The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Mike Ozekhome (SAN)

  • Court orders service of processes on Magu over detention of lawyer, ex-Senator

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Apo, Abuja has ordered substituted service of processes be effected on the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu over a contempt proceedings initiated by a lawyer, Monday Ubani and former Christopher Enai.

    Ubani, a former national officer of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), and Enai, an ex-senator from Bayelsa State were said to have been detained by the EFCC since March19 this year when they honoured the commission’s invitation.

    Ubani and Enai are  ‘standing surety’ for Mrs. Ngozi Olejeme, a former Chairman of the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF), who the commission is investigating for alleged corruption.

    On March 26, upon listening to Mike Ozekhome (SAN), who argued a motion ex-parte, seeking the release of Ubani and Enai, Justice Sylvanus Oriji Oriji ordered the EFCC to either charge Ubani and Enai to court or release them on bail on or before March 28.

    After March 28, and on realising that the EFCC failed to obey the court’s order, Ozekhome returned to court to seek the issuance of Form 48 (notice of consequences of disobedience of court’s order) and Form 49, seeking the committal of the EFCC Chairman to prison for allegedly disobeying an order of court.

    Read Also: Why we didn’t confirm Magu, by Saraki

    Ozekhome on Tuesday told the court of the difficulty encountered in serving the court processes.

    He said the court’s bailiff, Ishaya Markus, was denied access to Magu by the armed security personnel at his office at the EFCC headquarters in Jabi, Abuja. He said the operatives told the bailiff that he could only see Magu on invitation.

    Ozekhome then urged the court to order that the Forms 48 and 49 be either served on any officer at the mail registry of the Chairman of the EFCC, Legal Department at EFCC headquarters or by pasting same at the gate of the EFCC headquarters.

    In a ruling yesterday, Justice Oriji  held that the court has the power to make an order for substituted service of court processes where it appears that prompt service cannot be conveniently effected.

    The judge, in granting Ozekhome’s prayer for the service of the Forms 48 and 49 on Magu through substituted means, said “In exercise of the power of the court under Order 7 Rule 11, I grant this motion.”.

  • Court says AGF can defend Diezani’s ally’s suit against UK agencies

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Apo, Abuja has said the office of Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) or any lawyer from the office was qualified to defend agencies and officials of the United Kingdom (UK) sued in Nigeria by an ally to ex-Petroleum Minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke.

    Justice Olukayode Adeniyi made the pronouncement while ruling on the objection raised by Benedict Peters (ally to the ex-minister) and three of his companies – Collinwood Limited, Rosewood Investment Limited and Walworth Properties – against the appearance of lawyers from the office of the AGF for the foreign officials and agencies in a suit they filed.

    Peters, Collinwood, Rosewood and Walworth had, on December 29, 2017 filed the suit marked: FCT/HC/CV/0536/17 seeking to set aside three orders given on April 13 and 29, 2016 by the Federal High Court in Abuja and on October 19, 2017 by the Crown Court in Southwark, UK.

    The orders for interim forfeiture prohibited the disposal of the assets in Nigeria and UK in respect of which the orders were made, pending the conclusion of on-going investigations into allegations of money laundering against the ex-minister, on whose behalf investigators believed the plaintiffs acted.

    Read Also:Congress: INEC, APC urge court to reject motion to stop Lagos delegates

    It is the contention by Peters, Collinwood, Rosewood and Walworth that the attached properties belonged to them and not to the ex-Petroleum Minster.

    Mike Ozekhome (SAN), who filed the suit for the plaintiffs, listed the AGF, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), UK; Helen Hughes (an official of CPS), The National Crime Agency (NCA), UK; Stacey Boniface and John Bavister (both investigators for NCA) as defendants.

    At the commencement of hearing in the case, lawyers from the office of the AGF announced appearances for the AGF and the foreign agencies and officials, a development the plaintiffs objected to. They argued that Nigerian government’s lawyers could not represent UK officials and agencies sued in Nigeria.

    In his ruling on June 11 this year, Justice Adeniyi upheld the AGF’s argument that Nigerian government’s lawyers could represent the UK agencies and officials in view of existing legal treaties and agreements between both countries.

