The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Okoi Obono-Obla

  • ‘Why we are probing Mark’s acquisition of Senate President’s house’

    ‘Why we are probing Mark’s acquisition of Senate President’s house’

    The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) and the Chairman, Special Presidential Investigation Panel for Recovery of Public Property (SPIPRPP), Okoi Obono-Obla have explained why the panel was probing the purchase of the official residence of the Senate President by David Mark.

    They said the investigation was informed by information to the effect that Mark, a former Senate President, unlawfully acquired the property in 2011, without being reflected in the Federal Government’s gazette as required.

    They argued that the house said to be built on 1.6 hectares of land, located in Gudu, Apo, Abuja, is a national monument that was not meant to be acquired by an individual.

    Malami and Obono-Obla’s explanation is contained in the court papers they filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja Thursday in reaction to a suit by Mark, challenging the notice of investigation served on him by the SPIPRPP.

    The documents include a notice of preliminary objection, a counter-affidavit to Mark’s motion for interlocutory injunction and a defence to the substantive suit.

    An official in the office of the Chairman of SPIPRPP, Aribatise Olanrewaju, who deposed to the counter- affidavit for Malami and Obono-Obla stated that the panel was empowered to probe the circumstances in which Mark took over the property.

    He said although former President Goodluck approved the sale of the property to Mark; the purchase was not gazetted as required by law.

    He said: “The request of Senator Bala Muhammad (the then Minister of Federal Capital Territory) was approved by former President Jonathan, but on the condition that the sale should be gazetted.

    “However, the sales of the houses were never gazette. Notwithstanding the directive of former President Jonathan that the said house should be sold to the plaintiff upon enactment of a Federal Government gazette, the said property was illegally sold to the plaintiff;

    “The sales of these houses were never reflected in the Federal Government official gazette contrary to directive/ minute in the memo of Senator Bala Muhammad by former President Jonathan;

    “I know as a fact that the sale of the said house to the plaintiff was never conducted in a competitive bidding and transparent process; this is contrary to the provisions of Section 15 (1) of the Procurement Act, 2007;

    “I know as a fact that the sale was contrary to the provisions of the Federal Government of Nigeria official gazette No. 82, Vol. 92 of 15 August 2005;

    “The said house is a national monument, which should have never been sold;

    “I know as a fact that the provisions of Part 11 (b) of the Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2008 otherwise known as the Remuneration Act, 2008 provides that Senate President is provided with accommodation by the Federal Government of Nigeria.

    “I know as a fact that the sale to the said house was contrary to the provisions of Paragraphs 1  & 6 (1) of Part 1 of the 5th Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) since the purchaser (the Plaintiff) was a the Senate President  he purchased the house.”

    Olanrewaju referred the law that empowered the  panel to investigate Mark’s acquisition of the property.

    He said: “I know as a fact that the notice alluded to in paragraph 17 of the affidavit is therefore not a notice of eviction as claimed by the plaintiff/applicant.

    “I know as a fact that the 2nd defendant never declared the plaintiff/applicant acquisition of the said property illegal, but a notice to inform him that the acquisition of the said property was under investigation by the Special Investigation Panel.

    “I know as a fact that the Special Presidential Investigation Panel for Recovery of Public Property was set up by the Federal Government of Nigeria pursuant to the provisions of Recovery of Public Property (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R4, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004,” he said.

    In their objection, Malami and Obono-Obla faulted the suit by Marked and described it as a ploy to stall his ongoing investigation.

    Obono-Obla, who endorsed the processes filed by the respondents in the suit – the AGF and Obono-Obla – described the suit as speculative and hypothetical.

    He contended, in the objection that the Federal High Court was without the jurisdiction to hear the suit.

    He grounds on which he hinged his argument include that the court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiffs in view of the fact that, by virtue of Section 251 (1) (p) of the Constitution, the subject matter of the case has nothing to do with the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies.

    He said the suit was a disguise to scuttle criminal investigation of the plaintiff  (a public officer) using the court.

    Obono-Obla added tha: “This court has no jurisdiction to stop the Special Investigation Panel for Recovery of Public Property established pursuant to Section 1 (1) of the Recovery of Public Property (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R4, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 from carrying out its statutory functions.

