The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • You can’t vary Supreme Court judgment on council autonomy

    You can’t vary Supreme Court judgment on council autonomy

    Recent developments have sparked a debate over whether there are exceptions to the Supreme Court verdict on local government autonomy. The Senate has asked states, Assemblies and councils to comply with the judgment and not undercut it. ADEBISI ONANUGA asks senior lawyers whether the verdict can be varied in any form.

    The Senate has expressed concern over what it perceives as attempts to override the landmark decision which abolished joint state/local government accounts and nullified the caretaker system.

    Recent developments indicate that the verdict is still being subjected to various interpretations.

    In Anambra, Governor Charles Soludo introduced a bill that seeks to compel local governments to remit a portion of their federal allocations into a consolidated account to be controlled by the state government.

    The bill, titled “Anambra Local Government Administration Law 2024”, provides in Section 13(1) that the state shall maintain a “State Joint Local Government Account,” into which all federal allocations to local governments in Anambra must be deposited.

    Section 14(3) of the bill stipulates that each local government must remit a state-determined percentage to the consolidated account within two working days of receiving their allocations from the Federation Account.

    Section 14(4) maintains that if the state receives the local government allocation on its behalf, it must deduct the specified percentage before disbursing the remaining funds to the local governments.

    Commissioner for Information, Law Mefor, said the government acted under Section 7 of the Constitution, which empowers the House of Assembly to make laws regulating the local government.

    He argued that the state government aimed to “safeguard” the finances of the local governments and “direct” council chairpersons to their responsibilities, especially for projects often carried out in collaboration with the state government.

    However, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) asked Soludo to withdraw the bill.

    “Governor Soludo must immediately withdraw the unlawful bill seeking to compel local governments to remit a portion of their federal allocations to a bank account controlled by the state.

    “We’ll see in court if the bill is passed into law,” the civil society group said.

    On October 8, Lagos State House of Assembly suspended the Chairman of Alimosho Local Government, Mr Sulaimon Jelili, indefinitely.

    The House resolved unanimously that the Vice Chairman, Mr Akinpelu Johnson, should take over running the affairs of the council.

    The suspended chairman has argued that his suspension was illegal as it violates the Supreme Court judgment on council autonomy and has instructed his lawyer to fight the matter in court.

    Also, local government workers’ unions urged the Federal Government to make their salaries a first-line charge on the Federation Account.

    They want their salaries paid directly to statutory bodies, including the Local Government Service Commission, rather than the local government itself.

    The unions made their position known in a memorandum to the Federal Government.

    Under the aegis of the Joint Action Committee (JAC) of Local Government-based Unions, they include the Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE), the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT), and the Nigeria Union of Pensioners.

    They believe direct payment to them is necessary for the industrial stability of the local government system.

    The memorandum was signed by NUT president Titus Amba, NULGE president Ambali Akeem and NUP president Godwin Abumisi.

    It reads in part: “For workers’ welfare and industrial harmony, training and capacity building and sustainability of industrial stability in the local government system, payment of the gross salary of local government workers should be made a first-line charge and domiciled in the relevant agencies.”

    Reacting to the developments, the Senate resolved all states and local governments are “to fully comply with the recent Supreme Court judgment on the disbursement of and utilisation of funds accruing to all local governments in Nigeria.”

    It vowed to ensure further amendment to the Constitution to provide for local government autonomy.

    The Supreme Court judgment

    The Supreme Court judgment was on a suit by the Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN).

    The apex court held that all allocations due to local governments should be paid directly to them.

    It held that it would be illegal and unconstitutional for governors to receive and withhold funds allocated to local governments.

    The Federal Government was empowered to withhold local government allocations administered by appointed officials or caretaker chairmen.

    Are there exceptions to the judgment? Can it be varied?

    Senior lawyers who are versed in constitutional matters shared their views on the matter.

    They include Dr. Joseph  Nwobike (SAN), activist Chief Louis Alozie (SAN), Deputy Vice Chancellor, Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti (ABUAD), Prof, Damilola Olawuyi (SAN) and a leading litigator, Wahab Shittu (SAN).