    The judge identified the agreements as the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters within the Commonwealth (Enactment and Enforcement Act, No: 13 of 1998 and the Treaty Series No: 18 (1994) otherwise known as the Agreement between Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, concerning investigation and prosecution of crime and confiscation of proceed of crime.

    Justice Adeniyi noted that, since the UK officials and agencies had acted based on the mutual legal agreement and treaties in securing the order given by the Crown Court in Southwark in favour of the Nigeria, it was wrong to seek to prevent the AGF and lawyers from his office from relying on the said agreement and treaties to represent the foreign officials and agencies before a Nigerian court.

    The judge said such representation by the either the AGF or lawyers from his office becomes more appropriate when the suit was as a result of the assistance the foreign agencies and officials rendered to the Nigerian government in securing the order for the temporary forfeiture of the properties in London allegedly linked to the ex-Petroleum minister.

    Justice Adeniyi said: “The plaintiff has not established that the representation of the foreign agencies and officials, by the AGF or officials from his office, were not authorised by them (the foreign officials and agencies) and that the representation will prejudice them (the plaintiffs).

    “The instant suit is a fall out of the seizure of properties allegedly acquired by erstwhile Minister of Petroleum, Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke. The representation of the AGF or officers from his office is in order.

    “I see no constitutional disability restraining the AGF and any officer from the office from appearing for 3-7th defendants. I fine no merit in this objection. It is overruled and dismissed,” the judge said.

    Justice Adeniyi adjourned to June 22 for the hearing of objection raised against the competence of the suit by the 3-7th defendants and the application by the plaintiffs for interlocutory injunctions.

  • Court orders forfeiture of Patience Jonathan’s Abuja property

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the interim forfeiture of two buildings allegedly owned by former First Lady, Patience Jonathan.

    Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, in a ruling on Monday said the interim order granted based on an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), shall last for 45 days, but subject to renewal upon application by the EFCC.

    The property are identified as: Plot No: 1960 Cadastral Zone A05 Maitama District and 1758 Cadastral Zone A00 Business District, Abuja, located on Shehu Yar’Adua Way, along Mabushi-Kado Life Camp Expressway, Abuja.

    The property currently serve as the headquarters of two groups –  A. Aruera Reachout Foundation/Women For Change and Development Initiative – linked with the ex-First Lady.

    The judge also restrained the owners of the property from selling or mortgaging them while the forfeiture order lasts.

    Justice Dimgba said the orders were necessary to enable the EFCC conduct its investigation on the property.

    The said the applicant should, at the end of its investigation, file charges where the allegations against the respondents are established.

    The judge said: “I hereby accordingly grant reliefs 1 and 2 sought.  Relief 3 is refused, because it is not supported by the grounds of the application and thus unnecessary in the circumstances of the application.”

    The two reliefs granted are:

    *An order of interim attachment / forfeiture of the asset and property set out in the schedule attached herein. (Plot No. 1960 Cadastral Zone A05, MAitama District, Abuja; and Plot No. 1350, Cadastral Zone A00, Abuja).

    *An order stopping any disposal, conveyance, mortgage, lease, sale or alienation or otherwise of the property/asset described in the schedule herein

    The third relief refused by the court related to EFCC’s request for permission to appoint either a firm or individuals to manage the property.

    The judge added: “The order of court granting the reliefs shall last only for a period of 45 days within which the applicant must conclude their investigation and file necessary criminal charges where investigation reveals the commission of a crime.

    “The applicant is at liberty to apply for a renewal of the order on cause, provided that such an application to be valid is made before the expiry of the 45 days validity period granted by the Court.

    “Given the highly contentious nature of this application, I further order that where the applicant wishes to physically access the attached properties in execution of the order herein made, the applicant with the representatives of the respondent, shall take an inventory of all the contents and fixtures of the properties and shall file a report/result of such inventory to this court.”

    The judge dismissed the respondent’s objection to the suit. In dismissing the objection, the judge rejected the respondent’s argument that the suit was not properly commenced and that it was an abuse of court process.

    Lawyer to the respondent, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), while reacting to  the court’s decision said by the judgment, his client has lost nothing.

