The Nation Newspaper

Tag: prosecution

  • Inappropriate caution by prosecution can amount to inducement

    The Appellant was charged by way of Information with the offence of murder, contrary to Section 316(2) and punishable under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap. 30 Vol. II Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria 1978 before the Ondo State High Court sitting at Okitipupa Judicial Division.

    The case of the prosecution against the Appellant was that on February 19, 2003, the wall of the Appellant’s room was perforated and his money which was N185,000.00 was stolen by unknown person while he was outside. He did not see anybody stealing the money, he however later suspected his wife’s half brother. One Adediran Omogunloye who lived in another camp because he did not come to sympathise with him as others did. The Appellant later left his camp to meet the deceased in his camp and challenged him of stealing his money. The deceased denied the allegation. Thereafter, the Appellant took the deceased to another camp where the deceased parents were. They asked the deceased if he was the one that stole the money and he still denied the allegation. An herbalist was invited who performed divination and said the deceased was the person who stole the money. In spite of this, the deceased continued to deny the allegation. The deceased was later taken away to the Appellant’s camp where his legs were tied together and was hung on a kolanut tree by the house of the Appellant. The Appellant with others at large tortured the deceased by flogging him severely, setting fire underneath him, pouring hot red oil into his ears so that he could confess to allegation of stealing the Appellant’s money. About two days later, the deceased was rushed to the hospital by his brother, one Segun Omogunloye for treatment. However, he could not recover from the torture and died at the hospital on February 23, 2003.

    The Appellant, on the other hand said the family of the deceased asked him to take the deceased away. He said he later left the camp with his wife for their own camp and later travelled to Okitipupa to repair his car. That it was when he came back to the camp the second day that he was told that the deceased had been taken to the hospital at Ode Irele for treatment. He visited the deceased at the hospital. That on February 23,2003, he was informed by one Kola and Modimu that the deceased had died and that some boys were looking for him. He went to the police station voluntarily to report and was accompanied there by his brother Modimu. That they were both arrested at the police station where they made statements.

    At the hearing, the prosecution led three  witnesses while the accused Appellant testified for himself and called a witness to testify. At the close of the case, the Appellant was found guilty, convicted and consequently sentenced to death.

    Dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal. Learned Counsel for the Appellant nominated three issues for determination as follows:

    i. Whether the trial judge was wrong to have admitted and relied on Exhibit A, B and C (Extra Judicial Statements) without expunging same from the records before convicting the Appellant.

    ii. Whether the learned trial judge was wrong to have held that the defence of alibi did not avail the Appellant.

    iii. Whether having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial judge was wrong to hold that the prosecution has proved the case of murder beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.

    The fulcrum of the Appellant’s complaints on issue 1 borders on the voluntariness of the Appellant’s confessional statements Exhibits A and C and also the impropriety of the admissibility of his other extra judicial statement Exhibit B. Learned counsel for the Appellant gave a lumpsum attack to the admissibility of the Exhibits in four compartments as follows.

    (a) That the admissibility of the statements Exhibits A, B, and C followed a question and answer session.

    (b) That the statements were not voluntarily made as they were products of threat and inducement.

    (c) That the statements Exhibits A, B and C all started with cautionary words in the opening paragraph and that PW1 and PW2 stated in their evidence that they obtained the statements from the Appellant.

    (d) That the statements Exhibits A, B and C are contradictory.