    According to Nwobike, the judgment did not create any new right or change the state of the law on the status of the local governments under the Constitution of Nigeria.

    He said the judgment merely clarified the law and directed the parties, the Federal and State Governments to allow the management of the local governments in Nigeria in line with the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered).

    “The thesis in the judgment is that the state governments, whether through the state legislatures or executives, cannot interfere in the local government affairs undemocratically.

    “State law inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid.”

    Nwobike further stated that the test, for the validity of any law passed by the state legislature, is whether the law is consistent with the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution.

    Once the laws passed by the state legislatures are inconsistent with the Constitution, such laws will be invalid regardless of the legislative intentions behind them.

    He said it would appear that the Anambra State House of Assembly will have to critically evaluate its legislative proposals to ensure their consistency with the Constitution.

    “I am unable to see how the civil servants engaged by the local governments can be able to have their salaries placed on the first line charge from the Federation Account without any enabling legislation.

    “The judgment of the Supreme Court under reference did not make any pronouncement on that issue or possibility,” Nwobike said. 

    Constitution subjugates local govt

    Alozie said Nigeria is supposed to be running a presidential system of constitutional democracy which is said to be federalism, whereby there is separation of powers not only amongst the three arms of government but also between the Federal and state governments.

    He regretted that what was obtained in practice was a unitary system where the Federal Government was all-powerful.

    According to him, the constitution subjugated the local governments so that they can safely be said to be an extension of the state governments. 

    He said this is so because the power to create local governments is vested in the states.

    He noted that the state governments not only determine the existence and usurp functions of local governments, but also legislate for them on matters of taxation/revenue and economic planning and development.

    Alozie said the cry by the Labour unions flows from the judgment of the Supreme Court on the financial autonomy of local governments.

    “It is doubtful if that judgment granted full autonomy to LGs to the extent that they can exist or function independently of the state governments.

    “If one looks carefully at Section 7, and 162 subsections 5,6,7 and 8, and the provisions of Part 11 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, paragraphs 8,9 and 10 on the Concurrent Legislative List, it is clear that the Local Governments are not independent.

    “We agree that the judgments of courts of law including that of the Supreme Court ought to be obeyed without further arguments because the instant judgment of the Supreme Court was based on public policy and did not strictly interpret the provisions of the Constitution.”

    ‘Why Supreme Court judgment must be obeyed’

    Read Also: Nigeria’s economy will not experience hyperinflation, CBN vows

    Alozie however, noted that there has been some discontent from the state governments and other legal scholars who think that the judgment is constitutionally flawed.

    “That notwithstanding, the judgment ought to be obeyed without much ado.

    “So all levels of government, especially the state governments ought to obey the judgment,” he said.

    ‘No state can vary judgment’

    Alozie added: “No state House of Assembly has the power to by legislation vary the judgment of the Supreme Court. The judgment is binding on all of them. Any action contrary to the said judgment cannot stand, being a nullity.

    “I believe the state governments are trying to riggle out of the legal effects of the judgment by trying their hands on legislation but to the extent that such legislation seeks to take back from LGs their due statutory allocations, they are already ill-fated.

    “The state governments are supposed to help fund the local governments, and not take from them.  

    States, state house of assemblies can’t interfere in local government.”

    ‘States, Assemblies can’t interfere’

    Prof Olawuyi noted that local governments have financial and administrative autonomy under the clear provisions of the fourth schedule of the 1999 Constitution which spells out their functions and scope of authority.

    “It is, therefore, a flagrant disregard of the Constitution for a state government or state House of Assembly to interfere in the running of local governments or attempt to usurp their financial or administrative autonomy, which has been asserted by the recent decision of the Supreme Court.”

    Olawuyi stressed that the judgments of the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, are binding on all persons and sub-national authorities, including the Houses of Assembly. 

    “Actions taken in disregard for Supreme Court decisions by any person or authority are constitutionally illegal and would amount to a clear contempt of court which would naturally attract judicial sanctions and censure,” he said.

