The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Litigations

  • Ondo PDP in crisis of litigations

    Ondo PDP in crisis of litigations

    The obvious tardiness on the part of the Olusegun Mimiko group in checkmating the Biyi Poroye-led faction of  the Ondo State Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) may have become its undoing as the two antagonistic camps look up to the court for possible resolution of the lingering dispute arising from the party’s parallel primaries.Eric Ikhilae reports

    Many had thought the dispute between the Ali Modu Sheriff-led National Executive Committee and the Ahmed Makarfi-led Caretaker Committee (CTC) over the leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was a national affair, with less implication for its states chapters.

    This perception, perhaps might have informed why the Olusegun Mimiko camp of the PDP in Ondo State paid scant attention to the cases that were pending before the Federal High Court in Abuja until businessman, Jimoh Ibrahim appeared on the scene.

    What later informed the decision by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to substitute that candidate of the Mimiko camp, Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), for Ibrahim, who emerged from the primary conducted by the opposing camp, began like a child’s play.

    It was ignited by a suit filed shortly after the May 2016 zonal congresses of the party. The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/395/2016 was filed by the Chairman and Secretary of the PDP in Ondo State – Prince Biyi Poroye and Ademola A. Genty and their counterparts from other Southwest states, who emerged from the May 10, 2016 congresses of the party in the Southwest.

    The pliantiffs, in the suit filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja, with INEC and PDP as defendants, sought among others, to be confirmed as the authentic leaders of the party in the region and for INEC to deal with them as it relates to the submission of candidates’ names for elections in the zone.

    Trial judge, Justice Okon Abang, in a judgment on June 29, 2016 affirmed Poroye, Genty and others, who emerged from the May 10, 2016 congresses of the party in the South west, as the authentic leaders of the party in the Ondo, Ekiti, Oyo, Osun, Ogun and Lagos states.

    The judge ordered INEC to only accept the names of the candidates sent by the plaintiffs as actual candidates of the party for governorship elections in the affected states.

    Shortly after, members of Sheriff-led NEC filed a case before the Federal High Court, Abuja on July 1, 2016. The Sheriff-led NEC was incidentally sacked by a July 4, 2016 judgment by Justice Mohammed Liman of the Federal High Court, Port-Harcourt, which affirmed the legitimacy of the party’s controversial May 21, 2016 National Convention held in Port-Harcourt and the dissolution of the Sheriff-led NEC.

    In the July 1, 2016 suit instituted by their lawyer, Babs Akinwumi, members the Sheriff-led NEC sought to know the implication of an earlier judgment given on May 18, 2016 by Justice A. B. Mohammed of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Jabi, Abuja on their leadership of the party.

    The Sheriff-led NEC, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/464/2016, with INEC, PDP and members of the Makarfi-led CTC as defendants, raised a sole question for the court’s determination. It was whether, in the light of the judgment of Justice A. B. Mohammed in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/1443/2016 given on May 18, applied Section 223 of the Constitution, the defendants were not under obligation to deal with them on all issues relating to the leadership of the party until a valid election was held by the PDP to replace its leadership?

    The suit decided by Justice Mohammed,nd on which the Sheriff-led NEC now based their suit, was filed by a member of the party, Chief Emeka Dibia, who claimed to be interested in contesting the National Chairmanship of the PDP and wanted to know when the seat would be vacant, in view of the alteration made to section 47(6) of the party’s constitution.

    Dibia had, in his originating summons, stated that Adamu Muazu was elected with other national officers of the party at a special convention on December 10 and 11, 2014 for a tenure of four years, which will expire in 2018. And that at the convention, the party also amended section 47(6) of its constitution by substituting the phrase “pending the conduct of election to fill the vacancy” with a new phrase “to serve out the tenure of the officer,” who resigned before the expiration of his/her tenure.

    He added that with the sudden resignation of Muazu before the end of his tenure and the appointment of Ali Modu Sheriff in his place, Sheriff was expected to serve out what was left of Muazu’s tenure, going by the amendment to section 47(6) of the party’s constitution.

