The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Justice Binta Nyako

  • Court sacks CCB chairman, board

    Court sacks CCB chairman, board

    …Says members’s tenure expired in 2015

     

    Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja has sacked the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) Sam Saba and nine other members of the organisation’s board.

    Justice Nyako in a judgment Friday held that the five-year tenure of the CCB board expired on April 2015.

    The judgment was on a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/411/2016 filed by a group – Kingdom Human Rights Foundation International (KGRFI) led by Okere Nnamdi.

    Justice Nyako was of the view that by virtue of section  155 (1) (c) and Paragraph  1, Part 1, Third Schedule of the  1999 Constitution (as amended), Saba and others, all of whom were appointed in 2010, were only entitled to stay in office for five years.

    The judge declined to issue an order compelling the President to remove and replace Saba and the nine other board members, as prayed by the plaintiff.

    She however, directed the AGF to advise the President on the state of the tenure of members of the CCB board.

    Justice Nyako particularly granted the prayer for “a declaration of the honourable court that the tenure of office  of  the Chairman and nine other members of the Code of Conduct  Bureau  has elapsed since April 2015;  in view  of section  155 (1) (c) and Paragraph  1, Part 1, Third Schedule of the  1999 Constitution (as amended).”

    The judge granted partially, the two other main reliefs in which the plaintiff sought a declaration that the AGF had failed in his responsibility by not advising the President on the expiration of the tenure of the Chairman and members of the CCB.

    Justice Nyako directed the AGF to give the President the needed advice on the issue.

    The judge declined to grant the consequential reliefs sought by the plaintiff, seeking orders of mandamus compelling the President to remove and appointment replacement for  Saba and others.

    Justice Nyako said such reliefs seeking an order of mandamus could only brought under an application for judicial review not under an originating summons as filed in the case.

    The judge also rejected the plaintiff’s the prayer for an order of mandamus directing the Independent Corrupt Practices and  other Related Offences Commission and the Economic  and Financial  Crimes Commission “to immediately arrest, investigate and prosecute  the Chairman and nine other members of the CCB” for allegedly pertuating themselves in office fraudulently.

    Defendants in the suit were President Muhammadu Buhari, the AGF and the CCB.

     

  • Breaking: Kanu leaves Kuje prison

    Breaking: Kanu leaves Kuje prison

    …He was released round 5pm – lawyer

     

    After about two years in custody, the leader of the group, Indigenous People if Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu breathed the air of freedom Friday.

    His lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor who informed The Nation about the development, said his client has been formally released from Kuje prison where he had been kept

    Ejiorfor told The Nation that Kanu was let out of the prison around 5pm Friday.

    He said his client’s release followed. The eventual perfection of the bail granted him on July 25 by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    “I am happy to formally inform you that Kanu is out of Kuje prison. He is out. We were able to meet the bail conditions. He left the prison around 5pm,” Ejiofor told The Nation Friday.

    Ejiofor had on Thursday told The Nation that Kanu’s legal team was doing all within its powers to secure freedom for him.

    In her ruling granting bail to Kanu, Justice Nyako said: “I have not also not seen any new argument to warrant my reviewing my earlier decision.

    “However, as it relates to the 1st defendant, the applicant has deposed extensively on his health and appeals to the court on health grounds to allow bail on any condition.

    “Overtime that the 1st defendant has appeared in court, the 1st defendant may be having some health issues as he always sits down and sweats profusely.

    “I am of the opinion that the 1st defendant needs better health attention that the prison service is unable to provide.

    “Pursuant to this, the bail of the 2nd to 4th defendants are hereby use refused. I hereby use my discretion and grant the 1st defendant bail on the following conditions.

    “He shall undertake before the court and depose to an affidavit that he shall attend his trail diligently and shall provide three sureties as follows.

    “All the sureties are in sum of N100m each. One of them must be a highly placed person of Igbo extraction, such as a Senator.

    “Secondly, is a person highly respected and recognised religious leader in Nigeria of the defendant’s belief. A highly respected Jewish leader.

    “The third surety must be resident in Abuja, highly respected, with landed property and Certificate of Occupancy verified.

    “He shall deposit all his international passports, with the court. I also want a report of his health status on a monthly basis filed in court,” the judge said.

    Justice Nyako directed that Kanu should not grant interviews, no ralies, and must not be in a crowd of more than 10 people.

    The judge rejected bail to three others standing trial with Kanu. They Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi.

    They are standing trial on a five count charge relating to treasonable felony, illegal possession of firearms, among others.

    Further hearing in the case resumes on July 11.

    Kanu was arrested in a hotel in Lagos by the Department of State Services (DSS) on October 14, 2015.

    In a court document filed by the prosecution in the case, a  DSS operative Temisan John, who led a team that arrested Kanu gave details of how he was apprehended.