    He admonished political stakeholders to avoid lawless and reckless actions that distract from much-needed societal development and that could undermine the three-tier system of government that the Constitution establishes. 

    Shittu: undercutting judgment will cause anarchy

    For Shittu, no one or entity is entitled to compromise the Supreme Court judgment without endangering democracy.

    “The result will be a recipe for anarchy or descent into the law of the jungle.

    “Once the Supreme Court makes a pronouncement, same is final,” he said.

  • LG ‘autonomy’ and the Soludo challenge

    LG ‘autonomy’ and the Soludo challenge

    The Supreme Court verdict, on “council autonomy”, was not unlike the deus-ex-machina, in ancient Greek drama.

    The governors, alleged parasitic butterflies, feasting on council funds as sweet nectar, blew the cash on anything but the grassroots — bad! So, the Federal Government moved to wire direct money to the 774 local councils the 1999 Constitution listed.

    But the governors, pushing the good, old federal doctrine, and never shy to push their right to run things within their states, would be damned to let their probosces off that sweet, old nectar. So, a sweet-sour political stalemate was afoot.

    Then came, wham! — the Supreme Court verdict. 

    The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) went to the Supreme Court to settle by law, what the federating partners could not settle by open politics — and mutual good faith. 

    Enter, the apex court’s verdict as legal deus-ex-machina!

    Well, as Chinua Achebe said in that Igbo proverb his numerous writings popularized, Eneke had learnt to shoot without missing, since birds had learnt to fly without perching!

    The governors licked their wounds in silence, strafed by a hostile public opinion — and rightly so — for why would they be so unconscionable over council funds?

    In own corner, the Federal Government savoured sweet victory, rolling out positive — and plausible — vibes: further enlisting and endearing the benefitting councils in its “Big Daddy loves you” camp, with the hated and “thieving” governors still sulking.

    That party was on — loud in Abuja! — when Chukwuma Soludo, the Anamba governor, threw in his spanner from Awka: a putative counter-deus, on the legislative front!  By this Soludo challenge, might the governors corral back what they thought was lost?

    Drama!  Could this high drama make nugatory the Supreme Court verdict, and yet render Abuja’s “council autonomy” victory pyrrhic?  Drama! 

    The Anambra State House of Assembly just passed a law, mandating Anambra local government councils to pool a certain percentage of their directly wired Federation Account earnings into the Anambra Joint State-Local Government Account for common projects!

    Will the Supreme Court now rule that states don’t have control over the local governments within their territories?  Or that state legislatures can no longer make laws “for the good and order” of local governments under their jurisdiction?

    Or will the Supreme Court, to consummate its earlier verdict on “council autonomy”, now oust powers given states by the Constitution?

    Or that the states (read the governors) have lost the right to coordinate common services and projects in their domains, simply because the apex court had granted their local governments “autonomy”?

    Interesting perspectives!

    Still, before memory-challenged folks start hailing Soludo as a rare lion for federalism, remember that this same Soludo flexed own the-centre-is-everything muscle, as former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s National Economic Adviser (NEA).

    Back then, Prof. Soludo theorized on NEEDS — the Nigerian Economic Empowerment Development Strategy — and pushed that NEEDS be rammed down as SEEDS (States Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy) and LEEDS (Local Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy), for these same 774 local governments the 1999 Constitution listed!

    To be sure, NEEDS and its SEEDS and LEEDS variants were no crime.  On the contrary, they were a brilliant piece of economic theorizing, without which a polity would perhaps never locate an effective compass to develop.

    But the dissonance — in a supposed federal set-up — was its one-central-shoe-fits-all diktat: a roaring contradiction to the federal principle, that provides for local diversities.

    So, for Soludo — from that dashing central prefect of old, shoving NEEDS down states’ and local governments’ throats; to a federal champion from Awka, now pushing back on states’ rights over councils, thus tackling “autonomy” — what has changed?

    Isn’t his old NEEDS temper more in tune with the Supreme Court verdict, than the law that the Anambra legislature just passed, and he gleefully signed?

