The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Justice Gabriel Kolawole

  • Rumble in Zakzaky’s camp

    Rumble in Zakzaky’s camp

    It is over eight months since Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja ordered the immediate release of Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky. The order was not obeyed and the leader of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) remains in custody.

    The situation has forced followers of the Shi’ites sect leader to often take to the streets in major cities of the North, particularly Kaduna, demanding his and his wife’s unconditional release. They have been in custody since December 2015.

    Members of the Islamic sect clashed with the men of the Nigerian Army in December 2015. The clash left many people dead, while the sect leader, Sheikh Zakzaky was later arrested during the soldiers’ raid on his house in Zaria two days later and handed over to the Department of State Service (DSS).

    However, after several protests and litigation, Justice Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja in December 2016 ordered his release and 24-hour police protection for El- Zakzaky and his wife when they are released from custody.

    Apart from their release, the court ordered the authorities to provide them a decent accommodation alongside their family. Respondents in the suit with number FHC/ABJ/CS/281/2016 are the DSS, the Nigeria Police Force and the Attorney General of the Federation.

    Lagos lawyer and activist Femi Falana (SAN) had approached the court for the release of the religious leader and his wife from detention.

    The court held: “The Respondents shall within 45 days of this judgement make proper and decent arrangement of a residential abode for the applicant and his family in Kaduna State or anywhere of their choice within the northern region, where the applicant and his wife and their children can relocate when released upon the expiration of 45 days from today, that is December 2, 2016.”

    Justice Kolawole said further; “Let me state clearly and for the avoidance of doubt that the failure of the government to effect the release of the applicant and his wife from its custody or any illegal custody whatsoever, upon the expiration of the 45th day from December 2, 2016, such failure shall not only constitute a deliberate act of disobedience of these orders, but it will crystallise into fresh cause of action of infraction of the Applicant’s rights and his wife to personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of Nigeria 1999, as amended.

    “The Inspector General of Police or any of its subordinate officers not below the rank of Assistant Inspector General when he received the applicant and his wife as ordered, shall take immediate steps within 24 hours, convey the applicant and his wife under necessary security escort to their place of abode as would have been provided by the 1st Respondent, DSS, working in conjunction with the third Respondent, AGF.

    “The 2nd Respondent, Police, shall then provide the applicant and his wife police protection which shall operate round the clock until the alleged threats which were not provided by any admissible evidence but left in the realm of speculation are moved or significantly diminished,” the Judge said.

    Eight months after, Zakzaky’s followers have been left with no alternative but to the continue protests, as the authorities have refused to release their leader.

    During one of the protests in Kaduna, the protesting Shi’ites asked the government to immediately release their leader or exterminate all of them. They also vowed never to rest until federal government releases their leader, who has been in DSS custody since December 2015.

    The angry protesters, who temporarily blocked major highways in Kaduna metropolis were seen with placards with varying inscriptions such as, “Free Zakzaky”, “We demand justice”, “We are Nigerians”, “Release El-zakzaky or kill us all,” among others.

    Addressing newsmen, spokesperson for the protesters, Mallam Nuhu Mafara said they were out in large numbers to agitate for the unconditional release of their leader who has been in detention since the December 2015 clash between the members of the Islamic sect and men of Nigerian Army in Zaria, Kaduna State.

    “The protest was a joint action against the illegal detention of our leader Ibrahim El-zakzaky  and all members from Kano Jigawa, Niger, Bauchi, Zamfara and other northern states are here today to demand the unconditional release of our leader.

    “Today also marks over 250 days since a court of the land set him (El-Zakzaky) free, but the cabals holding Nigerians to ransom have stubbornly refused to obey court orders”, he added.

    Also, a statement signed by one of the group’s top members Sheikh Abdulhamid Bello, read in part “while there are known figures in Nigeria today, agitating for the breakup of the country into pieces, with some even issueing ultimatum, to the government. But here is Sheikh Zakzaky, who has never committed any treasonable offence languishing in jail.

    “Precisely the leader of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, Sheikh Ibraheem Zakzaky has clocked 612 days today in the gulag of Buhari administration illegally. It is today well over 250 days when an honorable court of the land set him free from detention, but the cabals holding Nigerians to ransom have stubbornly refused to obey the courts orders”.

    The statement described what happened in Zaria in 2015 as ugly incidences, saying, “during the pogrom that included incessant killing of over 1000 unarmed members of the Movement, burning of some of them alive, looting of their property and demolishing their buildings all perpetrated by the Nigerian Army and the Kaduna state Governor Nasir El-Rufai.

    “The worst part of all this oppression against Sheikh Zakzaky who enjoys millions of followership in Nigeria and beyond, is that to date none of the perpetrators of the genocidal crime in the Army and Kaduna state government has been brought to book. Some have even been rewarded with promotion in their various places of work. These and many more instances of cruelty against the Sheikh made him to be the most oppressed person in Nigeria of today.”

     

  • Rumble in Zakzaky’s camp

    It is over eight months since Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja ordered the immediate release of Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky. The order was not obeyed and the leader of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) remains in custody.