    “We did not lose,we  won. What the EFCC wanted was for the property in dispute attached and forfeited to the government but the court refused and instead gave them 45 days to further investigate and prosecute if they so wish with liberty to apply for renewal.

    “That is actually victory for us as the property was not forfeited,” Ozekhome said.

    Read Also: Court grants interim forfeiture of Patience Jonathan’s property

     

  • Recall process: Dino Melaye heads for Supreme Court

    …Seeks voiding of Appeal Court’s judgment affirming INEC’s power on recall

     

     

    Senator Dino Melaye (All Progressives Congress – Kogi West) has lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court against the March 16, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which affirmed the power of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a referendum for the purpose of recalling a legislator unhindered.

    Melaye, in a notice of appeal dated April 3, 2018, filed by his lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), urged the Supreme Court to among others, set aside the Court of Appeal judgment, which upheld an earlier judgment by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    INEC had in July last year, on receiving a petition from some registered voters from Melaye’s constituency, requesting his recall on grounds of non-performance, wrote to notify him about the petition and further steps it intended to take.

    On learning about the petition, Melaye filed fundamental rights enforcement suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja, accusing INEC of not affording him fair hearing by not serving him with a copy of the petition to enable him respond.

    Before the suit could be heard, Justice John Tsoho (also of the Federal High Court, Abuja) entertained an ex-parte application from Melaye, and granted it, restraining INEC from taking any further steps in relation to the petition.

    Justice Dimgba, who later heard the substantive suit, dismissed it for being unmeritorious. The judge, in his judgment, held that Melaye’s suit was “hasty, premature and presumptuous.”

    Melaye appealed to the Court of Appeal, which, in a unanimous judgment of a three-man panel on March 16, 2018, dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.

    Justice Tunde Awotoye, who read the Court of Appeal’s lead judgment, upheld the decision of the Federal High Court and said the trial court ought not to have wasted time hearing Melaye’s suit, but should have struck it out for not disclosing any cause of action.

    Justice Awotoye said: “Such statutory bodies like the INEC should be allowed to exercise their statutory powers without interference by the court. The appellant cannot claim that his right of fair hearing was infringed upon. His right to fair hearing has not been violated since INEC, as a statutory body, is not a tribunal neither is it a court of law.

    “The appellant has not disclosed any cause of action and the suit ought to have been struck out by the trial court for not disclosing any cause of action. I agree with the decision of the trial court.

    “Ordinary, it ought to have struck out the suit for non-disclosure of cause of action. This is because where there is no cause of action, the court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit.  Having resolved all the issues in the appeal against the appellant, I hereby struck out the suit and dismiss the appeal,” Justice Awotoye said,

    It is this decision of the Court of Appeal that Melaye now seeks to challenge at the Supreme Court with his notice of appeal of seven grounds.

    As against the finding by the Court of Appeal that INEC was still within time to conduct Melaye’s recall process, the Senator wants the Supreme Court to hold otherwise.

    Melaye wants the Supreme Court to, among others, declare that the statutory 90-day period for INEC to conduct a recall process, provide in Section 69(b) of the Constitution, having elapsed by effluxion of time on September 23, 2017, INEC can no longer validly proceed on the basis of the petition for his recall, presented on June 23, 2017.

    He equally wants an order of perpetual injunction, restraining INEC from commencing or further proceeding with the process of acting on the petition presented to it by his supposed ‎constituents.

    Read Also: INEC to proceed with Melaye’s recall as his appeal fails

  • Patience Jonathan begs court to unfreeze accounts with N3.5b, $5.8m

    Patience Jonathan begs court to unfreeze accounts with N3.5b, $5.8m

    Wife of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, Patience has asked a Federal High Court to lift the temporary freeze issued on 16 accounts allegedly held in banks by her and some firms linked to her.

    The accounts, said to contain $5.8million and N3.5 billion, are domicile in Zenith Skye, Eco, Fidelity, Stanbic IBTC and Diamond banks.

    Mrs. Jonathan’s request is contained in a motion she filed before the court, and in which she faulted the method adopted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in obtaining two ex-parte interim freezing orders on the accounts.