    What’s that blinding flash, en route to Damascus, that has changed his Saul to Paul, when the issue is states’ rights, against a central Nigerian Leviathan? 

    Well, from a central hireling of the Obasanjo era, Soludo is now elected state governor — and pronto, has forgotten the sacred centralization dogma that propelled his NEEDS thunder!  Is that necessarily bad, though?

    Soludo played the role his principal expected of him as NEA. That was in the past. Now, as own principal, he’s trying to cut the best deal for his Anambra folks, as their governor. 

    If that past badly jars with his present, it is what it is.  But it shows that the more roles change, as individuals climb up the political ladder, the more the unresolved federal question stares everyone starkly in the face!  These changing roles make the federal principle even more immutable!

    Which goes right back to council autonomy.

    Though many voices, playing the propaganda of the moment, try to ram down the idea of the local governments as a so-called “third tier”, councils belong more to states — and should be their sole business — than they do to the Federal Government.

    Yes, it’s execrable conduct from governors for purloining council funds and leaving the grassroots in the lurch.  Highly condemnable behaviour. 

    But it’s doubtful if the solution to that is a mechanistic “autonomy” that virtually “tears” councils from states as Abuja’s golden “third tier”.

    That no two federal states are exactly the same beg the question.  Councils, counties and equivalents may be useful administrative divisions in all federations.  But in no federation — none! — could they claim a seat at the table as federating partners. 

    That would stand logic on its head, because only the federating partners, states — not the sovereign federation, which the Federal Government governs — are carved into councils and counties for closer local government administrations.

    Federalism — as Ripples often loves to insist — is a concept and not a mere badge, that could be stamped on exigencies, and everyone would live merrily ever after!

    The very idea, of a valid “third tier”, jars against that basic federal principle.  Yet, it’s on that “tier” that “council autonomy” — absolutely outside states’ control — is hooked. 

    That’s the lethal — if not fatal — challenge the new Soludo law poses to “council autonomy”.  On that, the Supreme Court has its job cut out!

    With the Awka challenge, the polity awaits, with quake or relish, a hot judicial battle –quake or relish, depending on which camp you belong!

  • The answer to LGA third-tier fraud

    The answer to LGA third-tier fraud

    Again we are back to square one. While the celebration over July 11 Supreme Court judgment that granted financial autonomy to the 774 Local Government Areas across the country lasted, not a few had wondered if the Supreme Court was not putting the cart before the horse by embarking on a judicial misadventure over what was unarguably a political issue. And now, the National Assembly, which but for its hypocrisy has the power to confront the nation’s demon, is bellyaching about sections 13, 14 and 16 of Anambra LGA new bill which seek to compel the local governments to pay their federal allocation into an account to be established by the state government, a bill it claims runs afoul of the Supreme Court judgment.

    Perhaps our National Assembly that that often treat Nigerian with less dignity than even the colonial masters, think Nigerians are suffering from collective amnesia since neither the said Supreme Court judgment nor the National Assembly has removed the constitutional power of the state Houses of Assembly to make laws for local government.

     One was however not surprised  that this was coming from Governor Chukwuma Soludo who, as CBN governor, called attention to the chicanery of our leaders with his “Nigeria is the only known federation in the world where the centre allocates funds to third tier of government it does not supervise”.

    The truth is that military arbitrarily created local government as third tier of government like the 36 states also created without logic or rhyme are a fraud by those driven by command and control military mind-set. If the fervour was about rural development, we did not see that play out during Babangida’s regime when most of the badly executed or abandoned DFFRI projects were cornered by retired military officers.

    And If it was to deepen democracy as Obasanjo wanted us to believe, very few will be persuaded that deepening democracy at grassroots level was by providing money, cars and logistics to feuding intra-party members to destroy their party or destabilise their state as he was reported to have done in Ekiti by ferrying a few members of state House of Assembly out of their states to Abuja to impeach their governors for opposing his third term bid has a familiar ring of fascism.