    John said the IPOB leader was apprehended in the company of a woman on October 14, 2015 at the Golden Tulip Essential Lagos Airport Hotel in Lagos

    He said: ”On arrival at the hotel, the staff denied having Kanu in the hotel or having any knowledge of him even when shown his photograph. The hotel’s guest manifest for about five days were also printed and the name was not found on any.

    “However, relying on accurate intelligence, the team decided to conduct a physical search on all the hotel rooms, leading to the arrest of Kanu in Room 303, where he was caught hibernating with a young girl named Maryam Ibezimakor, with all his broadcasting and communication gadgets set for use.

    “It was then discovered that Kanu checked in under the name Nwanekaenyi Ezebuiro. He was subsequently arrested and taken to the command headquarters.”

     

  • IPOB: Court reserves ruling on review to April 25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • Court strikes out 6 counts in charge against Kanu, others

    Court strikes out 6 counts in charge against Kanu, others

    …Fixes March 20 for commencement of trial on remaining 5 counts

     

    Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja Wednesday struck out six of the 11 counts contained in the charge filed against the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu and three others.

    Justice Nyako, in a ruling yesterday, held that the six counts were not supported by the proof of evidence the prosecution submitted in court to support the charge it filed against Kanu and others.

    The other three are: Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and a Field Maintenance Engineer attached to the MTN, David Nwawuisi.

    The ruling was on separate notices of objection filed by Kanu, Onwudiwe and Nwawuisi, challenging the validity of the six counts.

    Justice Nyako said the proof of evidence failed to disclose any prima facie case against the defendants in relation to the six counts.

    The six counts are 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 in which they were charged with managing unlawful organisation, intention to manufacture Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) to be used against some Nigerian security agents and alleged improper importation of a radio transmitter.

    Justice Nyako was of the view that the allegation in Count 3 relating to “managing of unlawful society punishable under section 63 of the Criminal Code Act” could not be substantiated by the proof of evidence.

    She said the proof of evidence failed to show that IPOB was indeed an unlawful organisation, noting that the prosecution failed to show that IPOB had been proscribed or that it was not registered either in Nigeria or London.

    The judge said the alleged, “improper importation of goods contrary to section 47(1) (a) (i) of the Customs and Excise Management Act” levelled against Kanu in Count 5 did not disclose the elements of the alleged offence bordering on the importation of a Radio Transmitter known as TRAM 50L.

    The judge held that the allegation in Count 7 accusing Madubugwu of “managing of unlawful society punishable under section 63 of the Criminal Code Act” by accepting and keeping a container housing the radio transmitter which he allegedly knew was to be used for Radio Biafra, also did not disclose any element of the alleged crime.

    She said count 9 in which sense Onwudiwe and Nwawuisi were charged with “conspiracy to commit treasonble felony contrary to Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act” did not disclose the elements of the alleged crime.

    Justice Nyako said the count failed to disclose which of the acts of installation of the transmitter on the MTN mast site at Ogui Road, near St. Michale Church, Enugu State, and the agreement on the payment of N150,000 was the act that constituted the offence of conspiracy to commit treasonable felony.

    The judge also struck out Count 10, which accused Nwawuisi was accused of engaging in the “management of unlawful society punishable under section 63 of the Criminal Code Act”.

    The prosecution had accused Nwawuisi of the offence for allegedly permitting the installation of Radio Biafra transmitter on the MTN mast for the purpose of propagating the objective of IPOB after being paid the sum of N150,000 by Onwudiwe.

    Justice Nyako said the count could not stand because the proof that the IPOB was an unlawful society was not provided in the proof.

    The judge also struck out Count 11, which accused Onwudiwe of “knowingly committing an act preparatory to an act of terrorism” by allegedly “carrying out research for the purpose of identifying and gathering of improvised explosive device-making materials to be used gainst Nigerian security operatives carrying out their lawful duties”.

    The prosecution alleged in the count that Onwudiwe had by the act, committed an offence of “terrorism contrary to section 2(1)(a) of Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2011 as amended in 2013”.

    The judge agreed with the defence that since the offence only had to do with an intention to commit a particular act, it was the magistrate court that had the jurisdiction to entertain such charge.

    The judge however sustained Counts 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8.

    They are, in count 1, charged with “conspiracy to commit treasonable felony contrary to Section 516 of the Criminal Code act” by conspiring among themselves to broadcast on Radio Biafra “for states in the South-East and South-South zones and other communities in Kogi and Benue states to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria with a view to constituting same into Republic of Biafra”.

    In count 2, Kanu is charged with treasonable felony by broadcasting in London between 2014 and 2015, calling for the secession of Republic of Biafra from Nigeria.