    She contended that the freezing orders have lapsed and should be vacated having been first made on May 30 this year and renewed on October 10.

    Mrs. Jonathan said the accounts were maintained by her, the Incorporated Trustees of her foundation -Ariwabai Aruera Reachout Foundation – and nine other companies in which she has interest.

    She argued that the orders of interim forfeiture made on May 30, 2017 including a subsequent one issued on October 10, 2017 have become spent and could no longer be extended, because the original order was obtained through an improper use of court process by the EFCC.

    She stated, in the motion filed by her lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN) that the Federal High Court in Abuja, on May 30 , 2017 granted an ex-parte order in favour of the of the Federal Government against all the accounts own and operated by her and the companies

    She said the same FG later went before the Lagos division of the court, presided over by Justice C.M.A Olatoregun to obtain similar order on October 10 this year in respect of accounts held by her, Finchley Top Homes limited and Ariwabai Aruera Reachout Foundation.

    Mrs. Jonathan stated that prior to the grant of the ex -parte motion  by the court in Abuja the FGhad filed a similar application before Justice Olatoregun of Lagos division but failed to disclose the fact that it had obtained same reliefs in Lagos.

    She added that the owners of the money were never served with the interim order and that they became aware of it during a hearing of a petition she lodged at the National Assembly.

    When the case was called yesterday before Justice Binta Nyako, Osekhome urged the court to first, here his client’s motion before the one filed by the EFCC for the extension of the orders earlier made by the court.

    Lawyer to the EFCC, Richard Dauda also insisted that his application should take precedence.

    Justice Nyako however, adjourned to November 23.

  • Melaye urges Appeal Court to void judgment on his recall

    Melaye urges Appeal Court to void judgment on his recall

    …Raises eight grounds of appeal

     

    Senator Dino Melaye (All Progressives Congress, Kogi West) has urged the Court of Appeal in Abuja to set aside the judgement, allowing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to proceed with the process to recall him.

    His request is contained in a notice of appeal filed Wednesday by his lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN).

    Melaye faulted the decision by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja, dismissing his fundamental rights enforcement suit and giving INEC the nod to proceed with Melaye’s recall process

    In his first ground of appeal, Melaye contended that the trial judge erred in law by holding that the petition presented to INEC for his recall was valid, even when the petition exhibited by INEC was not signed by more than half of the registered voters in the plaintiff’s appellant’s constituency as is required by section 69 of the 1999 Constitution.

    Melaye argued that the petition presented to INEC “by the purported constituents and exhibited before the court as Exhibit lNEC 1, was only signed by three persons, which number is less than the half of the registered voters” in the  constituency “as provided for by section 69 of the Constitution”.

    He said “a mere statistical analysis and general summary for the recall of Senator Dino Melaye (Exhibit DM13) done by INEC  itself”  and wholly relied upon by the trial court  “to hold that the petition was valid, can neither replace nor take place of the petition itself, which was tendered by INEC as exhibit”.

    Melaye also argued that the trial judge was in error when he held that the counting of the 90 days provided for by section 69 of the Constitution was halted in June 23, 2017, when theplaintiff/appellant commenced this action and subsequently ordered that the period would continue to run from September 11, 2017, the date of the judgment of the trial court” was delivered.

    He said contrary to the judge’s finding, “the time fixed by the Constitution for the doing of an act cannot be extended or expanded or elongated or in any way enlarged regarding what is to be done where not done within the time so fixed”.

    Melaye said such time fixed by the Constitution, “lapses since the court has no jurisdiction to extend the time fixed by the Constitution for the doing of an act”.

    He also argued in another ground of appeal that Justice Dimgba was wrong “by failing to consider the notice to produce issued on INEC to produce the petition for the recall of the plaintiff/ appellant and not invoking the provisions of section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, in the face of failure of the INEC to produce the purported petition allegedly signed by the plaintiff’s/appellant’s constituents despite service of a notice to produce on it”.

    Melaye said instead of doing this, the judge relied “on mere statistical analysis prepared by INEC itself to validate a petition which was invalid on its face.”