    He urged the court to declare illegal the “notice of congress dated March 15, 2016 referenced: PDP/DOM/GF/1/Vol III/590 by which it (the party) scheduled its national convention on May 21, 2016 for the purpose of electing its national officers, whose four year tenures are still running and subsisting.

    In his judgment, Justice Mohammed held that although all national officers of the party enjoy four-year term upon election, such could not be extended to Sheriff, who was not elected. He added that the purported amendment to section 47(6) of the party’s constitution, that would have allowed Sheriff “serve out” Muazu’s tenure, was invalid because the amendment was not reflected in the constitution as required.

    Justice Mohammed further held that Sheriff would only remain in office “pending the conduct of election to fill the vacancy” created with Muazu’s exit.

    Justice Abang later gave his judgment in the suit by the Sheriff-led NEC, affirmed its leadership of the party and voided the party’s national convention held in Port-Harcourt on May 21, 2016 on the ground that it was held in violation of two orders by Justice Ibrahim Buba and Mohammed Idris of the Lagos division of the Federal High Court in suits FHC/L/CS/613/2016 and FHC/L/CS/637/2016.

    In a third suit by two members of the PDP from Ondo and Edo states – Benson Akingboye and Ehizuwa Agbonayinma – FHC/ABJ/439/2016, Justice Abang also affirmed the leadership of the PDP by the Sheriff-led NEC.

    Akingboye and Agbonayinma had claimed to be interested in contesting election under the party and sought to know from the court which, between the Sheriff-led NEC and Makarfi-led CTC, was the authentic leadership of the party.

    In a ruling on June 30, Justice Abang dismissed the Makarfi-led CTC by holding that “it is my view that having regard to the subsisting orders of the Lagos division of this court dated 12th May 2016 and 20th May 2016 respectively, the PDP had no lawful authority to hold the convention it purportedly held on 21th May 2016 that led to the emergence of Senator Makarfi-led Caretaker Committee.

    “The convention that led to the emergence of the Senator Makarfi-led Caretaker committee was illegally convened, having regard to the subsisting orders of the Lagos division of this court dated 12th May 2016 and 20 May 2016. The PDP could not have pretended that the orders do not exist.

    “Except the orders of the Lagos division of this court dated 12th May 2016 and 20th May 2016 are set aside by the appellate court, PDP could not have lawfully or legally held the convention that purportedly led to the emergence of the Senator Makarfi-led caretaker committee of the PDP.

    “The Port-Harcourt convention held on 21st May 2016 was unlawfully held and the caretaker committee was unlawfully and illegally appointed and cannot lawfully take decisions on behalf of the PDP,” Justice Abang said.

    And yet in another case filed by Jimoh Ibrahim marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/591/2016 Justice Abang held that the Sheriff-led NEC was the authentic leadership body of the party. Ibrahim, who had by then emerged as a candidate of the Sheriff-led NEC backed Poroye state executive in Ondo) urged the court to order INEC to accet him as the party’s candidate.

    Apparently buoyed by the judge’s subsequent pronouncements, Poroye, Genty and others, who were favoured by the June 29 judgment, went back to court, with a post judgment application, accusing INEC of acting in contempt of court by accepting the name of Jegede (who emerged as a candidate of the Makarfi led CTC backed Mimiko camp), as against their candidate, Ibrahim.

    They said the post-judgment application was informed by INEC’s refusal to accept their candidate, as directed by the court in its June 29 judgment.

    The plaintiffs said INEC was aware that the judgment of the court relate to five other states where the general elections would hold in 2019 and is in good position to understand the implications of the judgment for Ondo State where elections would hold in 2016, but chose to ignore the obvious implication.

    They added that INEC was also aware that the judgment was predicated upon the May 19, 2016 letter of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the PDP, which was addressed to it (INEC), confirming to it that Pororye and Genty are leaders of the authentic state Executive Committee of the party in Ondo State.