    In determining issue 1, the Court held that the complaint of threat or inducement by the Appellant under (b) above could not have applied to Exhibits B and C where the evidence of the prosecution witness during the trial within trial was neither challenged nor contradicted in any form. The Court held that it is trite that where evidence is led by a party and there is no contrary evidence from the other party, the evidence is deemed to be true and accepted. See Okoebor v Police Council (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt.834) 444; (2003) LPELR-2458(SC), Akinlagun v Oshoboja (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 60; (2006) LPELR-348(SC). In answer to (c) above, the court first pointed out that the mere presence or use of cautionary words in the opening page of a confessional statement does not necessarily render such a statement inadmissible as a confessional statement. The court held that each case would depend on its own facts but the test to be applied at all times is whether the cautionary words used could be said to have amounted to an inducement as to render the statement inadmissible. Finally, in answer to (d) above, the Court held that there was nothing spectacular about Exhibit B, contradicting Exhibits A and C. The court further held that all the Exhibits went through the process of trial within trial and Exhibits A and C were properly admitted and relied on by the learned trial judge in convicting the Appellant. Issue No. 1 was resolved against the Appellant.

    On issue No. 2, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant at the earliest opportunity, when he reported at the police station, Ode-Irele made Exhibit B, wherein, he stated that he was not at the scene of the crime as he was away to Okitipupa. Failure to investigate the Appellant’s alibi as contained in Exhibit B, said Counsel is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Learned Counsel for the Respondent reacted to Appellant’s issue 2 and submitted that the trial judge was right to have held that the defence of alibi did not avail the Appellant. He submitted relying on the case of Ikemson V State (1989) 1 ACLR 98; (1989) LPELR-1473(SC) that by Exhibit A, there is direct and positive participation of the Appellant in the crime. And, that where there is direct participation in a crime, plea of alibi is negative.

    On issue 2, the Court stated that there are at least three reasons why the Appellant in this case could not have successfully pleaded the defence of alibi. The first is that the said Exhibit B, the statement which he made to the police at Ode Irele Police Station did not give any indication or particulars for the police to investigate his whereabouts. The court held that it is not enough for an accused to raise the defence of alibi at large. He must give adequate particulars of his whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offence to assist the police to make a meaningful investigation of the alibi. Onyegbu V State (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 391) 510; (1995) LPELR-2728(SC), Eyisi V The State (2000) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 24; (2000) LPELR-1186(SC). The court stated that the second reason why the plea of alibi could not avail the Appellant in this case is that there are in any event material contradictions as to date in between Exhibit B, the 1st statement of the Appellant to the police, his oral testimony and the evidence of DW2. Exhibit B suggests that the Appellant went to Okitipupa and returned on February 21,2003.The evidence of DW2 and the Appellant’s oral testimony gave the impression that the Appellant slept at Okitipupa on the night of February 20, 2003. Thirdly and perhaps more significantly, the court stated that Exhibits A, B and C, particularly Exhibits A and C, the extra-judicial statements of the Appellant fixed the Appellant to the scene of crime and reveal a direct and positive participation of the Appellant at the scene of crime. The court stated the law that where there is direct participation in a crime the plea of alibi is negative. See Patrick Njovens & Ors V State (1973) 5 SC 12 at 65; (1973) LPELR-2042(SC). Issue 2 was resolved against the Appellant.

    On issue 3, Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on his submissions on Issue No. 1 to the effect that the prosecution failed to prove that the Appellant caused the death of the deceased in view of the fact that Exhibits A and C which were relied on by the learned trial judge were unreliable, contradictory and wrongfully admitted. Learned Counsel submitted further that the prosecution did not in any way lead evidence of intention by the Appellant did not prove that the Appellant acted with the intention of causing death or causing bodily injury which the Appellant knew that the probable consequence would be death. He referred to the cases of Alarape V State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 41) 1872); (2001) LPELR-412(SC).

    On issue 3, the court held that it goes without saying that a man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his actions. Accordingly, the court further held that where by an unlawful act of a person which causes another person grievous harm leading to the death of that person, he is presumed to have intended to kill that person and he would be guilty of murder irrespective of his intention. Audu V State (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt.820) 516; (2002) LPELR-7098(CA), Nwali V State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.182) 663 at 676; (1991) LPELR-2098(SC). Issue 3 was resolved against the Appellant.