    Identifying his perceived errors In the judgment, Melaye stated that INEC, in its counter-affidavit to this originating summons, “exhibited the purported petition for the recall of the plaintiff which was signed by only three persons, a number grossly less than the number as required by the Constitution”.

    He added that he issued and served on INEC a notice to produce the petition for the recall as signed by more than half of the registered voters in the plaintiff’s constituency, “which it failed to do.”

    “Notwithstanding the notice to produce INEC failed, refused and neglected to produce the said petition before the court.

    “The court failed to invoke the provisions of section 167(d) of the Evidence Act to the effect that failure by INEC to produce the said petition meant that such petition, if it were produced, would have been adverse to the interest of lNEC,” he said

    Melaye also argued that the judge erred in law “when he failed to act on uncontroverted facts in the plaintiff’s/appellant’s affidavit in support of his Originating Summons and also his further affidavit in opposition to the defendant’s/respondent’s affidavit in opposition to the plaintiff’s originating summons.”

    Justice Dimgba had while directing INEC to proceed with the signatures verification exercise, also ordered the commission to issue an amended recall timetable giving the senator a minimum of two weeks to equip and be able defend himself against the recall process.

    The judge ordered that the amended timetable, alongside the copies of the petition, the list of signatures and the list of the names of the voters who signed in support of the recall petition, be served on Melaye.

  • Trial of Fayose’s ally: Court chides Ozekhome over delay

    Trial of Fayose’s ally: Court chides Ozekhome over delay

    …Court admits more evidence against Nyako in N29bn fraud trial

     

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has frowned at the conduct of a defence lawyer in the trial of Abiodun Agbele, an aide to Ekiti State governor, Ayodele Fayose.

    Agbele is charged alongside a former Minister of State for Defence, Musiliu Obanikoro (who was arraigned in absentia), Sylvan Mcnamara Limited, A. O. Adewale, Tunde Oshinowo and Olalekan Ogunseye on 11-count charge in which they are accused of laundering about N1.2 billion.

    The money is said to be part of the N4.7billion allegedly transferred from the imprest account of the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), to the bank account of Sylvan McNamara, a company allegedly owned by Obanikoro’s son.

    At the last proceedings on May 24, 2017 the court ordered Agbele’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), who had applied orally to withdraw appearance for the second defendant – Sylvan McNamara – to file a formal application to that effect within three days and serve copies on other parties in the case.

    Yesterday, Ozekhome was absent, but sent a junior, Godwin Iyinbor, who informed the court that his principal were yet to serve the application as ordered by the court.

    An infuriated lead prosecution lawyer, Wahab Shittu said: “this is a calculated attempt by the learned silk (Ozekhome) to frustrate the trial process and it should be discouraged”.

    Shittu described the development as unhealthy. He noted that the prosecution has consistently produced its witnesses to court at great cost.

    Another defence lawyer, Olalekan Ojo also wrote the court that he was attending an interview for the award of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) slated for Monday and Tuesday at the Supreme Court and sought for an adjournment.

    Trial judge, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba granted Ojo’s application, but frowned at Ozekhome’s conduct.

    He ordered service of the application by Ozekhome on parties before the next adjourned date and adjourned to October 12 and 13, 2017.

    Meanwhile, Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja yesterday admitted in evidence documents tendered by the prosecution in the trial of a former governor of Adamawa State, Murtala Nyako.

    Nyako is standing trial on a 37-count charge of conspiracy, stealing, abuse of office and money laundering to the tune of N29billion. He is being tried with his son, Senator Abdul-Aziz Nyako, Abubakar Aliyu and Zulkifikk Abba.

    Companies that allegedly served as conduit pipes for the illegal diversion of the funds are – Pagoda Fortunes Limited, Tower Assets Management Limited and Crust Energy Limited.

    One of the documents tendered by the prosecution yesterday, through the 12th prosecution witness, Caroline Utsaha, showed that N80million deposit was made in a day in the name of Blue Opal Limited; one of the companies allegedly used by the former governor to siphon the state funds.

    The documents tendered and admitted in evidence include: Letter dated July 21, 2014, captioned “Re-Investigation Activities”, with the account name – Blue Opal Limited – Exhibit H1.