    In the post-judgement ruling on October 14, Justice Abang ordered INEC to accept Ibrahim as the PDP candidate for the forthcoming election in Ondo scheduled for November 26. He held that INEC was without any reason not to accept the candidate submitted to INEC by the plaintiffs.

    The judge noted that not only did INEC participate in the proceedings leading to the June 29 judgment, it was not on record that the judgment has been appealed. Justice Abang, who also noted that since INEC did not contest the case and appealed the judgement, wondered why it chose not to obey it.

    “INEC knew that issues were not joined by parties on the date of the election, but issues were joined by parties as regard who INEC was ordered to deal with exclusively during the plaintiffs’ tenure as executive officers.

    “As for PDP in Ondo State, the purport of the order ?of court being that any election conducted by INEC during the applicants’ tenure in office, INEC has no choice than to accept the list of candidates from the instant judgment creditor applicants herein,” the judge said.

    Justice Abang ordered INEC to “accept and process for the purpose of its functions and activities in the organisation and conduct of the Ondo State governorship election only the nomination of Barrister Jimoh Ibrahim Folorunso, who emerged from the primary election conducted by the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs/applicants, as candidate of the 2nd defendant (PDP) in the said Ondo governorship election.”

    He also ordered INEC to “reject and jettison any other nomination from(s) submitted to it by any other person(s) apart from the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs/applicants, indicating that no other person, apart from Barrister Jimoh Ibrahim Folorunso, is the candidate of the 2nd defendant for the Ondo State governorship election.”

    In compliance with the October 14 order by Justice Abang, INEC, on October 27 replaced Jegede with Ibrahim, with a caveat that it would effect further charges should there be counter orders from the other appellate courts.

    Jolted by the sudden turn of event, the Mimiko camp raced to the Court of Appeal, filing multiple appeals against the various decisions by the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Some of the appeals are: CA/A/402/2016 filed in the name of PDP against Benson Akingboye and 2 others; CA/A/551/m/2016 filed by Ahmed Makarfi and another against Biyi Poroye and 10 others CA/A/551A/m/2016 by Clement Faboyede and another against Biyi Poroye and 10 others.

    There are also appeals Nos: CA/A/402/2016 filed in the name of PDP against Benson Akingboye and 2 others; CA/A/402A/2016 /2016 also filed in the name of PDP against Benson Akingboye and 2 others and CA/A/464/2016 in the name of PDP against Ali Modu Sheriff and 9 others. Two other appeals marked CA/A/551B/2016 and CA/A/551C/2016 are by Jegede.

    Indication that the request by the appellants for accelerated hearing of the appeals might suffer setbacks emerged at the early stage when, for unexplained reasons, authorities of the Court of Appeal disbanded a panel earlier constituted to hear the appeals shortly after it (the panel) had sent out hearing notices to parties.

    Another panel, it was learnt was promptly constituted by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa. Swiftly, the Justice Jumai Sankey – led panel set to work, with the determination to render judgments in all the appeals in at most, two weeks, a position the Sheriff/Poroye/Ibrahim camp was not comfortable with.

    Before the Justice Sankey led panel could commence hearing, scheduled for November 1 and 2, the Sheriff/Poroye/Ibrahim camp had fired two petitions to the President of the Court of Appeal, demanding the disbandment of the panel, alleging that it had been compromised by the Miimiko camp.

    Parties had returned to court on November 1, with the Mimiko camp hopeful of a favourable outing, only to be taken back later when the panel announced its withdrawal from the cases. Shortly after the day’s proceedings commenced, a court official called one of the appeals by Jegede, only for Justice Sankey to disclose that a petition had been written against the panel, containing many allegations, including claim that members of the panel were induced to act in favour of the appellant.

    When the panel sought the views of Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who represented Eyitayo, the lawyer said he was embarrassed by the petition. He condemned it and asked that the panel should proceed to hear the case in view of the fact that time was of the essence.