    On the whole, the court held that the appeal lacks merit and it was accordingly dismissed. The judgment, conviction and sentence of the Hon. Justice S.A. Bola in charge No. HOK/9C/2004 delivered on the 26th day of September 2006 was accordingly affirmed.

     

    •Edited by LawPavilion

    LawPavilion Citation: (2014) LPELR-23798(CA)

     

     

  • Nyanya blast: Row over prosecution of mastermind

    Nyanya blast: Row over prosecution of mastermind

    The inability of the Ministry of Justice, the Police and Department of State Service (DSS) to agree on which agency should prosecute the suspected mastermind of the April 14 bomb blast in Nyanya, Abuja, Aminu Ogwuche, stalled his arraignment on Friday.

    Ogwuche has been in the DSS custody since his extradition from Sudan over a month ago.

    His arraignment on Friday before Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court  by counsel to the Police and the DSS  agencies had the authority to prosecute the suspect.

    The police, who filed the charges, could not produce Ogwuche and his co-accused because the suspects were held by the DSS.

    DSS lawyer  Cliff Osagie, urged the police to withdraw the initial charges against the accused to enable the DSS complete its investigation.

    “I expect them (the police) to have withdrawn the charges to enable us (DSS) complete our investigation, and hand, over the case to the attorney-general of the federation, who is empowered to prosecute cases such as this,” he said.

    Osagie said after the accused was extradited from Sudan, the DSS on September 11 obtained an order from Justice Gabriel Kolawole, to keep the accused in custody for 90 days “in the first instance.”

    Counsel to the police, Oloye Torugbene, said he would not withdraw the charges, as he was not instructed to do so.

    The charges were filed by the police to facilitate Ogwuche’s extradition from Sudan, where he allegedly escaped to after the incident.

    Justice Ademola held that the police had not presented the documents to show investigations had been completed.

    The judge, who expressed surprise about the lack of “collaboration” between the two security agencies, asked them to sort out the issues and agree on a date.

    He adjourned the case till November 10.

    Over 100 persons died in the blast, which was said to have been masterminded by the accused.

    Ogwuche and others were reportedly arrested in Sudan with the assistance of the Interpol.

    In one of the three counts, Ogwuche was alleged to have conspired with others (at large), to commit terrorism by detonating improvised explosive devices at the Nyanya terminus, which resulted in the death of 75 persons. Over 100 were injured.

  • Prosecution closes case in Fani-Kayode’s trial

    Prosecution closes case in Fani-Kayode’s trial

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) closed yesterday its case in the trial of a former Aviation Minister, Mr Femi Fani-Kayode, for alleged money laundering.

    On June 24, prosecution counsel, Festus Keyamo, said he had one more witness, Mark Ndifreke, who was said to have paid some money into Fani-Kayode’s account.

    The lawyer said Ndifereke had been evading service of the court summons to testify.

    He prayed for a bench warrant to be issued against the witness.

    Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia had adjourned till yesterday and directed Keyamo to file a further affidavit within seven days on why Ndifreke should be arrested.

    But Mr Vitalis Ahaotu, who stood in for Keyamo, told the court about a letter from his principal, on the prosecution’s intention to close its case.

    Defence counsel Mr Wale Akoni (SAN) did not raise any objection.

    He said Fani-Kayode intended to make a “no-case” submission rather than call another witness in his defence.

    Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia directed the defence to file its submission within 21 days, while the prosecution should respond within seven days afterwards.

    Fani-Kayode is standing trial on amended 40-count charges of money launderring.

    The former minister was said to have laundered about N100,219,500 by paying them into his personal account through an associate.

    The EFCC, for instance, said on or about November 22, 2006, Fani-Kayode made a financial transaction exceeding N500,000, which was not done through a financial institution.

    The commission said he accepted a cash payment of N10 million, which was carried in cash at First Inland Bank Plc, Apapa branch (now First City Monument Bank Plc), through Ndifreke, said to be at large.

    The money, EFCC alleged, was paid into Fani-Kayode’s investment account for 90 days, an offence that contradicts Section 15(1)(d) and is punishable under Section 15(2)(b) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004.”