    Letter dated August 15, 2014, captioned “Re-Investigation Activities”, with the account name – Opal Corporate Limited – Exhibit H2.

    Letter dated February 26, 2015, captioned “Re-Investigation Activities”, with the account name – Crust Energy Limited, and was admitted as Exhibit H3.

    Led in evidnce by lead prosecuting lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), Utsaha, a Relationship Manager with First Bank said: “In 2014, the EFCC wrote our Bank, requesting for details of the accounts packages and statements of accounts of three accounts.

    “The accounts were: Blue Opal Limited, Opal Corporate Limited and Crust Energy Limited. I got all they requested and did a forwarding letter to the Commission and also did an identification letter, indicating that the statements and all the documents are from First Bank.”

    When asked to look at Exhibit H1 and tell the court about the transactions therein, the witness said, “The entries here are series of deposits of Zenith bank cheque”.

    She went on: “On March 29, 2012, there were eight deposits of Zenith bank cheque of N10million each. The deposits were done on the same day”.

    Justice Abang later adjourned to July 4, 2017 for the continuation of hearing.

  • Court refuses Wike’s prayer to stop probe of ‎Rivers re-run violence

    Court refuses Wike’s prayer to stop probe of ‎Rivers re-run violence

    • Justice Kolawole orders IGP others to show cause on Jan 30
    Governor Nyasom Wike of Rivers State failed yesterday in his bid to restrain the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Ibrahim Idris from investigating complaints, allegations, petitions of crimes and various acts of criminality during December 10, 2016, re-run elections in the state.
    Justice Gabriel Kolawole, in a ruling on Monday, rejected an ex-parte motion by Wike, which was argued by his lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN).
    Justice Kolawole said some constitutional issues regarding the powers of an executive governor of a state were raised in the motion and needed to be addressed.
    The Judge refused Wike’s request for an order setting aside the IGP’s letter to Wilke dated December 20, 2016.
    Instead, Justice Kolawole ordered that the defendants – the IGP, the State Security Service (SSS) and a Deputy Commissioner of Police, Damian Okoro – to appear before him on January 30, 2017, to show cause why the relief sought by the Governor should not be granted.
    Wike had urged the court for an order of interin injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from enforcing or executing the matters contained in the letter written to governor him by the IGP on December 20, 2016.
    The IGP in the said letter titled, “Investigation into allegations of crimes committed during the last rerun elections in Rivers state,” said the, “purview of the investigation will cover allegations of bribes taken, several brazen murder incidents (including that of serving Police Officers), reports of gross human rights abuses, acts of sabotage/terrorism, kidnapping for ransom and ballot box snatching, all of which were perpetrated in connivance with several federal and state civil servants as well as highly placed politicians within and outside the state”.
    The letter also requested the Governor to furnish the police investigative team with all necessary information and exhibits that may assist the team in the investigation.
    Ozekhome had, while arguing the motion yesterday, told the court that the action of the police to constitute a panel to investigate the crisis that trailed the rerun elections in Rivers state was illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and null and void.
    He said it will be in the interest of justice for the court to set aside the IGP’s letter to governor Wike and direct the Police boss to await the outcome of the commission of inquiry set up by the governor.
    Ozekhome noted that the terms of reference of the panel of investigation set up by the police clearly suggest that the goal of the intended investigation is already pre-determined and biased or likely to be biased against Wike, having regard to the numerous conclusions already reached in the said letter.
    He argued that the intention of the police was to produce “a predetermined damning report” against Wike through the medium of the Commission of Inquiry.
    He added that “the defendants are working from the answer to the question with the predetermined objective of convicting the 2nd plaintiffs (Wike)”.
    Ozekhome argued that, with conclusions already drawn and reached by the police, without hearing from Wike, the IGP has already “convicted” the governor unheard.
    He added that the IGP was merely using the supposed investigation as a smokescreen and rubber stamp to give credence to the governor’s (2nd plaintiff) guilt.
    He prayed the court to set aside the letter by the IGP and direct the Police should await the outcome of the committee of inquiry already set up by Wike.
    A staff in Ozekhome’s law firm, Harrison Obi said, in a supporting affidavit that the actions of the security personnel were caught on video and presented to Nigerians and the whole world by various reputable television stations.
    He said after the election, governor Wike set up a commission of inquiry to look into the immediate and remote causes of the evidence that trailed the conduct of the elections, with a view to avoiding a similar occurrence in subsequent elections and punishing the perpetrators of the act.
    Obi said the commission of inquiry was set up under the Commission of Inquiry Law, Cap 30, Laws of Rivers State, which only governor Wike, as the Chief Security Officer of the state is legally empowered to constitute.
  • Dasuki’s aide begs Abuja court for bail