    The situation has forced followers of the Shi’ites sect leader to often take to the streets in major cities of the North, particularly Kaduna, demanding his and his wife’s unconditional release. They have been in custody since December 2015.

    Members of the Islamic sect clashed with the men of the Nigerian Army in December 2015. The clash left many people dead, while the sect leader, Sheikh Zakzaky was later arrested during the soldiers’ raid on his house in Zaria two days later and handed over to the Department of State Service (DSS).

    However, after several protests and litigation, Justice Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja in December 2016 ordered his release and 24-hour police protection for El- Zakzaky and his wife when they are released from custody.

    Apart from their release, the court ordered the authorities to provide them a decent accommodation alongside their family. Respondents in the suit with number FHC/ABJ/CS/281/2016 are the DSS, the Nigeria Police Force and the Attorney General of the Federation.

    Lagos lawyer and activist Femi Falana (SAN) had approached the court for the release of the religious leader and his wife from detention.

    The court held: “The Respondents shall within 45 days of this judgement make proper and decent arrangement of a residential abode for the applicant and his family in Kaduna State or anywhere of their choice within the northern region, where the applicant and his wife and their children can relocate when released upon the expiration of 45 days from today, that is December 2, 2016.”

    Justice Kolawole said further; “Let me state clearly and for the avoidance of doubt that the failure of the government to effect the release of the applicant and his wife from its custody or any illegal custody whatsoever, upon the expiration of the 45th day from December 2, 2016, such failure shall not only constitute a deliberate act of disobedience of these orders, but it will crystallise into fresh cause of action of infraction of the Applicant’s rights and his wife to personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of Nigeria 1999, as amended.

    “The Inspector General of Police or any of its subordinate officers not below the rank of Assistant Inspector General when he received the applicant and his wife as ordered, shall take immediate steps within 24 hours, convey the applicant and his wife under necessary security escort to their place of abode as would have been provided by the 1st Respondent, DSS, working in conjunction with the third Respondent, AGF.

    “The 2nd Respondent, Police, shall then provide the applicant and his wife police protection which shall operate round the clock until the alleged threats which were not provided by any admissible evidence but left in the realm of speculation are moved or significantly diminished,” the Judge said.

    Eight months after, Zakzaky’s followers have been left with no alternative but to the continue protests, as the authorities have refused to release their leader.

    During one of the protests in Kaduna, the protesting Shi’ites asked the government to immediately release their leader or exterminate all of them. They also vowed never to rest until federal government releases their leader, who has been in DSS custody since December 2015.

    The angry protesters, who temporarily blocked major highways in Kaduna metropolis were seen with placards with varying inscriptions such as, “Free Zakzaky”, “We demand justice”, “We are Nigerians”, “Release El-zakzaky or kill us all,” among others.

    Addressing newsmen, spokesperson for the protesters, Mallam Nuhu Mafara said they were out in large numbers to agitate for the unconditional release of their leader who has been in detention since the December 2015 clash between the members of the Islamic sect and men of Nigerian Army in Zaria, Kaduna State.

    “The protest was a joint action against the illegal detention of our leader Ibrahim El-zakzaky  and all members from Kano Jigawa, Niger, Bauchi, Zamfara and other northern states are here today to demand the unconditional release of our leader.

    “Today also marks over 250 days since a court of the land set him (El-Zakzaky) free, but the cabals holding Nigerians to ransom have stubbornly refused to obey court orders”, he added.

    Also, a statement signed by one of the group’s top members Sheikh Abdulhamid Bello, read in part “while there are known figures in Nigeria today, agitating for the breakup of the country into pieces, with some even issueing ultimatum, to the government. But here is Sheikh Zakzaky, who has never committed any treasonable offence languishing in jail.

    “Precisely the leader of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, Sheikh Ibraheem Zakzaky has clocked 612 days today in the gulag of Buhari administration illegally. It is today well over 250 days when an honorable court of the land set him free from detention, but the cabals holding Nigerians to ransom have stubbornly refused to obey the courts orders”.

    The statement described what happened in Zaria in 2015 as ugly incidences, saying, “during the pogrom that included incessant killing of over 1000 unarmed members of the Movement, burning of some of them alive, looting of their property and demolishing their buildings all perpetrated by the Nigerian Army and the Kaduna state Governor Nasir El-Rufai.

    “The worst part of all this oppression against Sheikh Zakzaky who enjoys millions of followership in Nigeria and beyond, is that to date none of the perpetrators of the genocidal crime in the Army and Kaduna state government has been brought to book. Some have even been rewarded with promotion in their various places of work. These and many more instances of cruelty against the Sheikh made him to be the most oppressed person in Nigeria of today.”

     

  • Independence Day bombing: Appeal Court upholds life sentence for Ebiware

    Independence Day bombing: Appeal Court upholds life sentence for Ebiware

    …Affirms the sentencing of a woman to death by hanging

     

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld the conviction and life sentence handed to Edmond Ebiware over his complicity in the October 1, 2010 bomb explosion around Eagle Square in Abuja which left about 12 people dead and several others injured.

    In a unanimous judgment of a panel of three, the appellate court resolved the two issues, identified for resolution, in favour of the state, listed as respondent, and dismissed the appeal by Ebiware.

