brought to their attention by counsel.

    “This trend is quite injurious and erodes the confidence reposed in the judiciary by society.”

    While Daudu’s NBA promised to set up an anti-corruption commission to identify and hand over the culprits to EFCC or ICPC for prosecution, Alegeh also said the association would take the matters as prima facie evidence of corruption.  Up till the end of Daudu’s tenure 5-6 months after the famous speech, even till date the NBA’s anti-corruption commission has failed to release or even disclose the names of corrupt Judges to the appropriate authorities.  Time shall tell if Alegeh can walk his talk.

    Lawyers are regarded the world over as guardians of the law, and consequently play a vital role in the preservation of society. Unlike the Judges who are often only seen and seldom heard, they have unfettered access to the public, are often easily heard and very publicly seen.

    The Rules of Professional Conduct of the Legal Profession as contained in the Legal Practitioners Act (Chapter 207 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria) are intended for maintenance of respect for and confidence in the judicial office

    Rule 1 for instance, specifically states that: “It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Court respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. Judges, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are peculiarly entitled to receive the support of the Bar against unjust criticism and clamour. Where there is proper ground for serious complaint of a judicial officer, it is the right and duty of the lawyer to submit his grievances to the proper authorities’’.

    Perhaps, this becomes imperative when the CJN, Justice Mohammed described the allegation that judges were taking bribes as ’unfortunate unguarded comments’, because every litigant has at least a lawyer that prosecute his or her case before a Judge. The lawyer, at the risk of sounding immodest must be in the know of the conduct of his client, overtly or covertly. In other words, common sense dictates that lawyers have the dossier of how his client’s case was fought and won.

    It is even understood if an outsider or laymen hawk the allegations all over the streets. The CJN therefore, in his remarks during the special session of the Supreme Court to mark the commencement of the 2015-2016 legal year and the swearing-in of newly conferred Senior Advocates of Nigeria insisted that the allegation by prominent members of the Bar that some judges were corrupt was unfortunate.

    He said: “I regard as unfortunate unguarded comments of some prominent members of the Bar that the judiciary is corrupt.

    “Such comments coming from the members of the Bar mean that they know the identity of the corrupt judges and as such, they should fish them out to be dealt with by the National Judicial Council (NJC).”

    The CJN noted that the Bench was a product of the Bar and that unless they both work in synergy to ensure that only fit and proper persons remain in the Bar, it would be impossible to expect a different Bench.

    The immediate past CJN, Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar had in the Judicial Reforms Conference co-organized by the National Bar Association on 7 July 2014 held in Abuja, also lamented that many lawyers were quick to accuse the judiciary of being corrupt, yet refused to report judges who they knew to be corrupt to the NJC.

    “You (lawyers) all know those judges that are corrupt, but you won’t report. However, you will be the one who will raise the issue that the judiciary is corrupt. You will not do your part,”

    In a close, maybe lawyers and all concerned should borrow a leaf from the Ifa divination principles and posit as follows: “some judges engage in the sale of their court judgments on some cases, ably filed, prayed and argued by lawyers before same judges on behalf of some people known as litigants who are clients to the lawyers’.  Who then are the buyers?

  • Wike won’t escape judgment, says APC

    Wike won’t escape judgment, says APC

    The Rivers State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has said Governor Nyesom Wike will not escape judgment in the hands of God and the Muhammadu Buhari administration.

    A statement yesterday in Port Harcourt, the state capital, by Chairman Davies Ikanya’s Senior Special Assistant (SSA) on Media and Public Affairs, Chief Eze Chukwuemeka Eze, said the “caretaker” governor (Wike) could only run but would not be able to hide.

    APC said: “…Almighty God will certainly judge him and so too will the Muhammadu Buhari administration, which does not brook any illegality.”

    The governor, at a church service in Port Harcourt on Sunday, declared that God would disgrace those opposing his administration.

    Rivers APC said: “We wonder which God Chief Wike is referring to that will disgrace those opposing his illegal government. As much as we praise those that are trying to make a Christian out of Wike overnight, we in Rivers State know very well his religious inclination. We wish to tell him that the God we know is a God of righteousness, who can never be on the side of those engaging in criminality…

    “We are convinced that at the appropriate time, God will bring judgment on Wike and those who have brought hardship to Rivers State and its people…”

    APC added: “It is not late yet. There is no way Wike can escape judgment. The ‘caretaker’ governor must account for the blood of our people massacred during the elections.”

    The party hailed the chairmen and members of the election petitions tribunal sitting in Abuja for allegedly rejecting overtures from Wike and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and for standing by the truth.

    Rivers APC praised its governorship candidate, Dr. Dakuku Peterside and his legal team for winning their cases so far and surviving what it called the booby traps set up by Wike and his legal team.

    The party advised the peace-loving people of Rivers State to be patient till justice the time justice is done.

     

  • Judgment reserved in Agbaje’s appeal against Ambode

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, has reserved judgment in an appeal filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate, Jimi Agbaje, against Akinwunmi Ambode of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The court also reserved verdict in cross-appeals filed by Ambode and APC against some aspects of the lower tribunal’s judgment.

    The Lagos State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal on July 1, upheld Ambode’s victory in the April 11 governorship election.

    The three-man tribunal, led by Justice Muhammad Sirajo, struck out Agbaje’s petition seeking to nullify Ambode’s declaration as winner.

    Ambode polled 811,994 votes against Agbaje’s 659,788.

    Justice Sirajo said the petition by Agbaje and the PDP were defective because they failed to pray for the conduct of a fresh election.

    The tribunal, in a ruling on the consolidated preliminary objection by Ambode and APC, held: “In the instant petition, apart from seeking an order nullifying the election of the second respondent, the petitioner did not ask for an order for fresh election.