    Olanipekun urged the Justices not to succumb to an attempt to intimidate them. He suggested that the petitioner should be handed to security agents for interrogation and that the outcome of the investigation should be made public.

    Lawyer to Pororye and eight other members of his Executive in Ondo PDP, Alex Iziyon (SAN) distanced himself from the petition. He said he was not informed by his clients that a petition was being authored.

    Iziyon surged members of the panel not be bothered by the antics of politicians, who have chosen to turn the court into a football, that they could play around as it pleases them.

    He told the court that a similar petition was written “by the other party against the trial judge at the lower court. They cannot now complain because they are now at the receiving end.

    “These are politicians. The court should not be played around like a football by politicians. I have come to do my case according to law,” Iziyon said.

    After listening to lawyers in the case, the panel rose briefly, only to return about 30 minutes later to announce its withdrawal.

    “Ordinarily, since no facts have been placed before this court formally, to show a likelihood of bias on the part of the panel, and since learned Senior Advocates for the petitioner and first respondent has disassociated himself from the petition, we would have been minded to continue with the hearing of these appeals.

    “This position will accord with settled law on bias against a judge on the basis of which his recusal is sought. It is that a judge, upon such a mere allegation, should not simply throw in the towel and abandon the case. “Such an attitude has been described as an abdication of judicial responsibility. It is the duty of the judge to consider the facts placed before him to find out if they are not just spurious and whimsical, but discloses a reasonable basis that there is a real likelihood of bias.

    “Even though this petition has fallen short of showing any likelihood of bias, nonetheless, we consider it more desirable to recuse ourselves at this stage in respect of all appeals and applications connected to the Ondo State governorship election.

    “All the files in this regard are now sent back to the Honourable President of the Court of Appeal for re-assignment,” Justice Sankey said in a short ruling.

    The following day, Justice Bulkachuwa constituted a fresh three-man panel head by Justice Ibrahim Saulawa to hear the appeals.

    At the panel’s inaugural sitting on November 4, it was confronted with two sets of applications from the Sheriff/Poroye/Ibrahim camp. The first set consist of those calling for the reversal of Justice Bulkachuwa’s decision to constitute a fresh panel and the disbandment of the panel

    It is part of the appellant’s contention that Justice Bulkachuwa violated their right to fair hearing when she decided to constitute a special panel to hear the appeal solely based on the representation by the appellants that the appeals required urgency.

    They argued that since the appeal relate to pre-election decisions, there was no urgency, except the urgency claimed by the appellants was intended to deny them (the applicants) justice.

    The second sets of application seek among others, a stay of further proceedings in respect of some of the appeals relating to the question of who could take decision for the PDP, pending the determination of an appeal now before the Supreme Court.

    Before adjourning on November 4, the Justice Saulawa-led panel agreed to hear all preliminary applications on November 7 and rule on the application for stay of proceedings.

  • ‘Litigations diverting Ikpeazu’s attention’

    ‘Litigations diverting Ikpeazu’s attention’

    Three-time Commissioner for Information and Strategy in Abia State Dr. Eze Chikamnayo is the Director-General of Abia Interest Group. He spoke with EMMANUEL OLADESU on the challenges facing the Ikpeazu administration and how the governor is grappling with them, despite the litigations against him by foes.  

    Abia State is 25 years old. What is your assessment of the journey so far?

    So far, to the glory of God, so good.  Twenty five years in the life of a state is a milestone. It is the silver jubilee anniversary. The people of Abia State are very grateful that the labours of our forefathers, who worked for the creation of the state, have not been in vain and the pre-eminence and the grace of God abound. Since 1991, Abia was governed by military administrators and other civilian governors. There was an interregnum. Ogbonnaya Onu, the Minister of Science and Technology, was the first civilian governor of the old Abia State. But, his own part o the old state is now in Ebonyi State. But, his administration was short-lived. He governed for barely two years beore the military took over again.  Between 1999 and 2007, Governor Orji Uzor Kalu was governor. He handed over to the PPA governor, Theodore Orji. After two years, Orji came to the PDP. He was governor until last year when he handed over to Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu. One thing that has stood out is the Abia spirit; the spirit of industry, tenacity of purpose, excellence. That spirit has characterised the various dispensations, both military and civilian. We have fared well. But, we could fare better. There is always a room for improvement.