    Other counts state that the former minister carried out some of the transactions exceeding N500,000 while also serving as Minister of Culture and Tourism. Ndifreke was also said to have paid the money on Fani-Kayode’s behalf into his personal account.

    The former minister allegedly committed the offences between August 2006 and May 2007.

    One of the counts states that on December 5, 2006, when he was Aviation Minister, Fani-Kayode accepted a cash payment of N2.1 million, which was paid into his personal account with First Inland Bank Plc (now First City Monument Bank Plc).

    Fani-Kayode pleaded not guilty to all the counts.

    EFCC opened its case on March 10 after calling five witnesses.

    The former minister was first arraigned in December 2008 before Justice Ramat Mohammed on 47-count charges. He was re-arraigned before Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako, following the transfer of Justice Mohammed.

    The accused was re-arraigned before Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia on February 11, last year, after Justice Murtala-Nyako was also transferred.

    Following an amendment to the charges from 47 to 40, Fani-Kayode took a fresh plea before Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia on March 6.

    The judge adjourned till October 28 for the adoption of the final written addresses.

  • Judgment leakage: Sacked Supreme Court staff may face prosecution

    Judgment leakage: Sacked Supreme Court staff may face prosecution

    •Judicial Commission sends NJC’s probe report to the AGF

    The five workers of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal who were recently sacked over the leakage of a judgment of the apex court stand the risk of facing trial for alleged corruption.

    The Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), it was gathered, has sent the report of the National Judicial Council to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN) for the trial of the suspects.

    The FJSC dismissed the five on July 4 on account of the leakage of judgment on the dispute between Senator Alphonsus Uba Igbeke and Lady Margery Okadigbo, on the Anambra North senatorial seat.

    Axed were Russell Ndenu, Bada Kayode, Festus Ilurimi, Nathaniel Abraham, Olayinka Abiodun, all from the Supreme Court, and Stephen Izonebi from the Court of Appeal.

    A source familiar with the matter said yesterday that the suspects “will still be arraigned in court for trial any moment from now. They have made useful statement to the NJC panel which established a prima facie case against them.

    “The FJSC has sent a copy of the report of NJC’s investigation to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), for the prosecution of the suspects by the state.

    “They also risk going to jail for violating civil service regulations and indulging in bribery.”

    On the fate of the procurer of the judgment, the Supreme Court official said: “The police and other security agencies are expected to investigate and subject the suspect to the nation’s criminal justice system.”

  • Pressure mounts for prosecution of pro-Amaechi lawmakers

    Pressure mounts for prosecution of pro-Amaechi lawmakers

    •Law-enforcement agents analyse video clips of fracas
    •Surveillance intensified around oil installations

    Powerful forces with vested interests in the political logjam in Rivers State are pushing hard for the prosecution of pro-Amaechi members of the State House of Assembly over last week’s fracas on the floor of the legislature, The Nation on Sunday can now reveal.

    The first step, according to sources, is the planned arrest of the lawmakers for interrogation.

    Personnel of the Police and the State Security Service (SSS) perceived to have stepped out of official line may also be swept away in the aftermath of the fracas, triggered by the invasion of the Assembly by the five suspended anti-Amaechi legislators and thugs.

    The fracas was recorded on video with some security officers caught throwing punches. Security agencies in Abuja are currently reviewing and analysing the video clips.

    The aim is to identify who did what while the trouble lasted, with a view to deciding who to take in for questioning and possible prosecution.

    Sources said preliminary analysis of the clips informed the invitation of Amaechi’s Aide-de-Camp (ADC) and Chief Security Officer (CSO) by the Police and SSS authorities in Abuja for explanation on the role they are believed to have played during the fracas.

    A Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Philemon Leha, has already been appointed as chairman of a panel by the police authorities to investigate the brawl.