    In a separate judgment, the court affirmed the sentencing of 31-year-old Ozioma Azoryeme to death by hanging following her conviction for the murder of a female child of about two years old.

    Ebiware, accused of withholding information about alleged plot by Henry Okah to cause bomb explosion in Abuja, was initially charged, with three persons, including Charles Okah on an eight-count charge filed on January 11, 2011 before the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    On May 3, 2012, the trial judge, Justice Gabriel Kolawole granted Ebiware’s application to be tried separately from the three others.

    At the end of the trial, Justice Kolawole, in a judgment on January 25, 2013 convicted Ebiware and sentenced him to life imprisonment, subject to parole after 32 years from the date of the convict’s arrest on October 15, 2010, a decision he appealed.

    In a lead judgment delivered on July 25, 2017 by Justice Mohammed Mustapha, a copy of which The Nation sighted Monday, it was held that the trial court was in order in its findings and conclusions in the Ebiware case.

    On whether the prosecution proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, Justice Mustapha held that, by the evidence led, the prosecution proved the guilt of the defendant/appellant.

    Justice Mustapha said: “Contrary to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, conviction under Section 40(b) of the Criminal Code does not require linkage with other accused person(s), the operative word is ‘knowledge of intention,’ and failure to report to the categories of persons listed therein.

    @The appellant, from evidence at trial, not only knew, but failed to report. The findings of the trial court are beyond reproach in this regard.”

    On Ebiware’s contention that the sentence of life imprisonment was too harsh, Justice Mustapha held that, considering the impact of the bomb explosion and its impact, the sentence handed by Justice Kolawole to the appellant was justifiable.

    He said: “I did say earlier that the question of whether the sentence is harsh or not is subjective, because it depends on who is at the receiving side; this is because at the end of the day, when all is said and done, neither life imprisonment nor any sentence can be regarded as sufficient punishment for an action that leads to loss of innocent lives in this grand scale.

    “This is not withstanding the fact that the accused had remained in prison custody, married with children or chose not to waste precious time by opting for a separate trial from other co-accused,” Justice Mustapha said.

    Justices Tani Yusuf Hassan and Abubakar Datti Yahaya, who were on the panel, agreed with the lead judgment in the Ebiware case.

    On the appeal by Azoryeme, Justice Yahaya, in a lead judgment delivered on August 2, 2017, resolved the two issues, identified for determination, against the appellant and dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.

    As against the appellant contention that there were insufficient to warrant her conviction, Justice Yahaya held that the prosecution effectively discharged the burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the appellant for the offence od culpable homicide punishable with death, for with which she was charged.

    On whether the trial court was right not to have upheld the appellant’s defence of insanity, Justice Yahaya upheld the position of the trial court, to the effect that the claim of insanity was not only an afterthought, it was not supported by credible material evidence, in the form of medical reports.

    Justices Tani Yusuf Hassan and Muhammed Mustapha agreed with Justice Yahaya’s lead judgment.

    Azoryeme was arraigned in 2011 in a charge marked: NSHC/SD/IC/2011, before a High Court of Niger State in Suleja for the killing, on June 12, 2010, of Chinonye Timothy (a child of about two years old).

    The trial court, in a judgment on September 30, 2014 found her guilty and sentenced her to death by hanging.

     

  • Alleged link with Boko Haram: Court frees Ndume

    Alleged link with Boko Haram: Court frees Ndume

    About six years into his trial, a Federal High Court in Abuja has freed Senator Ali Ndume (All Progressives Congress, Borno State) of terrorism related charges brought against him in 2011 by the Goodluck Jonathan government.

    In a ruling this afternoon, Justice Gabriel Kolawole upheld Ndume’s no-case submission and proceeded to discharge and acquit him.

    The judge said the prosecution failed, through evidence led, to link the defendant (Ndume) to the offences alleged, to warrant his being called to enter defence.

    Justice Kolawole noted that although Ndume admitted volunteering information to the Department of State Services (DSS), the Police and other security agencies, no representatives of any of the agencies were called as witness by the prosecution.

    Ndume was charged with among others, withholding information about the operations of Boko Haram and having link and communicating with some of its leaders.

    The defendant had, in his no-case submission, claimed to have been involved in negotiation with Boko Haram leaders at the instance of the then Federal Government led by President Jonathan.

    He said former Vice President and the Director General of the DSS during Goodluck Jonathan’s administration were aware of his interactions with a Boko Haram member, Ali Konduga.

    He said his link with Konduga, who has since been convicted on terrorism related charges, was at the behest of the presidential committee set up under the Jonathan government to help address security challenges in the North-East part of the country.

    The Senator was arraigned on December 12, 2011 on a four-count charge relating to terrorism charges. He was accused of, among other counts, sponsoring the Boko Haram sect, maintaining a link with the sect member and failing to disclose the phone number of Konduga, which was alleged to be in his (Ndume’s) possession.

    The prosecution commenced trial on July 3, 2012 and closed its case on June 22, 2016, after calling nine witnesses, following which Ndume opted for a no-case submission.