    Count 4 accused Kanu of “publication of defamatory matter contrary to section 375 of the Criminal Code Act” by referring to the then Maj-Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd) and now President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as “a paedophile, a terrorist, an idiot, and an embodiment of evil” in a broadcast on Radio Biafra on April 28, 2015.

    Count 6 accused Kanu of “improper importation of goods contrary to section 47(2)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act” by allegedly concealing a radio transmitter in a container of used household items and declaring the transmitter as part of the used household items.

    Count 8 accused Madubugwu of being in possession of one Emerald Magnum Pump Action Gun with serial number TS 870 – 113 – 0046 and one Delta Magnum Pump Action Gun with serial number 501 as well as 41 cartridges/ammunition without lawful authority or licence, was also sustained.

    Madubugwu was said to been caught with the firearms at his house in Ubulusuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State in October 2015.

    After the judge’s ruling, the defendants were re-arraigned on the remaining five counts, to which they pleaded not guilty.

    The defence team indicated its detention to file fresh bail applications, their earlier ones having been rejected by the judge.

    Justice Nyako said the defence was at liberty to file fresh bail application at any time, but must be prepared for the commencement of trial on the next date. She adjourned to March 20.

  • Biafra: Another judge refuses bail to Kanu, others

    Biafra: Another judge refuses bail to Kanu, others

    …Judge says Buhari”s comment can’t influence proceedings

    …Prosecution seeks to shield witnesses’ identity
    Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja Thursday refused to grant bail to leader of the group, Indigenous People of Biafra (lPOB), Nnamdi Kanu and three of his associates.

    Justice Nyako’s decision Thursday formed the third time a court will refuse Kanu and others bail since they were arrested last year.

    Justice John Tsoho (also of the Federal High Court, Abuja) refused a similar application for bail earlier this year. The Court of Appeal, Abuja later upheld Justice Tsoho’s decision, dismissed Kanu and others’ appeal and ordered them to submit themselves for trial.

    Rather than agree to trial before Justice Tsoho, Kanu and others accused the judge of bias and asked the judge to withdraw from the case, which Justice Tsoho did. The case was re-assigned to Justice Nyako, before who they were recently arraigned on an 11-count charge and their bail applications heard.

    Kanu, IPOB’s National Coordinator, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi are charged with terrorism, treasonable felony, managing an unlawful society, publication of defamatory matter, illegal possession of firearms and improper importation of goods. The charge is marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.

    Ruling on their bail application yesterday, Justice Nyako said the offences for which they were being tried “are very serious in nature”, and therefore not ordinarily bailable. She added that irrespective of what the charge is, the court has to exercise its discretion on way or the other, but that some of the charges against the defendants could attract life imprisonment if proved by the prosecution.

    The judge dismissed the contention by the defendants that President Muhammadu Buhari had openly directed that they should not be released on bail.

    She said the President, as a Nigerian citizen, was at liberty to exercise his right to freedom of speech.

    The judge said the President’s comment was incapable of influencing the decision of the court. She said the defendants did not place any new fact or law capable of persuading the court to reverse an earlier ruling (by Justice Tsoho) in which they were equally denied bail.

    Justice Nyako noted “The offences are serious in nature and carries very severe punishment if proven. I hereby therefore refuse bail of the applicants.”

    Thr judge later ordered accelerated hearing in the case.

    Shortly after the ruling, prosecution lawyer, Shuaibu Labaran argued his application seeking the court’s permission for the protection of the identity of his witnesses.

    He urged the court to allow the prosecution witnesses testify behind a shield to be supplied by the court.

    Labaran also sought an order preventing the disclosure of the name and other details of the witnesses in the open court for security reasons.

    .The defendants opposed the application, contending that granting such request would amount to a gross violation of their rights to fair hearing.

    Kanu’s lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor argued “We vehemently oppose secret trial of the defendants. They were accused in the open; we also request that they be tried in the open. The defendants need to see those testifying against them eye-ball-to-eye-ball. We are ready for this trial”,
    another defence lawyer, Maxwell Okpara, told the court that most of the proposed witnesses were foreigners allegedly imported by the government from neighbouring countries.

    “My lord, we have uncovered their plan to bring Ghanaians and people from Cameroon to appear in this court to testify against the defendants.

    “We as Nigerians will resist that plot. It cannot work. That is why they are insisting that they should testify behind screen. That plot has failed, it will not work”, Okpara said.

    Justice Nyako has adjourned to December 13 for ruling.

  • Biafra: Court to decide Kanu, others’ bail, Dec 1

    Biafra: Court to decide Kanu, others’ bail, Dec 1

    Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja has scheduled ruling for December 1 in the bail applications by leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, and three others.

    Others are Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi.

    They were re-arraigned on November 8 before Justice Nyako on an 11-count amended charge. Justice Nyako is the third judge before who they are being arraigned, the other two having withdrawn following allegations by Kanu that they were bias.