    A source said: “I think some Rivers lawmakers might be arrested for interrogation and possible prosecution. The police and other security agencies are already studying the video clips and isolating those to be quizzed. Already, some policemen and security agents are facing intra-disciplinary interrogation over the fracas.”

    It was suggested that the ongoing probe might be targeted at pro-Amaechi lawmakers.

    A third source added: “As a matter of fact, some forces in Abuja are already pushing for the arrest of the Majority Leader of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Chidi Lloyds, who is currently hospitalised.

    “They are accusing Lloyds as the mastermind because he had been their target all along having made the impeachment of the Speaker impossible. But pro-Amaechi lawmakers also have evidence of how they were first attacked by some of their colleagues and why they acted in self defence.”

    The stalemate in the state has also forced security agencies to beef up surveillance around oil installations and put them on alert to avert turning the crisis to what happened in Egypt.

    Investigation by our correspondent revealed that intelligence report cautioned that oil installations in the state might be targeted by some disgruntled elements using the crisis as a cover-up.

    It was gathered that the government does not want oil thieves to take undue advantage of the situation to strike at oil installations.

    According to records made available by Amaechi in a letter to President Goodluck Jonathan, Rivers State is “the largest on-shore oil producing State and the headquarters of Nigeria’s hydro- carbon industry.

    “It is also home to Nigeria’s only Oil and Gas Free Zone as well as several off- shore oil and gas fields. In addition, Rivers State hosts multinational Oil and Gas Companies, Shell Petroleum Development Co (SPDC), MOBIL, AGIP, CHEVRON and many others.”A top security source, who spoke in confidence, said: “Both the military and other security agencies have been directed to enhance security in all oil and gas fields in the state.”

    The source added that the increased surveillance was borne out of the need to protect the nation’s oil fields from being hurt by vengeance-seeking and desperate politicians.

     

  • In a charge of murder, prosecution must prove cause of death

    The appeal was against the decision of the Court of Appeal; Port Harcourt Division delivered on November 30, 2006 affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant to death for the murder of the deceased, Nnenna Nwosu by the Abia State High Court.

    Nnenna was discovered dead inside the septic tank in the premises where the appellant and the 2nd accused who had become deceased resided at No.17, Powerline. The deceased Nnenna was living with her family at No.16 Power line, Abayi, Ariaria.

    The appellant was charged with the murder of the said Nnenna Nwosu on two counts. The case proceeded to trial. At the end, the court convicted the appellant and the deceased, 2nd accused person for the murder of Nnenna Nwosu and consequently sentenced them to death. The 2nd convict had died shortly after he was convicted and sentenced.

    Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant to death for the murder of the deceased, Nnenna Nwosu. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

    Further aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court and identified five issues for determination, amongst which were whether the lower court was right when it upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial High Court, when the arraignment of the appellant did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 36 (6) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Laws of Eastern Nigeria, 1963 as applicable to Abia State.

    The court itemized the three conditions under which an accused can be arraigned, including, (a) the accused must be placed before the court unfettered unless the court shall see cause otherwise to order. (b) The charge or information shall be read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court by the Registrar or other officer of the court; and (c) The accused shall then be called upon to plead thereto unless of course, there exists any valid reason to do otherwise such as objection to want of service where the accused is entitled by law to service of a copy of the information and the court is satisfied that he has in fact not been duly served therewith. On this, the Supreme Court cited the cases of OGUNIYE v THE STATE (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt.604) 548 at 565; and IDEMUDIA v THE STATE (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 610) 202.

    The Supreme Court found and noted that there was nothing on record to dispute the fact that the trial court complied with the mandatory requirement of the Constitution and the Law. That the appellant was arraigned before the trial court unfettered, the charge was duly read and explained to the appellant and she was called upon by the court to plead to the charge, to which she accordingly pleaded and was so recorded.