    It was not a surprise most of the professors Obasanjo dragged to his LGA’s ‘third tier crusade’, parted way with him when they discovered they had been used. Both Professor Ben Nwabueze and Chief Rotimi Williams who helped Obasanjo to destroy whatever was left of our federalism in 1979 by ceding almost 70% of the items in the constitution to the exclusive list with nothing in residual list publicly regretted betraying the country before their passage to the great beyond.

    The tragedy of our nation is that unlike the unambitious set of leaders we have had since 1999, Nigeria once had selfless and visionary leaders for whom the nation came first. Ex-president Jonathan acknowledged this during his 51st independence anniversary by “thanking our founding fathers  who brought  joy and hope to the hearts of our people  after six decades of colonial rule  by working together to  restore dignity and honour  to a multicultural and multilingual nation of diverse people with more than 250 distinct languages and ethnic groups”.

    Read Also: African Diasporans seek Nigerian citizenship

    This they achieved in spite of the initial lack of consensus on the national question with Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe and his group canvassing for unitary system, Obafemi Awolowo and his Yoruba group insisting on federalism while Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa who believed “Nigerian unity is a British invention” and Ahmadu Bello who expressed grief over “the mistake of 1914” settled for confederacy.  But at the end, realizing their responsibility to those that look up to them for direction, these illustrious Nigerian pathfinders settled for a federal arrangement that allowed groups to develop at their own pace.

    Unfortunately, nearly all northern governors have since 1999 been opposed to returning the country to a federal arrangement, a social system that promises ‘unity in diversity’, justice and fairness. The reasoning behind the northern governors short-sightedness is that the north because of its numerical advantage in the number of states and LGAs, not only collect more free monies from the federation account, but gives it a veto power over any form of constitutional amendment.

    But for refusing to confront our demon, everyone is a loser. Nuhu Ribadu some two years back had challenged these northern leaders to show how billions of naira collected from the federation account since 1999 have impacted on the lives of the poor in the north. It is in this regard, one can also ask the Niger Delta’s self-serving leaders who many believe are behind oil bunkering, if lives of ordinary people of the Niger Delta are better today than in 1999 when they first embarked on economic sabotage of the country. And what has been the fate of ordinary people in the Southwest and Southeast where governors surreptitiously worked against restructuring of the country for fear of losing easy money coming from Abuja which they often deploy towards ‘building bridges over land?

    Again, for the sake of our uninformed youths, we must go through history our leaders want to supplant with revisionism which celebrates criminals as heroes.

    Between 1962 and 1963, the constitution bequeathed onto us by our founding fathers was breached by NPC/NCNC coalition partners of Prime Minister Balewa, President Nnamdi Azikiwe and Premiers Ahmadu Bello and Okpara, who jointly refused to recognise Dauda Soroye Adegbenro, the duly elected and Privy Council recognized Premier of Western Region. That paved the way for the incarceration of Obafemi Awolowo, the setting back of the giant strides made by the West and the installation of Ladoke Akintola as premier by the coalition partners without election. Anarchy was let loose on the west when those denied the right to determine their own fate decided to make sure those who sowed the wind reaped the whirlwind through ‘operation wet e’.

    While the west was burning, the north buried its fangs on the neck of the east after the disputed 1962/63 census exercises and the massively rigged 1964 election. Zik as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces had approached the military for support but was reminded that operationally, the military reports to the prime minister. Zik while pretending to be going for medical check-up but in reality embarked on ship cruise to South America, after  handing power over to Dr Nwafor Orizu, the Senate President.

    In January 1966, Igbo young military adventurers sympathetic to Zik, in breach of the military espirit de corps, selectively murdered  their friends, about eight northern senior military officers and their political leaders, two western senior military leaders and their premier while conveniently sparing their over 30 Igbo military officers and Igbo political leaders.

    Aguiyi Ironsi after quashing the insurrection took over power with the help of the Senate President who according to Richard Akinjide, refused to swear in the next available minister in the absence of the prime minister as stipulated by the constitution.

    Ironsi’s greatest undoing was the promulgation of Decree 34 which turned the country from a federal into a unitary state. That was quickly interpreted as an Igbo agenda having canvassed for a unitary system during the various constitutional debate from 1954 up to the 1957 London Constitutional Conference where NCNC leaders insisted Nigeria should be divided into a federation of 17 provinces which Awolowo claimed would amount to bringing unitary system through the back door.