    Ndume’s lawyer, Rickey Tarfa (SAN) had, while adopting his no-case submission on June 6 this year, urged the court to discharge and acquit his client on the ground that the prosecution was unable to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.

    Tarfa said the prosecution was unable to lead sufficient evidence link his client with the offences alleged.

    He said Ndume’s contact with Boko Haram came about when the senator was a member of the Presidential Committee on Security Matters in the North-East of the country.

    Reacting to the court’s decision, Ndume dressed in white robe (agbada and white cap) thank God for spearing his life to witness his acquittal.

    “I thank God for spearing my life. Many Senators, who have cases against them have died, but here I am and well. I am grateful to God,” he said.

  • Boko Haram: Court rules on Ndume’s no- case submission July 4

    Boko Haram: Court rules on Ndume’s no- case submission July 4

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed July 4, to rule on a no-case-submission filed by Sen. Ali Ndume (APC-Borno),who is standing trial for allegedly sponsoring terrorism.

    The Federal Government arraigned Ndume in 2011 and re-arraigned him in 2013 on a four-count charge of allegedly sponsoring the Boko Haram sect.

    The offence according to the Federal Government, contravened Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011.

    Ndume , however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.

    When the matter was called on Tuesday for counsel to adopt their addresses, Mr Ricky Tarfa (SAN), counsel to Ndume , told Justice Gabriel Kolawole that the Federal Government had not established a prima facie case against his client.

    He also stated that the government was unable to link Ndume to the said crime.

    Tarfa maintained that the prosecution had failed to proof beyond reasonable doubt, the charges brought against him since Nov. 30,2011.

    He admitted that he had contact with the Boko Haram sect but that the contact was established when he was appointed into the Presidential Committee on Security Matters to negotiate for peace with the terrorist group.

    He said that the charges against him were unjust and unfair since he gave the former Vice President, Namadi Sambo and the then Director-General of the Department of State Service (DSS), all the information he got from the sect.

    He also told the court that the charge of failure to disclose information on the workings of Boko Haram could not be sustained against him.

    “Clearly, from the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the ingredients of the charges have not been proved as required by law.

    “The analysis of the mobile phones seized from the defendant and subjected to forensic examination by the prosecution did not reveal any offence committed,” Tarfa said.

    He asked the court to strike out the charges against Ndume on the grounds that no prima facie case had been established against him to warrant him defending himself.

    On her part, the prosecuting counsel, Mrs Geraldine Okafor, urged the court to compel Ndume to open his defence on the grounds that government’s witnesses had effectively linked him to the crime.

    Okafor said that the charges against the senator had to do with the failure to disclose material information to security agents on Boko Haram and rendering support to the terrorist group.

    She said that Ndume, in his own statement tendered and admitted in court, confirmed that he had enormous information on Boko Haram, but refused to disclose the information to the government.

    According to her, credible evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses have been corroborated by the defendant himself in the three statements he made to security agents.

    “His admission that he was a member of the Presidential Committee on Security Matters also corroborates the evidence of the prosecution that he had volumes of information on the terrorist group which he refused to give to the government.

    “The volume of information found on him was revealing and warranted his being charged to court.

    “The prosecution is not fishing for information but in law, the defendant has to offer information being a member of the Presidential Committee on Security Matters.

    “Let the point be made here that witnesses of the government have by one way or the other linked the charge against the defendant to him and this court, as an impartial court, should order the defendant to open his defence.

    “It is even in the interest of the defendant and justice that this case be heard on its merit, instead of upholding the no-case submission.”

    The judge fixed July 4 for ruling on the matter.

     

  • Nyako: Judge orders EFCC to deposit N12.5m judgment debt in court

    Nyako: Judge orders EFCC to deposit N12.5m judgment debt in court

    …Faults EFCC’s approach to investigation

     

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court in Abuja Tuesday ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to pay into an account to be opened by the Chief Registrar of the court, the N12.5million judgement given in favour of Senator Abdulaziz Nyako.

    Justice Kolawole had, in a judgment on June 22, 2016 awarded the N12.5m against the EFCC. The judgment was on a fundamental rights enforcement application filed by Abdulaziz on February 17, 2015.

    In the judgment, the judge held among others, that Abdulaziz’s arrest and detention by the EFCC, and its freezing of his account for over two years, amounted a gross abuse of his fundamental rights as a serving senator and a responsible citizen.

    The judge said it was wrong for the EFCC to arrest and detain Abdulaziz for three days and freez all his bank accounts for over two years without a court order, or charging the senator to court.

    Rather than obey the judgment, the EFCC claimed to have appealed and applied to the trial court for stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal.

    The EFCC complained that it will not be able to undertake its statutory functions if it pays the N12.5m judgment sum.

    Ruling on the application yesterday, Justice Kolawole struck out the EFCC application and ordered it to, within 30 days, deposit the N12.5m in an account to be opened by the court’s Chief Registrar.

    The judge said that there was no circumstantial situation to warrant the stay of the judgment since no cogent reason was placed before the court by the EFCC to enable the court exercise its discretion in the agency’s favour

    Justice Kolawole said should the EFCC fail to deposit the bank draft within 30 days, Abdulaziz shall have the right to apply for garnishee order nisi.