    “The 2nd defendant (Obono-Obla) is an agent of a disclosed principal and as such the plaintiff is wrong to sue the 2nd defendant in his official capacity with his personal name.

    “This suit has disclosed no reasonable cause of action; it is speculative and hypothetical,” he said.

    The SPIPRPP, in September this year, issued a 21-day notice to Mark to quit the property or “show cause” why the Federal Government should not “enforce the recovery of the property for public good”.

    Rather than “show cause” as requested by SPIPRPP, Mark head before the Federal High Court where he lodged the suit and prayed the court to among others, quash all steps taken by the panel to evict him and recover the house from him.

    The case will come up for hearing on January 22 next year before Justice Gabriel Kolawole.

  • Presidency faults Saraki over comment on IPOB

    Presidency faults Saraki over comment on IPOB

    •’Legislature lacks the power to declare Executive’s decision illegal’ 

    THE Presidency has faulted the argument credited to Senate President Bukola Saraki that the Nigerian Army lacked the powers to declare the pro-Biafra group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a terrorist organisation.

    Special Assistant to President Muhammadu Buhari on Prosecution, Okoi Obono-Obla, argued that the Army’s decision was in order.

    He queried the legal right of the Senate President and the entire Legislature to declare as illegal, a decision or action by the Executive or any of its agencies.

    Obono-Obla, who drew a distinction between proscription and the declaration of an organsation as a terrorist group, said the Attorney General would soon apply to the court for IPOB’s proscription.

    The Presidential aide, in a statement yesterday, argued that the Army, being an agency of the Executive arm of government, acted within its powers in declaring IPOB a terrorist group for operational convenience.

    He said: “The military, as part of the Executive branch of government, has the right to declare that IPOB is a terrorist organisation for the purpose of quelling the threat posed to national security and corporate existence of the country by the unwholesome and nefarious activities of the organisation.

    “So, there is nothing absolutely wrong or unconstitutional for the military, for operational reason, to declare IPOB a terrorist organisation.

    “Declaration of IPOB as a terrorist organisation does not amount to proscription of IPOB. Proscription of IPOB will surely be in accordance with the procedure and processes underlined in the provisions of Section 2 (1) of the Terrorism ( Prevention) Act 2011.”

    He added: “The military never proscribed IPO, but only declared it a terrorist organisation, because of the way and manner it has been carrying out its activities.

    “These include pelting stones and cocktail Molotov bombs on convoys of military vehicles, burning of police stations, killings of police officers, attacking and threatening Nigerians living in Abia State, who do not subscribe to its separatist and militants ideology , creating the Biafra Security  Service and Biafra National Guard.”

  • NJC lied on Justice Ademola’s acquittal – AGF

    NJC lied on Justice Ademola’s acquittal – AGF

    The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) on Monday faulted claim by the National Judicial Council (NJC) that there was no pending appeal against the acquittal of Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court.

    NJC’s Director, Information, Soji Oye, in a statement on Saturday faulted claim by the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, Okoi Obono-Obla, that the Federal Government has appealed the acquittal of Justice Ademola.

    Oye said investigation by NJC’s officials revealed that there was no valid appeal filed against the April 5 ruling by Justice Jude Okeke of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) acquitting Justice Ademola, his wife and a lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN).

    But, in a statement on Monday, Obono-Obla said Oye’s statement contained false assertions and deliberate misrepresentation of law and facts.

    He said one of the assertions was Oye’s claim “that the Office of Attorney General of the Federation had on two occasions – April 18, 2017 and April 21, 2017 – shunned invitations by the Federal Capital Territory High Court for settlement of records of appeal which if it had done would have elevated the notices of appeal to proper appeal.’’

    Obono-Obla said contrary to Oye’s claim, the FCT High Court Registry, by a notice dated June 6, 2017 and signed by one Paul A. Edili (Head of Appeal) invited both parties to the appeal to attend court on June 14, 2017 for the purpose reconciliation of records of appeal.

    He said: “I challenged Soji Oye to furnish us with proof of service of this notice which the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation shunned.