    In July 1966, another set of adventurers led by Murtala Mohammed, Danjuma, Babangida,  and others initiated their vengeance coup called Araba (secession) during which all Ibo military officers on sight were brutally murdered.

    At the end the civil war that followed, successive northern military leaders created more states and LGAs for the north thus making northern leaders the 1950 Nigeria they could control a fait accompli.

    The way forward is not through a third tier fraud or unviable states created without rhyme. The cheapest and tested option before us is to confront our demons by embracing a federation of six geo-political zones as canvassed by Nigerian stakeholders including leaders of ethnic nationalities, the true owners of Nigeria.

    This is the answer to distributive injustice in the South-south, tribal war over control of political power and resources on the in the Northwest, Boko Haram insurgency in the Northeast and  the apparent ethnic cleansing in the North-central where majority of our compatriots live in IDP camps in their own country.

    And as for our embattled President Tinubu who voluntarily offered himself a sacrificial lamb after 58 years of crisis of nation-building, he has a choice as to whether he wants to be remembered as a Nigerian statesman or like his predecessors including Buhari, the best statesman we never had.

  • Enforce Supreme Court judgement on disputed Ebonyi land, group urges govt

    Enforce Supreme Court judgement on disputed Ebonyi land, group urges govt

    The Akaeze Heritage and Economic Development Forum (AHED) has called on the state government and security agencies to enforce the Supreme Court judgement that ended the age-long land dispute between Umobor in Akaeze and Ogwor in Ishiagu communities all in Ivo Local Government Area, Ebonyi State.

    The President of AHED, a non-political, non-religious and socio-economic group, Mr. Emmanuel Ude, condemned in strong terms the recent attacks on Akaeze indigenes from Umobor by their Ogwor neighbours from Ishiagu over the same land, which case had been rested by the apex court.

    The Supreme Court sitting in Lagos had on September 27th, 1991, delivered a landmark judgment on the case marked  SC.3/1990, which was brought before it by the Ogwor people in  Ishiagu.

    Ogwor people took the matter to the apex court after the Appeal Court ruled in favour of the Umobor people in Akaeze.

    But the apex court still delivered its judgement in favour of the Umobor people in Akaeze.\

    Read Also: FG, states to eliminate impediments against mining development – Alake

    Ude lamented that ever since the judgment was delivered, Ogwor people had never obeyed the apex court ruling, but in defiance of the judgement continued to harass, intimidate, and inflict bodily wounds on the Umobor people.

    The AHED boss described the continuous attacks that had left many Akaeze indigenes injured and maimed as provocative especially coming after the Supreme Court had in a landmark judgement decided the land dispute in favour of Umobor.

    He wondered why the people of Ogwor in Ishiagu had refused to obey the judgement of the apex court describing their violent conduct as contemptuous and a flagrant violation of law and an act of disobedience to the court.

    The President lamented the recent onslaughts that left many Akaeze indigenes riddled with bullets and called on security agencies especially the police to fish out the aggressors.

    He named some of the Akaeze victims, who sustained bullet wounds during the series of attacks as Friday Ngwoke, Unegwu Ajali, Joshua Chukwu, among others saying they only escaped death by the whiskers.

    Ude said: “We hereby condemn in strong terms the actions of the Ogwor people of Ishiagu. The recent attack is one too many and it must stop in the interest of peace and brotherliness.

    “We view the attack as provocative and unwarranted. It is needless because there is no more land dispute between Umobor in Akaeze and Ogwor in Ishiagu as the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, had resolved the dispute and delivered its judgement in favour of Umobor people in Akaeze. The Elueke land is no longer in dispute following the judgement of the apex court.

  • Rivers of impunity

    Rivers of impunity

    •The rule of law ought to take top billing in Rivers State now

    The Supreme Court decision that ordered the various states of the federation to conduct local government elections emphasised the virtue of having elected officers in the rural crevices of the country. It was hailed as a new breath of fresh air in a cadre suffocated by the strong arms of governors who played emperors in a democracy.