    They are charged with treasonable felony, managing an unlawful society, publication of defamatory matter, illegal possession of firearms and improper importation of goods.

    Onwudiwe is charged alone, in one of the counts, with terrorism.

    Their alleged offences are in relation to the defendants’ alleged broadcasts on Radio Biafra and agitation for the creation of Biafra Republic from states in the South-East and South-South zones and other communities in Kogi and Benue states.

    Thursday, defence lawyers, including Ifeanyi Ejiofor (for Kanu); I. Adoga (for Onwudiwe);  E. I Efeme (for Madubugwu) and Maxwell Okpara (for Nwaiwusi) argued their separate bail applications.

    They urged the court to dismiss the counter-affidavit filed in opposition to their clients’ applications.

    The defence lawyers argued that the prosecution’s claim, to the effect that the defendants will constitute a threat to national security if released on bail pending trial, was unsustainable.

    Efeme argued: “The prosecution has the duties to give the particulars of how the defendants would constitute national security. These documents (provided by the prosecution) do not show such.

    “It is the duty of the prosecution to show how the third defendant and the rest of the defendants should not enjoy bail, and we are saying they have not,” he said.

    Adoge complained that his client, Onwudiwe was yet to be transferred to prison from the custody of the Department of State Service, despite the court’s order to that effect.

    He argued that the charge against his client was a mere “smokescreen”.

    “The Supreme Court has said when the charge is found to be a smokescreen, the court is bound to grant bail to the defendant,” he said.

    Okpara contended that the counter-affidavit filed by the prosecution in opposition to his client’s bail application was “fundamentally defective” and should be struck out.

    He urged the court to grant bail to his client on basis of the alleged defects in the bail application, a situation which he said implied that the application was not opposed.

    He also argued that contrary to the contention of the prosecution, the defendants would only constitute national security threat if they continued on remand, but that “there will be peace if they are released”.

    On his part, lead prosecution lawyer, Magaji Labaran argued his counter-affidavits and urged the court to dismiss the bail applications and order accelerated hearing in the case.

    He cautioned the court against granting bail to the defendants, particularly Onwudiwe, who is charged with terrorism.

    Labaran informed the court about an application he filed seeking protection for prosecution’s witnesses.

    Lawyers to the defendants confirmed being served with the applicant, but sought time to enable them respond.

    Justice Nyako consiquently adjourned to December 1 for ruling.

  • Kanu, three others re-arraigned on amended charges

    Kanu, three others re-arraigned on amended charges

    The Federal Government on Tuesday in Abuja, re-arraigned Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOD) on an amended 11-count charge bordering on terrorism, treasonable felony and publication of defamatory matter.

    Kanu, along with Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi, were re-arraigned before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja and they pleaded not guilty to the amended charges.

    Nyako fixed Nov. 17 to hear the bail applications filed by counsel to all the defendants.

    Nwawuisi, who is the 4the defendant, was added in the amended 11-count charge, as he had not been previously charged with the other three in the earlier six-count charge.

    In the amended charge, in count one, all four defendants were accused of conspiracy to commit treasonable felony, contrary to Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act.

    In count three, they allegedly managed an unlawful society, while count eight borders on possession of unlawful firearms and count 11 hinges on acts of terrorism.

    They allegedly committed the offences in Nigeria and London between 2014 and 2015.

    Counsel to the defendants, Chief Chucks Muoma (SAN), Mr Inalegwu Adoga, Mr E.I Esene and Mr Maxwel Okpara, complained to the judge that the prosecution was bent on frustrating the case by employing unnecessary delay tactics.

    But Nyako said that since the case was before her for the first time, she was not interested in what had happened in the past.

    “The case is coming before me for the first time so let us start on a clean slate, forget what happened previously,” Nyako said.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls that Nyako would be the third judge handling the case against the IPOB leader.

    The first judge that handled Kanu’s matter was Magistrate Shuiabu Usman of Wuse Zone 2, Magistrates’ Court, Abuja.

    Usman squashed all the charges against Kanu after the Prosecutor, the Department of State Services (DSS) filed a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter.

    The case was later filed in the Federal High Court, Abuja, where it was assigned to Justice Adeniyi Ademola.

    Kanu, however, during one of sittings told the court that he was no longer confident in the court saying he got information that he would not receive a fair hearing.

    The case file was then returned to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta who reassigned it to Justice John Tsoho.

    However, following an alleged conflicting ruling giving on the issue of secret trial in favour of the DSS, Kanu in a petition asked the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate Tsoho.

    He also filed an application asking the judge to disqualify himself from the matter.

    Tsoho then hands off the matter on Sept. 26 and sent the case file to Auta, who reassigned it to Nyako.