    The judge agreed with Senator Nyako that the motion filed by EFCC was a ploy to deny him the fruit of his success arising from the court case against the EFCC and that there was no special circumstance to warrant the grant of stay.

    The court agreed with Abdulaziz that more than a year after the judgement, the EFC was yet to compile records for transmission to the Court of Appeal and that the period allowed by law had expired.

    Earlier in the ruling, Justice Kolawole faulted the conduct of the EFCC and its investigation procedure.

    He said the EFCC, being an organisation established by law, should learn how to conduct its statutory functions within the ambits of the law

    He frowned at the habit of the security agencies in rushing to magistrate courts to obtain detention warrants in the matters where magistrate courts have no jurisdiction adding that such habit amounts to nothing but corruption on its own.

    “In this instant case, EFCC cannot be said to be a diligent party having just filed notice of appeal in a judgment delivered over a year ago and did not raise any grounds of special circumstances to granting of the stay of the execution of the judgment.

    “The EFCC should wake up and realise that the law that established it is not a cosmetic law, but designed to protect the Nigerian citizens from acts of recklessness in the name of performing statutory functions,” the judgment.

    He said it is a political slogan that security agencies cannot be subjected to court order when it goes out of its way to infringe on the fundamental rights of the citizens. He said the practice of arresting and detaining suspects before investigation is bizarre and must not be condoned by any law court.

    The judge also said dumping suspects on remand through Magistrate Court’s orders in matters where Magistrate Courts have no jurisdiction was not only tragic, but unfortunate. He asked that security agencies realise that the nation was a democracy and desist from such unlawful conduct.

     

  • Court fixes judgment for suit seeking Tambuwal’s sack

    Court fixes judgment for suit seeking Tambuwal’s sack

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed June 23 for judgment in a suit seeking to sack Sokoto State Governor, Aminu Tambuwal.

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole chose the date Tuesday after taking arguments from lawyers representing parties in the suit filed by two governorship aspirants of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Sokoto during the 2015 elections – Senator Umaru Dahiru and Abubakar Sanyinna.

    It is the plaintiffs’ contention that the December 4, 2014 governorship primary election of the APC was held in violation of the party’s guideline for the conduct of such election, its constitution and the Electoral Act.

    The violation, they argued, was to the effect that delegates to the primary election were neither screened nor verified and therefore, there was no list of delegates for the election.

    Defendants in the case are the APC, Tambuwal and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Arguing his clients’ case yesterday, plaintiffs’ lawyer, Roland Otaru (SAN) said “having regard to the documentary exhibits attached to the originating summons and further affidavit, the issue for determination is narrow.

    “All we are saying is that the 1st defendant’s governorship primary election of the 4th of December 2014 in Sokoto State did not comply with the provision of Section 87 of the Electoral Act (EA) 2010 (as amended)  the constitution of the party (APC) and the guidelines rolled out for the conduct of the primary election by the APC.

    “We have shown that there was no verification and accreditation of candidates. What we are saying is that there was no accreditation of candidates for the primary in accordance with the EA and the guidelines.

    “The 1st defendant (APC), having failed to comply with the guideline, by not allowing accreditation and verification of delegates, the primary was a nullity,” Otaru said.

    He submitted that the accreditation of delegates is fundamental to the democratic process.

    Otaru argued that having failed to follow the procedure laid down in the APC guideline and its constitution, the court should set aside the primary and grant all our reliefs, which the Supreme Court said are grantable.

    He noted that none of the defendants have been able to show the court the list of delegates that were accredited for the primary election.

    Otaru said the onus was now on them (the defendants) to show the list of accredited candidates. He added that “All they have shown are the reports of the primary.”

    Responding, lawyer to the APC and Tambuwal, Jibrin Okutepa and Sunday Ameh (both SAN) challenged the legitimacy of the suit. They urged the court to dismiss it.

    In their notices of preliminary objection and counter-affidavits, which they argued separately, APC and Tambuwal that the suit was wrongly commenced by way of a originating summons.

    They stated that with the contentious nature of the facts of the case, the suit ought to be commenced through a writ of summons which would have enabled parties to call witnesses to explain the facts of the case.

    “We have argued in our affidavit that these proceedings are not fit to come via originating summons,” he said.

    On the plaintiffs’ claim of non-accreditation of delegates during the primaries, Okutepa said the onus was on the plaintiffs to call delegates as witnesses to show that they were not accredited.

    He said: “The burden is on the plaintiffs to call delegates to come to court to show that they were not accredited. This case is bereft of any evidential support to warrant any declaration to be made in favour of the plaintiffs.”

    Okutepa argued that the plaintiffs’ prayer seeking the conduct of fresh primaries was not only ungrantable but could push the court to a path of collision with the Constitution in a situation where the law provided that primaries must be held 60days before the main election.

    Ameh argued in similar vein and maintained in his submission on his notice of preliminary objection that the suit was wrongly commenced.

    He said, “The preliminary objection challenges the manner of commencement of the action through an originating summons.