    Quite a few states conducted theirs and it turned out to be a farcical replay as the governors again controlled the polls without disguise of their imprint and swagger. All state governors’ parties swept virtually every local government area. At least, they have nodded to the ritual, if a mockery, of an election.

    But the real farce was in Rivers State where it was marred with a defiance or claims of defiance of a court order, spasms of violence and a hectoring chief executive. In the run-up to the polls, a palpable tension engulfed the Niger Delta state with Governor Siminalayi Fubara issuing a threat in a language unbecoming of a role model, a leading politician and a supposed statesman in the country.

    What was at stake was the legality of the polls. The police had said it was obeying a court order not to provide security for the polls. This made the election a matter of what court was right. Earlier, a federal high court in Abuja had ruled that the election should not hold until the voter registration was updated. This position did not delight the Action People’s Party (APP). A high court in Rivers State ruled to the contrary when some politicians took the same matter to court.

    We believe this undermines the concept of the rule of law, and the idea of conflicting rulings is an act of mischief. Many eminent lawyers, retired jurists, intellectuals and statesmen have condemned this habit. It contravenes the spirit of the law. If a court hands down a ruling, an offended party’s reaction is not to shop for a court of coordinate jurisdiction. That engenders institutional confusion as well as egos of judges. It is believed that such actions corrupt judges. The right step is to appeal the verdict and that means taking the matter to the next tier of the court. That is order, discipline and respect for the constitution.

    The police withdrew, and so did two prominent parties, the People’ Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Congress (APC). The results of the poll led to the swearing-in of the partisans of the APP, with Governor Fubara as the main feature of the event.

    Read Also: Reps probe incessant collapse of buildings in Nigeria

    On the other hand, forces believed to be loyal to Nyesom Wike, the former governor and Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, allegedly went to town with mayhem and arson, burning down three local government secretariats.

    This is unacceptable. If the forces of Fubara did not follow the law, the reply is not impunity. We only retain the sanity of a civilised society by adhering to the law. Clearly, the election was conducted without following the law. The backlash also undermined the law. Hence President Bola Tinubu called for the restoration of order.

    Governor Fubara cannot say he did not incite violence in his state by his diction, and the tone of a warmonger he emitted on the eve of the election. He threatened to bring the state to “lawlessness” if the Inspector-General of Police dared him.

    At the time of writing, the state is calm, but tensions of deep partisan resentments seethe on both sides, and we urge all those not happy with the turn of events to resort to the court of law.

    Rivers State has been a tinderbox in recent election cycles. We expect decorum and the spirit of statesmen.

  • Will Supreme Court Rules 2024 enhance justice delivery?

    Will Supreme Court Rules 2024 enhance justice delivery?

    On April 1, the immediate-past Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola, who retired on August 22, signed the Supreme Court Rules 2024, which contains innovative provisions designed to revolutionise the court’s operations and enhance justice delivery. Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE highlights some of the provisions.

    Until this year, the Supreme Court had operated with Rules made 39 years ago.

    The rules were obsolete and did not address modern needs.

    On assuming office in 2022, the immediate Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola, constituted a committee comprising judicial officers and senior lawyers to review the old Supreme Court rules.

    After the committee’s work, Justice Ariwoola, on August 1, appended his signature to what is now known as the Supreme Court Rules 2024.

    Members of the committee included the current CJN, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun; Justice John Okoro, Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, Dr. Muiz Banire (SAN) and immediate-past Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Yakubu Maikyau (SAN).

    Justice Ariwoola said the rules of any court must be dynamic and contemporary to meet the changing demands of both the Bench and the Bar.

    He noted that when the 1985 rules were made, “things that are now ubiquitous like information technology, electronic transactions and global telecommunications, amongst others, were either not in existence or in their formative infancy.”

    “How then could such obsolete rules be adequate for the challenges of today?

    “It was for this reason that I empanelled a Rules Committee to undertake the arduous assignment of reviewing the 39-year-old rules and the many extant practice directions comprehensively,” he said.