    Why has it been difficult for the successive administrations to reduce poverty in the state?

    There is reduction. May be, the reduction is not as significant as expected. Abia is a component part of Nigeria. Whatever happens in Nigeria affects the state. Now that the country is in recession, it has affected every part of the country. Some of the governments in Umuahia did better than others. But, on the average, I think  there has been poverty reduction in Abia State.

    Has the recurrent bickering among the top members o the political class not affected governance and development in Abia?

    Of course, rancorous struggles distracts the governors from total devotion to project implementation and the delivery of other democratic dividends. From 1999 to 2007, Abia State witnessed a lot of political tussle. Kalu left the PDP to PPA, leaving behind personalities like Onyema Ugochukwu, Ojo Maduekwe and Vincent Ogbulaor. The polarisation led to power tussle which to a great extent afffected governance. The polity was heated up. There was quarrel between Abuja politicians and Abia politicians. The fratricidal  warfare impacted negatively on the people of Abia State. It extended to the time of Chief Theodore Orji. As the protege of Orji Kalu, Chief T.A. Orji inherited the enemies of Kalu and the battle continued. That led his to his defection to the APGA and later, to the PDP to reunite with his former adversaries. Abia witnessed a quantum leap when T.A. Orji started working with Ugochukwu, Maduekwe, Ogbulafor and Abaribe. Where there is peace, unity and cooperation, the state will fare better. It was better than when one camp was fighting the other camp under Orji Kalu. But, when T.A. Orji was to hand over, political skirmishes erupted. Dr. Alex Otti, a governorship aspirant in the PDP, defected to the APGA, shortly before the primary, and became a major opponent to the establishment he belonged to. The political war started again. But, for the vision and tenacity of purpose of Governor Okezie Ikpeazu, the state would have been in a terrible situation.

    What’s now the place of Orji Kalu in Abia State, following the resistance to his intention to return to the PDP by his foes?

    Chief Orji Kalu is a former governor of Abia State. He has played his role during the time allotted to him by the electorate and by God. He is now a statesman. As a private businessman, he is making contributions to the economy. He contested the last senatorial election. The outcome is still at the tribunal. I leave the people and posterity to judge.

    What’s the assurance that the predecessor-successor crisis that characterised the relationship between Orji Kalu ad T.A. Orji will not repeat itself between T.A. Orji and Ikpeazu?

    You should understand the character of the dramatis personae before you can understand the adversarial relationship. Chief Orji Kalu, more or less, single-handedly facilitated the emergence of T.A. Orji. Along the line. T. A. Orji felt that Orji Kalu’s influence was over-bearing and suffocating and he had to pull out. He decided to be his own man and run his own government.  That had a backlash. I do not see that happening now. Chief T.A. Orji must have learnt one or two lessons from his encounter with Chief Orji Kalu. When you play your role, you leave the scene and you allow a new entrant to try. Politics, governance is like a game of football. If the coach replaces a player, he plays the role of a fan at the sideline. Chief T. A. Orji will not like to be seen to be exercising over-bearing influence on his successor. Okezie Ikpeazu is the most refined and educated occupant of the seat, apart from Dr. Ogbonnaya Onu. By his nature, Ikpeazu is a peace-loving, amiable, easy-going individual, who despite his strong convictions, has a wonderful diplomatic ability to unite, instead of dividing the state. In the last one year that he has been governor, all the elders and leaders of Abia State have been speaking with one voice. This has led to peace.

    What concrete achievement can be ascribed to the governor, whose attention has been diverted by litigations in the last one year?