    “So if, for instance, the election is nullified, the people of Lagos State will be left in anarchy as no order can validly be made for the conduct of fresh election, same having not been sought for.

    “Where such a prayer is lacking, the petition will be incompetent and academic as even the resolution of such a petition in favour of the petitioner will not confer any utilitarian value on the petitioner(s).”

    Arguing Ambode’s cross-appeal against Agbaje, PDP, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Resident Electoral Commission (REC), Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) said Agbaje and PDP’s petition was “irredeemably defective” because it raised an issue that had no relationship with the reliefs they sought.

    He said the petitioners’ claimed there were “corrupt practices” during the election, which he said differed from what they pleaded.

    “There is no nexus between this particular ground and the reliefs being sought,” Olanipekun said, urging the court to allow the cross-appeal.

    Olanipekun’s contention is that Agbaje and PDP’s petition was incompetent because, according to him, there was nothing in the petitioners’ papers directly challenging Ambode’s victory.

    He said the reliefs they sought were in conflict with Section 285(2) of the Constitution as the grounds and particulars are in opposition to the facts and reliefs being sought.

    Olanipekun contended that there were no grounds challenging Ambode’s election as provided under Section 138(b)(c) of the Electoral Act 2010.

    Opposing the cross-appeal, Agbaje’s lawyer, Mr. G.O Giwa-Amu, said the fact that the election was peacefully conducted does not mean that there were no irregularities.

    “In the circumstance, we urge the court to dismiss the cross-appeal,” he said.

    PDP’s counsel A.M. Kotoye and Chief Richard Oma Ahonaruogho urged the court to dismiss the cross-appeal because Ambode was not qualified to contest the election in the first place.

    Ahonaruogho added that the appeal should be dismissed for being unmeritorious.

    In the second cross-appeal by APC against Agbaje, PDP, INEC, Ambode and REC, APC’s lawyer Kunle Adegoke sought an order setting aside a part of the tribunal’s judgment, as well as an order striking out the petition for being incompetent, having not been based on any ground recognised by the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

    APC said the tribunal was wrong to hold that Paragraphs 14 and 13(b) of the petition, which deal with nomination, are valid grounds for challenging Ambode’s election.

    According to Adegoke, the tribunal erred in law when, having held that Paragraph 14 of the petition is a challenge against Ambode’s nomination, went ahead to hold that it is a valid ground for presenting a petition.

    He argued that any complaint about invalid nomination is a pre-election issue, saying: “Only the Federal or State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain all pre-election matters and the tribunal ought to have declined jurisdiction in respect thereof…

    “The tribunal ought to have held that Paragraph 14 of the petition containing a purported ground is a pre-election matter in respect of which the tribunal has no jurisdiction,” Adegoke said.

    PDP, in its appeal, is contending that the tribunal was wrong to hear and rule on Ambode and APC’s consolidated preliminary objection without dealing with the merits of the substantive petition.

    Kotoye urged the appellate court to dismiss preliminary objections raised by INEC and Ambode against the appeal.

    “I urge your lordships to allow our appeal in the interest of justice,” he said.

    INEC and REC’s lawyer Mr. E.R. Emukpoeruo urged the court to dismiss PDP’s appeal for lacking in merit.

    “It is not enough to pray to nullify an election. There must be an order directing us to conduct a fresh one. The tribunal did nothing wrong. Their action cannot be faulted,” he said.

    APC’s lead counsel, Chief Charles Edosomwan (SAN), also prayed the court to dismiss the appeal.

    “They didn’t say whether they wanted Agbaje declared as governor or whether they wanted a rerun. There was nothing the tribunal could have done,” he said.

  • ‘Police spend N1b to settle judgment’

    ‘Police spend N1b to settle judgment’

    The Inspector-General of Police, Solomon Arase said the police have spent  over N1 billion to settle judgment arising from cases of right violations.

    Arase, who noted that officers had exploited the lapses in the policy on the use of force, warned that any policeman violating citizens’ rights would be penalised.

    He spoke in Abuja while opening a three-day workshop organised for senior police officers by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) on the use of force and firearms.

    The inspector-general noted that with democracy, Nigerians were now more aware of their rights, a development that informed the need for reorientation on when and where to deploy force and firearms.

    Arase noted that there was a virtual policy vacuum in respect of how and when firearms should be deployed and the circumstances governing the use of force by officers.

    He argued that despite this lack of guideline, there was no excuse for the indiscriminate deployment of force and firearms by policeman.

    “We have paid out over N1 billion in garnishee proceedings in the last three years from judgment got against the police for right violations.

    “No person deserves to lose his life as a result of the absence of a clear policy guideline on the graduated use of a force policy by policemen.

    ‘’It is necessary to ensure officers are strictly held accountable on how they decide to deploy firearms. It is also necessary to ensure that officers are trained and certified as such before they are permitted to sign and possibly use firearms.

    ‘’The era of impunity has passed beyond the ken of recall. We must do our best to modernise tactical operational strategies to commensurate levels with international best practices,” Arase said.

    He explained that the workshop was part of ways to achieve the strategic objective of human rights-driven policing and meeting the obligation to safeguard life and property.

    The Ambassador of Switzerland to Nigeria, Niger and Chad, Hans-Rudolf Hadel, said his country decided to support the police on the training because of its relevance to modern policing and the need to avoid the indiscriminate deployment of force by officers.

    He said if force must be used, it should be in accordance with the rule of law, respect for the affected citizen’s rights and the need to minimise damage.

    UNODC’s Semone Henri said the project was aimed at reforming the police to enable it function in a democratic environment, such as Nigeria’s.