    “That the facts for and against the suit are hostile so much so that our counter-affidavits filed in response to the the plaintiffs’ affidavit led the plaintiffs to file a further and better affidavit shows that the facts are contentious and requires explanations.”

    Lawyer to INEC Alhassan Umar, said the commission had filed a counter-affidavit to enable it to exhibit its “monitoring report of APC governorship primaries in Sokoto State.”

    He however said that in compliance with the admonition of the Supreme Court in plethora of cases, the commission would remain neutral and not take side with any of the plaintiffs and the two other defendants.

    Umar said, “The pith of our case is that in pursuant of the constitutional mandate of the third defendant we monitored the primaries and the report is Exhibit I earlier referred.

    “In the case of Amaechi against INEC, the Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the report of primaries issued by the third defendant (INEC).”

    Otaru, who later responded to the preliminary objection by Tambuwal and APC, argued that there was no any form of “friction” in the case to warrant the commencement of the suit via a writ of summons.

    He also said the two notices of preliminary objection did not comply with Order 29(4)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules of the Federal High Court his court having not been filed within 21 days of the defendants’ being served with the plaintiffs’ originating summons.

    Okutepa, on point of law, argued that Order 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules of the Federal High Court was not applicable to the situation “because we are not challenging the jurisdiction of the court.

    He said, “The suit has been wrongly commenced. We are not saying the court cannot hear the case.

    “The court can hear it through a writ of summons so that parties can call witnesses.”

  • Rivers re-run probe: Judge declines to quash investigation report

    Rivers re-run probe: Judge declines to quash investigation report

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja Tuesday declined to quash the report of investigation into violent clashes recorded during December 10, 2016 re-run legislative elections in Rivers State.

    In a judgment Tuesday, Justice Kolawole declared as illegal a Special Joint Investigative Panel set up by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Ibrahim Idris, to investigate the incidents.

    The judgement was on a suit by Rivers State governor, Nyesom Wike in which he challenged the legitimacy of the IGP panel, which comprised members of other independent security agencies like the Department of State Services (DSS).

    The judge faulted the validity of the report for use in any judicial proceedings; he ruled that he was unable to quash it because a copy of it was not presented before him.

    He said the report was, at best ministerial and could only be useful if it was turned to a law enforcement agency that was duly created and established by law for use as a material proper investigation.

    The judge rejected Wike’s prayer to disband the special investigative team and quash its report which he said was prepared and submitted to the IGP during the pendency of the suit.

    He (the judge) also refused Wike’s prayer that he declare that the investigative panel’s activities and report was intended to witch-hunt him.

    The judge said Wike failed to show how the decision of the defendants (IGP and others to set up the joint investigative team had violated any of their legal and constitutional rights.

    He said, as against Wike’s contention, the setting up of the police joint investigative team did not distract from the governor’s powers,  under Section 2(1) of the Judicial Commission Inquiry Commission, Laws of Rivers State 1999, to constitute his own judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the causes of violence during the election.

    Justic Kolawole granted only the first prayer relating the legality of the joint investigative team out of the 12 contained in the originating summons filed by Wike.

    On the first prayer, the judge described the joint investigative team headed by a police officer, Mr. Damian Okoro, as “a contraption unknown to any law and the Nigerian criminal justice system”.

    He said the defendants were unable to cite any law, from the Constitution, the Police Act or the National Security Agencies Act, enabling the Inspector-General of Police to set up such joint investigative panel.

    “Plaintiffs’ relief 1, having regard to the analysis that I have made on the legal status of the Special Joint Investigation Panel as an unknown body to the Nigerian criminal justice system ought to succeed and granted as prayed,” the judge ruled.

    On prayer relating to alleged witch-hunt, Justice Kolawole ruled, “Relief 4 fails because the exercise of investigative power is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial in nature but purely ministerial and does not carry with it obligation that pertains to one which is required to decide dispute because the primary obligation of an investigation from the prism of investigative and prosecutorial agencies is to establish facts that can be used to indict a suspect rather than to vindicate him except where he is to be used as prosecution witness.”

    He also said, “Relief 8 fails as the obligation of the investigative body is ministerial and not judicial or quasi-judicial.

    “Relief 9 is ungrantable as it smacks of relief seasoned with political consideration which the court lacks the power or jurisdiction to inquire into and/or to ascertain.

    “Relief 10 too is ungrantable as Exhibits AGR2 (letter by the IGP to Wike seeking the governor’s cooperation with the joint investigative team) has already executed its mandate and third defendant’s (Okoro) Special Joint Investigative Panel has, by the defendants’ deposition in their counter-affidavits, already submitted its report to the first defendant and granting relief 10 in the originating summons will be an order made in vain as the event which it seeks to quash has been accomplished.

    “Although the court can exercise its disciplinary jurisdiction pursuant to section 6(vi)(a) of the 1999 of the Constitution as amended to quash the report which was not only prepared by a body unknown to the Nigerian criminal justice system but allegedly prepared in the middle of the proceedings in which the investigative report it was going to prepare was in issue being contested by parties and can be seen as an act of defiance by the defendants.