    Everybody knows that issues of litigations should not last or too long. There were successive amendments to the electoral law so that people who assume offices will not be bugged down by litigation. Unfortunately, in the case of Abia, over one year in office, the governor has had all manners of distractions. His main challenger at the election was Dr. Alex Otti of APGA. After he won at the Supreme Court, it was expected that he will now settle down for the implementation of his programmes and policies. Regrettably, Chief Uche Ogah decided to go and enact what every Abia believes is a deliberate plot to take the state back to the doldrums. Dr. Ikpeazu has shocked everybody by his capacity to remain focus. He has been constructing and rehabilitating roads in every area, particularly in Aba, the commercial nerve centre. The governor has given Aba its proper place in the scheme of things. The governor has given attention to agriculture, education, commerce and industry.

    Chief Uche Ogah should drop his case against the governor. It is a distraction. It is annoying to the people. Uche Ogah never contested an election. he was not a candidate of any party. His case is a frivolous case and it is provocative. He should bury the hatchet.

    How has the governor been coping with the dwindling allocation from the Federal Government and how has he been able to increase the state’s Internally Generated Revenue?

    In the face o the dwindling revenue and resources, there is an increasing demand  for performance by the people.  The governor has said that he does not believe in over-taxing the people. he does not like multiple-taxation. He knows that the people are going through hard times and he does not intend to impoverish the people. he has centralised the revenue collection mechanism. He has further empowered the Board of Inland Revenue to have e-payment. He has eliminated all the thugs who constituted themselves into nuisance. When the government is working and the people are convinced, they will pay tax. From between N200 million to N300 million, the IGR has moved to N500.

     

     

  • Ooni: Despair as litigations becloud selection

    Ooni: Despair as litigations becloud selection

    With the web of litigations beclouding the process, many indigenes and observers are beginning to despair over the selection of a new man for the stool of the Ooni of Ife. BISI OLADELE examines the suits filed by individuals and ruling houses to make kingmakers and government to toe their paths

     

    When will a new Ooni of Ife emerge? This has become a recurrent question going by the number of court cases clouding the process of selecting the right candidate for the vacant stool.

    Since the Osun State Government wrote a letter to the kingmakers early September, instructing them to ask Giesi Ruling House to present candidates for the stool, two other ruling houses-Lafogido and Osinkola-as well as some individuals in the two ruling houses have filed a number of suits challenging the propriety of government’s decision to restrict right to present candidates to only Giesi.

    No fewer than four suits have so far been filed in court against the process. The four ruling houses in the town are Lafogido, Ogboru, Osinkola and Giesi.

    While Lafogido contends that Osinkola has been successfully divided into three – Osinkola, Ogboru and Giesi-to its own detriment, it should not be excluded from presenting candidates; Osinkola contends that all the four houses have the right to nominate candidates for the stool out of which only one prince will be chosen.

    Lafogido insists that the 1980 Ife Chieftaincy Declaration used by the government to pick Giesi as the next ruling house was allegedly “lopsided, unjust, unfair and repugnant to natural justice, equity and good governance.”

    It further posits that the complaint of lopsidedness had been presented before a judicial commission of inquiry in 1994, recalling that though the commission rejected its proposal to also split Lafogido to three, it (the commission) recommended that government should urgently convey a meeting of the four ruling houses to enable them to agree on whether or not to amend the declaration.

    It added that although the commission submitted its report to the government, it did not act on it until the stool became vacant again following the death of Oba Okunade Sijuwade on July 28, this year.

    Among others, Lafogido contends, in its statement of claim in the suit number HOS/16/2015, that “the 1980 Ooni of Ife Chieftaincy Declaration is fundamentally flawed in that it contradicts the culture, tradition and practice of Ife in the filling of Ooni of Ife vacant stool, in that it attempts to split Osinkola Ruling House into three namely Osinkola, Ogboru and Giesi ruling houses while the plaintiffs ruling house remained only one.”