    Dasuki’s aide begs Abuja court for bail

    • Court to rule Monday

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Jabi has fixed March 14 for ruling on an application for bail brought by Colonel Nicholas Ashinze, former Special Assistant (SA) to ex-National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki.

    Justice Yusuf Halilu gave the date on Tuesday after listening to Ashinze’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN) argued his client’s application. The respondents, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Chief of Army Staff (CAS) and Nigeria Army were not represented.

    Ashinze, in his fundamental rights enforcement application, wants the court to, among others, declare illegal, “his arrest and continued detention from 23rd December, 2015 till date, by combined operatives of the EFCC and the Nigeria Army, without being given any reason and without granting him administrative bail within 24 hours, or 48 hours of his arrest and detention.

    He wants the court to order the respondents to release him, his personal effects, including documents and other items, which he claimed were unlawfully seized from him without any warrant, during his arrest and continued detention since 23rd December.

    Alternatively, Ashinze is seeking an order granting him bail on self-recognizance or in the most liberal terms as the court may deem fit in the peculiar circumstances of this case. He also wants the court to direct the respondents to tender a public apology to him and pay him N500million as exemplary damages for the alleged violation of his rights.

     

  • PDP chieftain insists Jonathan’s Centenary City project was ‘fraud’

    PDP chieftain insists Jonathan’s Centenary City project was ‘fraud’

    The National Vice Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) South-South, Dr. Cairo Ojuigbo, has questioned the integrity of ex-Goodluck Jonathan’s administration Centenary City Project in Abuja.

    Ojuigbo, who spoke in Abuja through his lawyer,  Kayode Ajulo, alleged that the integrity of the processes leading to the project was doubtful.

    The party chieftain,  who also chairs the Nigeria Export Processing Authority (NEPZA), was reacting to a report that former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Anyim Pius Anyim sued him for maintaining a similar position in media interviews.

    Anyim, in the N1 billion libel suit filed by his lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), claimed that Ojuigbo’s position was a slander on his person and could scare foreign investors.

    Ojuigbo said had instructed his lawyer to file a counter-suit once he received the court papers.

    The PDP chieftain, who expressed his determination to ensure that those behind the project, who acted unlawfully, were prosecuted, said he had petitioned the Inspector General of Police (IGP).

    Ojuigbo, who maintained his position, insisted that the “processes leading to the Centenary City, were elaborate and conceived to defraud the government and Nigerians.”

    His lawyer said he “remains un-intimidated and resolute in his claims and submission that the Centenary City Project is indeed a project devised to trick the authorities into giving a huge chunk of land to only one man under the guise of a Public Private Partnership.

    “Our client is resolute about his submissions and would leave no stone un-turned in his bid to bring the full detail of this scam to  public scrutiny and ensure that perpetrators of this fraudulent exercise are prosecuted by the law enforcement authorities.

     “Indeed, we have the authority of our client to initiate legal proceedings by way of sending petitions to the appropriate authorities as regards the issue.

     “It is this that made so laughable and ridiculous, the reports that the counsel to the ex-SGF had initiated legal proceedings against us; we are, therefore, expectant and eager to receive the papers and have our day in court, even as we pursue justice and reparations for victimisation in appropriate quarters.

    “We call on the Fourth Estate and the public to remain vigilant and keep these burning issues on the front burner, even as we are confident in the victory of justice and equity, over crime, corruption and dishonesty.”

    [news_box style=”2″ display=”tag” link_target=”_blank” tag=”Jonathan” count=”6″ show_more=”on” show_more_type=”link” header_background=”#3d3d3d” header_text_color=”#f7f7f7″]