    “It is obvious that Soji Oye in his haste to defend the indefensible muddled up the law concerning the role of an appellant and the registry of the court where an appeal is emanating from. In the interest of the discerning public and the need to the record straight, I wish to state as follows:

    “By Order 8 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016, the registrar of the court below has a duty to compile and transmit the record of appeal to the Appeal Court. This he has 60 days to do; commencing from the day the notice of appeal is filed. And it is immaterial that parties do not attend court for purpose of settlement of the said record.

    “It is only where the registrar fails or neglects to transmit the record of appeal in accordance with Order 8, Rules 1-3, that the appellant may intervene upon the expiration of the initial 60 days, to compile and transmit the record of appeal. And the appellant has additional 30 days to do so. See Order 8, Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016.

    “In the instant case, I am unaware of any notice for settlement of record of appeal served on the office of the AGF apart from that issued on the 6th day of June, 2017 against the 14th day of June 2017, just after the filing of additional notice of appeal. And even that was issued at the instance of the office of the AGF.

    “But assuming there was any notice for settlement of record of appeal, the failure of the appellant to attend court for settlement of the said record would not prevent the registrar of the lower court from performing his duty in line with Order 8, Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016.

    “If the notice of appeal was filed on the 7th day of April, 2017, the registrar of the lower court had 60 good days (under the Rules) expiring on 7th June, 2017 to settle and transmit the record of appeal.”

  • ‘Only El-Rufai can prosecute El-zakzaky’

    The Special Adviser to the President on Prosecution, Okoi Obono-Obla, has said only Kaduna State government has the power to prosecute the leader of the Shiite Islamic Movement in Nigeria, Ibrahim El-Zakzaky.

    He said this during a training workshop for institutions in the judicial sector with the theme: Building capacity of justice sector institutions to achieve criminal justice reforms introduced by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

    The workshop was organized by a justice advocacy group, Access to Justice (A2Justice).

    Obono-Obla said it was not the responsibility of the Federal Government to prosecute El -Zarzaky since the laws infringed upon are Kaduna State laws.

    The Shi’ite leader was arrested by the military on December 14, 2015, after a clash between the movement and officers of the Nigerian army.

    The army killed at least 347 members of the group.

    He approached the court to demand his release, months after he was arrested without being charged to court.

    The Shi’ite leader asked An Abuja Division of the Federal High Court to declare that his arrest and continued detention violated his fundamental rights.

    The court last year granted the Shi’ite leader’s  prayers by ordering the prison authorities to release him.

    Obla said: “It is not a federal crime. This matter is a local crime. The law infringed upon by El-Zakzaky is not a federal offence. If he blocked the roads, if he confronted the soldiers, if they assaulted the soldiers, these are local offences that the Kaduna State government can try.

    “The offense was committed in Kaduna, against the laws of the Kaduna State government so go and ask el-Rufai he is the governor of Kaduna State, why he has not charged him to court.”

  • FG gives guidelines on prosecution of corruption, criminal cases

    In a bid to ensure prompt and successful prosecution of ongoing corruption and other criminal cases in courts, the Federal Government on Wednesday issued a set of directives and guidelines to aid prosecutors handling such cases.

    The directives and guidelines are contained in a document – National Policy on Prosecution, which also includes Code of Conduct and National Guidelines for Prosecutors – just released by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN).

    The National Policy on Prosecution (NPP) prescribes statements of good values, best practices and a guide towards rendering efficient, effective, accountable and professional prosecutorial services in the country.

    The Guidelines for Prosecutors sets out terms and principles guiding the initiation and conduct of prosecution, and gives general guidance to prosecutors on the factors to be considered at the different stages of prosecution to ensure that a fair, reasonable and consistent policy underlies the prosecution process.

    Code of Conduct for Prosecutors (CCP) contains specified guidelines aimed at promoting best practices among prosecutors.

    The NPP also contains among other provisions, detail procedure for the execution of plea bargain agreement, enhanced room for the exercise of professional discretion by prosecutors and improved security and remuneration for prosecutors.

    Special Assistant to the President (Prosecution), Okoi Obono-Obla, said the NPP is essential in providing consistent, uniform and credible framework for improving cooperation, enhancing expertise and capacity of prosecutors across the country.