    Appellant’s counsel referred to Section 36 (6) of the 1999 Constitution and submitted that the trial of the appellant did not comply with the requirement of the law; hence it was in breach of the appellant’s right to fair hearing rendering the proceedings null and void. He cited several other cases, including SUNDAY KAJUBO v STATE (1988) NWLR (Pt.73) 721 at 732; Ere KANURE v STATE (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.294) 385 and ANYAKORA v OBIAKOR (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt.919) 507 at 532-533.

    He contended that it could be reasonably presumed that the charge was read and interpreted to the appellant in English Language, being the official language of the court, but not her native language which is Igbo. He submitted that failure to record the language in which the charge was read and interpreted had vitiated the entire trial and conviction of the appellant by the trial court.Respondent’s counsel referred to the proceedings of the trial court on March 2, 2003 when the plea of the appellant was taken upon her arraignment with the 2nd accused person. He indicated that the record showed that the charge on information was read and explained to both accused and each of them pleaded ‘Not guilty’ respectively.

    He contended that the complaint of the appellant was not that she was placed before the trial court fettered, neither was it that she was not called upon to plead, rather her complaint was that it appeared that the charge or information was not read over and explained to the accused in the language she understands.

    He further submitted that the appellant and the co-accused were represented by their respective counsel before the trial Judge. That both counsel participated in the trial from the beginning to the end without any complaint or objection from either of the counsel. Whereas, it was the appellant’s duty or that of her counsel to have objected to the proceedings if she had any complaint. That not having done so at the trial court, it was too late to do so at the Supreme Court. He cited; FRANCIS DURWODE v THE STATE (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.482) 306 at 402.

    On Issue No.2, whether the appellant was denied fair hearing by the fact that the PW1, PW2, DWl and DW2 testified in Igbo Language at the trial court respondent’s counsel alluded to various decisions of the Supreme Court and court below on the meaning of “fair hearing”. They include OLORUNTOBA-OJU v ABDULRAHEEM (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt.1157) 83 at 142; AMAMCHUKWU v FRN (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt.1144) 475 at 486-487; A-G OF KWARA STATE v ABOLAJI (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 199.

    It was submitted further that there was no evidence on record that the appellant did not understand Igbo or English Language.

    On the doctrine of “last seen” which means, in effect, that the law presumes that the person last seen with the deceased bears full responsibility for his death if it turns out that the person last seen with him is dead. He relied on IGABELE v THE STATE (2006) 139 LRCN 1831; NWAEZE v STATE (1996) 2 SCNJ 41-61; GABRIEL v STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.122) 457.

    The Supreme Court considered the respective issues for determination formulated and argued by both the appellant and.

    It found that there was nothing on record to dispute the fact that the trial court complied with the mandatory requirement of the Constitution and the Law. That the appellant was arraigned before the trial court unfettered, the charge was duly read and explained to the appellant and she was called upon by the court to plead to the charge, to which she accordingly pleaded and was so recorded.

    It held that ‘It is trite law, that in a charge of murder, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the deceased died, that the death was caused by the accused; that the accused intended to either kill the victim or grievously harm him.’ That ‘In other words, in a murder charge, prosecution owes it a duty to discharge by proving the death of victim, responsibility of accused by act or omission, intentional act or omission of the accused with knowledge that it could cause grievous bodily harm or death.’

    On the issue of “The last seen theory”, it held that ‘This comes into play when the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.”

    In conclusion, his Lordship said of the appellant, ‘Now, to the person and attitude of the appellant. I must say that the appellant did not show that she is a mother herself who has children. Her behaviour as rightly found by the trial court, portrayed her as an embarrassingly callous woman who cannot be entrusted with anything, much more, a human being. She is simply a disgrace and disappointment to motherhood. Her cruelty is simply animalistic, to say the least. She is not fit to live in the community of man. In my view, she was rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial court and the decision was correctly affirmed by the court below.’

    In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed and the decisions of the two courts below on the conviction and sentence of the appellant to death for the murder of Nnenna Nwosu were affirmed.

    Kemasuode Wodu, for the appellant.