    Consequently, Lafogido prayed the court for “a declaration that the 1980 Ooni of Ife Chieftaincy Declaration is lopsided, unjust, repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience;”

    It further prayed the court for an order setting aside the declaration, an injunction restraining Osun State and kingmakers from selecting the new Ooni using the 1980 declaration and an order directing the government and kingmakers “to revert to the old and ancient tradition of selecting the Ooni through the Ifa Oracle.”

    The court has since granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants from going on with its plan to select candidates from the Giesi Ruling House pending the determination of the suit.

    In another suit marked HOS/19/2015 by Lafogido Princes, the plaintiffs seek, in addition to the above prayers, inclusion of Lafogido and other ruling houses in the selection process and “a declaration that a press release by the kingmakers wherein they asked all other ruling houses to wait for their turn is not in tandem with the spirit and tenor of the 1980 Ooni of Ife Chieftaincy Declaration.”

    Relying on section three of the said declaration, Lafogido added that by the press release, the kingmakers “have become biased and acted against the spirit, tenor and proper interpretation of the 1980 Ooni of Ife Chieftaincy Declaration in shutting out other ruling houses from the race.”

    According to the 1980 gazette, the four ruling houses are arranged in the following order: Osinkola (then ruling), Ogboru, Giesi and Lafogido. Clearly, the arrangement took cognisance of the then incumbent Ooni, Oba Aderemi, who hailed from Osinkola Ruling House.

    The gazette, however, stated that in the event of the death of an incumbent, the next houses on the line should produce the next Ooni but that the second next can produce the king if the candidate of the immediate next ruling house is not acceptable.

    As for Osinkola Ruling House, its contention is that rotational ascension to the throne is alien to the history and culture of the people. It claims that there is only one ruling house for the throne. The ruling house, according to Osinkola, is the Ooni Ruling House, which it insists, belongs to one family known as the Ooni of Ife family. This family, Osinkola claims, has four branches known as the four ruling houses in Ile-Ife today. They are Osinkola, Lafogido, Giesi and Ogboru.

    For this reason, Osinkola posits that princes in the four branches are entitled to vie for the vacant stool instead of restricting it to only one branch as done by the government in its September letter to Ife kingmakers.

    The ruling house is seeking, among others, a declaration that the four ruling houses are branches of the sole ruling house of the Ooni of Ife; and a declaration that governor Rauf Aregbesola’s instruction to Giesi Ruling House to nominate candidates for the throne for kingmakers’ consideration is “discriminatory, inequitable, sacrilegious, untraditional, not in tune with the people’s custom, illegal, unconstitutional, ultra cures, null and void and of no effect.” It is also seeking the declaration of the 1980 Chieftaincy Declaration in the above terms. The suit is marked HOS/18/2015.

    There is another suit filed in the Ile-Ife judicial division by some members of the Lafogido Ruling House.

    The Chief Judge of Osun State, Justice Adepele Ojo, is hearing the two cases filed in Oshogbo. The judge expressed desire to consolidate all the cases since they are on the same selection of a new Ooni but it is not yet clear if all the parties and their lawyers want to accept the proposal.

    Given this web of litigations by the ruling houses, Ife kingmakers have their hands tied in continuing with the process of selecting a new Ooni.

    At the resumed hearing of two of the suits in High Court One, Oshogbo on Tuesday last week, some of the kingmakers in attendance expressed anger. While ruminating over the ongoing suits, some of them wondered why some princes and the ruling houses chose to stall the process through the channel of the court.

    But as the legal fireworks take shape, Southwest Report gathered that elders in the town were already mulling intervention to prevent an interregnum because of the importance of the stool to the Yoruba all over the world. If the elders successfully intervene, the ruling houses may end up shifting ground for a ruling house to nominate candidates for the stool. Otherwise, litigations may create a long period of interregnum.

    For now, indigenes of the town who are only expecting a succession may already be in despair as the news of much litigation surrounding the selection process fill the air daily.

     

  • Litigations stall due process, says BPP chief

    Litigations stall due process, says BPP chief

    The Director General, Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP),  Emeka Ezeh, lamented yesterday that long delays in tidying up court processes is hindering the agency from discharging its statutory functions.