    “It is an the elementary proposition of the law that in exercise of its powers pursuant to Order 34(2) of the Federal High Court Rules 2009, on judicial review that the court will not make such order unless the report is produced before it in whatever form the plaintiff can provide it. But no court of law will make an order to quash a report not produced before it.”

    The judge warned the Attorney-General of the Federation to be wary of the fact that the validity of the special investigative team was in doubt.

    The judge said, “As I earlier relied on the ipse dixit of the deponet to the defendants’ counter-affidavit none of whom -the deponets – was a member of the Special Joint Investigation Panel to make an order to quash a report I have not seen.

    “But far from this, I am contended, judicially speaking, (with) the decision I have reached that the said report earlier submitted to the first defendant (the IGP) was a product of a body not known to any law in Nigeria.

    “This, in my view, has put its validity for the purpose of any judicial proceedings in great doubt except a law enforcement body duly created by law uses its content as a working document to conduct a proper investigation for the use of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

    “In conclusion, plaintiffs’ suit only succeeds with respect to relief 1 which granted as prayed. Reliefs 2 to 12 fail and they are dismissed.”

    “In any event, it is left to the Attorney-General of the Federation, if he can, in exercise of his powers under section 174 (1)(a) of the Constitution use the said report against these issues which relate to its legality when presented to him initiate in filing criminal charge on the strength of section 174(1)(a) of the Constitution against such a report with its substantive validity may have been indicted.

    “Plaintiffs’ counsel has argued that the report which was prepared while the proceedings were pending be quashed.

    “I could have done so in exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of this court pursuant to section 6(6)(a) of the Constitution but the same report was not produced before this court so that an appropriate judicial disciplinary order could be made to vindicate the precedent authority of the Constitution which this court is bound to uphold by the exercise of its judicial powers,” the judge said.

    The Office of the Governor of Rivers State, Wike (in his personal capacity) and the Attorney-General of the state are the first to the third plaintiffs respectively in the suit filed in January this year.

    The IGP, the DSS and the head of the police investigative team, Damian Okoro are listed as defendants.

    Justice Kolawole’s judgment came about more than two months after the Office of the AGF charged 23 officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the Federal High Court, Abuja for allegedly receiving N360m bribe from Wike in relation to the rerun elections.

     

  • Court resumes Dasuki’s aide trial, as EFCC retracts false publication

    Court resumes Dasuki’s aide trial, as EFCC retracts false publication

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, resumed the trial of Dasuki’s aide, Col. Nicholas Ashinze after the falsified publication by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) was retracted.

    Ashinze is standing trial with Wolfgang Reinl, an Austrian, Edidiong Idiong and Sagir Mohammed, on a 13-count charge bordering on money laundering.

    Other defendants in the case are five companies – Geonel Integrated Services Limited, Unity Continental Nigeria Limited, Helpline  Organisation, Vibrant Resource Limited and Sologic Integrated Service Limited.

    The judge had on March 21 ordered the EFCC to retract an offensive press statement issued by EFCC which was published in Vanguard Newspaper.

    The statement referred to Col. Ashinze as a retired officer and that he was never charged by EFCC for any offence on diversion and misappropriation of a whopping sum of N36 billion.

    Kolawole had also ordered that the Deputy Registrar, Litigation, of the court to liaise with the Deputy Sheriff to ensure that the March 21 order was served on the Editor-in-Chief or the appropriate person in Vanguard Newspaper.

    He said the relevant officer of the newspaper must come before the court on May 4 to show where it (newspaper) got the March 8 publication on the N36.8 billion fraud charge against the defendant.

    At the resumed hearing, the prosecuting counsel, Ofem Uket, informed the court that the said statement which was misreported had been retracted and published on ThisDay Newspaper dated April 12.

    The prosecution also told the court that he has in his possession a certified true copy of the retracted newspaper report and has given the defence counsel a copy of the report.

    Ernest Nwoye, Afam Osigwe and Chukwudili Anozie, counsel to Reinl, Idiong and Mohammed (1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants), however, objected to the admissibility of the retracted report.

    In their objection, they stated that the EFCC did not follow the order of the court in retracting the statement, rather they apologised which was against the order of the court.

    In the midst of the objection, counsel to Mohammed, Mr O. Jimoh, opposed the argument of his co-defence counsels on the admissibility of the retracted publication, stating that justice had already been done.

    He, however, cited a paragraph on the retracted publication which read: “the error in the figure was a mix-up in the body of the release as the headline reflected the correct information.

    “The reference to Ashinze as retired is regretted. We have since discovered that he is a serving Colonel in the Nigerian Army.”

    Counsel to Vanguard Newspaper, Mr F. Chude, who was present in court, apologised on behalf of the Newspaper over the invalidity of the report on Col. Ashinze.

    Chude informed the court that the Editor-in- chief of Vanguard was not aware of the court summon but was unable to come with the reporter, who covered the court proceedings.

    The judicial correspondent of Vanguard, Mr Ikechukwu Nnochiri apologised to the court for the misleading report, stating that it was predicated on a press release from the EFCC.

    Justice Kolawole in a short ruling said that he was satisfied with the retraction made by the EFCC in respect to the March 21 order.