    Kalu Umeh, Attorney-General of Abia State, with him, Val Offia, N. N. Akinsola (Mrs.), Assistant Director, Civil Litigation, I. C. Omokwe (Mrs.), Chief State Counsel, Ministry of Justice, Abia State, for the respondent.

  • Power: DISCOs to face prosecution for sabotaging revenue collection

    Power: DISCOs to face prosecution for sabotaging revenue collection

    HE new Minister of Power, Prof. Chinedu Nebo yesterday warned the Electricity Distribution Companies (DISCOs) that any officer caught sabotaging revenue collection would be made to face the law.

    Speaking in Abuja during the technical retreat of the Presidential Task Force on Power (PTFP) on the review of the power sector roadmap, he urged the DISCOs to be serious in their operation in the next few months before they are handed over to the preferred bidders.

    His words: “Any of the officers in the distribution companies found to be sabotaging the revenue collection targets of the market will be made to face the full wrath of the law.”

    Nebo emphasised that government would not tolerate complacency and ineptitude of companies that constitute additional liabilities through the misconduct of these companies.

    The managers of the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN) also got a harsh warning from the new minister, who ordered them to either stop the frequent system collapse in the grid or face the sack.

    He pointed out that the ministry was concerned about delay in project delivery in the sector and vowed to sort it out.

    “I have observed with grave concern the increasing frequency in system collapse of our grid and hereby encourage the operatives of this segment in the TCN to be extra diligent and vigilant.

    “I shall not entertain frivolous reasons for continued system collapse. Owners of this process must sit up or be prepared to ship out,” he said

    According to the minister, in the absence of “a major shift towards improved efficiency in project delivery across the value chain, especially in the transmission segment,” development of a sustainable private sector-driven power market in Nigeria would be frustrated.

  • Insurer to pay $3m to avoid prosecution

    A  Bethesda-based insurance company that gained advantage over competitors by allowing its employees to inappropriately access a federal Medicare database has agreed to pay the federal government $3 million to avoid criminal prosecution, according to the Maryland United States’ attorney’s office.

    According to an agreement with prosecutors, top officials at Coventry Health Care Inc., which is incorporated in Delaware but headquartered in Bethesda and provides group and individual health insurance to some five million members nationally, knew of the inappropriate use of the database and did nothing to stop it until a federal agency raised concerns.

    The agreement says employees with Coventry, which administers Medicare Advantage plans for some of its customers, or its subsidiary First Health Priority Services, in appropriately accessed the federal government’s database between 2005 and 2006 to obtain eligibility information for customers who had separately filed a worker’s compensation claim, prosecutors said.

     

  • INEC assures on prosecution of voter’s cards suspects

    •Confirms involvement of worker

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) yesterday assured the public that it will prosecute those caught with voter’s cards in Ondo State, regardless of their status or party affiliations.

    A statement issued by the State Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), Mr. Akin Orebiyi, hailed the Ondo State Police Command for taking a proactive step in arresting the suspected electoral offenders.

    He vowed that the electoral body would get to the root of the matter to fish out the political party behind the electoral fraud.

    The REC confirmed that a worker of the commission, whose name he refused to mention, was involved in the electoral fraud and he had been arrested by security operatives.

    The statement reads: “The attention of INEC has been drawn to the arrest of a man with over a thousand voter’s cards issued by INEC purportedly given to him by a junior staff engaged as a security man by the commission, who has also been arrested by the police.

    “Save for the voter’s cards and campaign materials of two of the political parties contesting the October 20 poll, no other electoral materials were found in possession of the suspects. For the purpose of emphasis, no ballot papers were found in their possession.

    “Preliminary investigation by the commission indicates that some people did not collect their voter’s cards after registration last year. The unclaimed cards are in the custody of the Electoral Officer.

    “Collection by proxy is prohibited and it is not part of the security man’s duties to handle, distribute or in any way deal with voter’s cards.”