    He also said the agency has saved N500 billion for the government since it was created.

    Speaking while receiving the National President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Augustine Alegeh (SAN), who led a delegation of its national officers on courtesy call to BPP’s office in Abuja, he lamented that since it started operation,  it  has only been able to get two court judgements, which were all in its favour.

    According to him, some lawyers still lack good grasp  of the Procurement Act.

    He also told his guests that any contractor who fails to register and is not captured in its database will not be allowed to do business with the government with effect from next year.

    He said: “Long delays in court processes are not helping in deepening procurement processes. The two court judgements we have got so far have been in our favour.”

    “We have been frustrated by the judiciary at times. Many lawyers are not aware of the BPP Act. That is why we distributed 10, 000 copies of the Act to lawyers and judges at one of the NBA conferences.

    “We need sector-specific lawyers because of the low-level awareness of the BPP Act among lawyers. We observe that some senior lawyers get beaten by younger, smarter lawyers who have deeply studied the Act.”

    Ezeh said since 2007 to date, BPP has been able to save N500 billion for the government as the difference between what was applied for by the Ministries, Department and Agencies (MDAs) and what was approved.

  • Litigations delay claims settlement—NDIC boss

    Litigations delay claims settlement—NDIC boss

    Excessive litigations, lack of understanding of the legal role of the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) as liquidator, are parts of the problem crisis hampering the effective settlement of depositors, NDIC Managing Director/Chief Executive, Alh. Umaru Ibrahim has said.

    Ibrahim made this remark at the opening ceremony of the sensitisation seminar for NDIC External Solicitors in Abuja over the weekend, with the theme: “Challenges to Deposit Insurance Law and Practice in Nigeria.”

    The NDIC boss said in the over 20 years of the Corporation’s existence, it had made giant strides in protecting depositors’ funds through its statutory mandate of deposit guarantee, bank supervision, bank failure resolution and bank liquidation.

    He, however, added that the execution of court judgments against the assets of the Corporation as liquidator and the difficulty in recovering debts owed to failed banks were part of the challenges that must be addressed for the NDIC to have a greater impact on depositor protection. He described the seminar as a crucial step towards tackling these challenges by enhancing the capacity of lawyers to gain a full understanding of the legal issues involved.

    Papers presented at the seminar included: “Discourse on The Proper Parties to a Suit in Respect of a Bank Liquidation” presented by NDIC Director Legal Department, Barr. A. B. Nyako and “The Recovery of Debt under the Failed Bank Act: Application for Debt Recovery (Form A)” by A. B. Mahmud (SAN).

    The second leg of the seminar is expected to hold in Lagos next week.

    It would also be recalled that the Corporation held similar sensitization seminars for judges in collaboration with the National Judicial Institute in June 2012 and the Federal High Court in March 2013 respectively.

  • Litigations stalled evacuation of abandoned aircrafts – FAAN

    The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria on Wednesday explained that series of litigations were responsible for the non- removal of abandoned aircrafts in airports across the country.

    It said it was discovered that many of the aircrafts were used as collateral for loans.

    The General Manager, Corporate Communications, FAAN, Hon Yakubu Dati, stated this in Benin City in while taking Journalists on a tour of the reconstructed Benin Airport.

    Yakubu said they have advised owners of abandoned aircraft on ways to dispose the aircraft and still make profits.

    He said, “We are in the age of recycling and most of these planes were built with plastic and metals. We have advised owners on several ways to dispose the aircraft and still make profit.

    “By the time the period we are giving them elapses, FAAN will take steps to clear the abandoned aircraft because it distorts the master plan of airports.”

    Hesaid the commissioning of the reconstructed Benin Airport was put on hold because of the recent helicopter crash in Bayelsa State.

    He noted that the Benin Airport which was commissioned 30 years ago was remodelled and reconstructed to become a centre piece of activities and hub of economic activities.