    The judge also held that court is satisfied with the explanation and apology by Mr Nnochiri and he is hereby discharged and acquitted and the order of the court to summon him is hereby revoked.’’

    An EFCC investigator Hassan Seidu, who is a witness in the ongoing trial, continued his testimony on how the defendants got N5.6 billion from Office of National Security Adviser (ONSA).

    Seidu said in the course of their investigation, the EFCC requested from Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) a certified true copy of registration of six companies which was sent and forwarded through the executive chairman of EFCC.

    The defence team opposed to the admissibility of the document, stating they are not reliable after the prosecution prayed the court to admit the documents in evidence.

    In their argument, the defence said there is no evidence of payment of the prescribed fees as approved by the Minister of Trade.

    More so, that the said document has no name and certified signature, hence, the document failed to meet the provision of Section 379 sub.1 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) of 2015.

    The counsel, however, urged the court to take judicial notice as no prove of payment was made in relations to the documents and asked the court to “consign the document to the dustbin.’’

    The prosecution while addressing the court withdrew the document and promised he will do the needful in certifying the documents.

    The judge adjourned the matter until June 12, 20, July 5 and 11 for further hearing.

  • Court to reopen hearing case against Tambuwal on May 23

    Court to reopen hearing case against Tambuwal on May 23

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja has agreed to reopen hearing in the case seeking the removal of Sokoto State governor, Aminu Tambuwal.

    Justice Kolawole took the decision Wednesday after dismissing the counter arguments by lawyers to Tambuwal and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) and Sunday Ameh (SAN).

    The judge Fixed May 23 for hearing in the case originally filed in January 2015 by two former aspirants for the governorship position of Sokoto State on the platform of the APC – Umaru Dahiru and Abubakar Sanyinna

    The plaintiff’s filed the suit in January 2015 challenging the December 2014 APC’s governorship primaries which produced Tambuwal as the candidate of the party for the main election which later held on April 11, 2015.

    The plaintiffs, who queried the outcome of the primary that produced Tambuwal as the party’s candidate, want the court to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from accepting primary’s outcome because of alleged irregularities that characterised the exercise.

    The case suffered delays as decision of the Federal High Court on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction went up to the Supreme Court until the apex court, in a December 9, 2016 judgment ordered the trial court to assume jurisdiction and hear it on the merit.

    But, on March 10, 2017, Justice Kolawole, to who the case was reassigned, struck out the “case file” following the wrong numbering of the suit by the court’s Registry.

    Justice Kolawole noted the number in the suit before him was different from the one remitted to the Federal High Court for hearing by the Supreme Court.

    Shortly after Justice Kolwale’s March 10 ruling, striking out the file, the plaintiffs went before the court’s Registry to rectify the error in numbering, following which the case was resent to Justice Kolawole for hearing.

    When the case came up Wednesday, Roland Otaru (SAN) announced appearance for the plaintiffs and said he was holding the brief of Awa Kalu (SAN).

    He told the court that he was ready for hearing in line with the Supreme Court’s directive of expeditious hearing of the case.

    But, Okutepa and Ameh objected to Otaru’s appearance in the case and faulted the further affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs.

    They noted that the motion newly filed for change of the plaintiffs’ address of service was tantamount to an application seeking to replace Otaru with Kalu as the lead lawyer for the plaintiff.

    They argued that the motion which according to them was by implication seeking a change of the plaintiffs’ counsel, was incompetent because it was filed without leave of court and therefore in breach of Orders 9(35) and (36) of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009.

    They also said the further affidavit filed by the plaintiffs was in breach of the court’s rules as it was filed without being directed by the court.

    Okutepa said he only filed his own written address accompanying his counter-affidvait out of abundance of caution.

    Ameh said the case cannot proceed to hearing because he has not filed a written address in support of his counter-affidavit to the suit.

    He said he was relying on the court’s rules which required a directive of court for such to be filed.

    Lawyer to INEC, I.S Mohammed appealed for time to enable him confirm whether the documents (originating process) newly filed by the plaintiffs have been served on his office.

    Mohammed also said he needed time to study the new further affidavit to know if there were fresh issues which would require the commission’s response.

    Responding, Otaru said the objection by the two defence lawyers was “misplaced and vexatious”.

    He opted to withdraw the application for change of the plaintiffs’ address of service, but stressed that the application was different from one seeking change of counsel.

    Otaru told the court that Kalu was still the plaintiffs’ lead counsel and that he only held his (Kalu’s) brief.

    He said none of the defence counsel had been able to show that he did not have Kalu’s instruction to appear in the case.

    Ruling, Justice Kolawole said everything must be done to ensure that the directive of the Supreme Court, for prompt hearing of the case, was adhered to prevent the situation where the case will be rendered mere academic exercise.

    The judge agreed to give opportunity to Tambuwal’s lawyer to file his client’s written address within 7 days

    He said the plaintiffs, when served with the written address, if so desired must file a reply on point of law within seven days thereafter.

    Justice Kolawole adjourned to May 23 for hearing of the suit and the preliminary objection filed by the defence