    Justice Kekere-Ekun has also spoken highly about the many innovative provisions contained in the new rules and the positive impact the rules would make on the court’s operations.

    Justice Kekere-Ekun said the new rules introduced innovative provisions to enhance the efficiency of justice delivery, citing a provision that allows for an automatic extension of time to file certain processes in the first instance for the same period without penalty and in the second instance with the payment of a penalty in default, subsequent upon which no further extension of time will be allowed, except in an appeal against the death penalty.

    She said the innovation is intended to eliminate applications for an extension of time to file processes, which hitherto unnecessarily clog the court’s docket. She proceeded to dwell on other provisions of the 2024 Rules.

    The CJN said, under the new rules, “the period provided for the filing and exchange of briefs has been reduced, while greater responsibility is placed on legal practitioners in certain regards to ensure the speedy hearing of appeals.”

    She added: “A notice of non-contention must be filed where a party does not intend to contest the grant of an application.

    “Where service of a process is effected on a legal practitioner who has ceased to appear for a party, failure to inform the court expeditiously would be deemed an act of professional misconduct.

    “Furthermore, where costs have been awarded against counsel personally as a result of abuse of court process, he shall file a certificate of compliance within 90 days of the order, failing which he will not have the right of audience in any superior court of record until he complies.

    “Where costs are awarded by the lower court, they must be paid into an escrow account in a commercial bank in the name of the Chief Registrar.

    “A certificate of compliance duly verified by the Registrar of the court below must be compiled along with the record of appeal.

    “Failure to comply shall be deemed as failure to comply with the conditions of appeal with the necessary consequences thereto.”

    Read Also: Nigeria @64 and related matters

     Many lawyers have commended the Supreme Court for this initiative which is directed to enhance the court’s capacity to deliver on its constitutional mandate, curb delay and accommodate the deployment of technology to court operations.

    Some other provisions

    What constitutes an appeal

    An innovation in the 2024 Rules relates to the decision to clarify what constitutes an appeal.

    While in Order 1 Rule 2 of the 1985 Rules appeal is believed to include “an application for leave to appeal,” which was exploited to seek injunctions pending appeal or to ask for a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal’s judgment or a stay of proceedings at the lower court, Order 1 Rule 3 of the 2024 Rules now defines an appeal to mean when the appeal is entered after the record of appeal has been transmitted from the court below.

    The implication is that the mere filing of a notice of appeal or an application for leave to appeal may no longer be sufficient to claim that a valid appeal exists to warrant a request for stay of execution or proceedings.

    Service of court processes, including notice of appeal.

    Order 3 deals with the service of court processes, including notice of appeal.

    Rule 1 of Order 3 defines address for service, providing “that any reference to an address for service within or outside the Federal Republic of Nigeria, means a physical, postal, or electronic mail address, a GSM telephone number or any other available mode of communication where notices, summonses, warrants, proceedings and other documents, etc may be left, sent, posted or transmitted if not required to be served personally.

    Order 3 Rule 3 talks about the duty of a lawyer where he/she no longer acts for parties in the case.

    Unlike before where service could be contested on the grounds that the lawyer served with processes no longer acts for a party in the appeal, this rule has placed a burden on such a lawyer.

    It provides: “Where a Legal practitioner has been served with a notice of appeal or any other process, and the legal practitioner has ceased to be instructed by the party for the purpose of the proceedings concerned, it shall be the duty of the legal practitioner to inform the Registrar (of the Supreme Court) within seven days after service, that he is not or no longer authorised to accept service on behalf of such person and if he omits to do so, he shall be ordered to pay any costs occasioned thereby.

    “In addition, the omission may be treated as an act of professional misconduct.”

    Order 3 Rule 10 sub-rules 1 & 2 addressed the challenge often encountered in effecting service on political office holders and government officials.

     Sub-rule 1 provides: “Where the President, Vice President, a State Governor, a Deputy Governor of a State, Minister or Commissioner, or the Attorney-General, or Director of Public Prosecutions, or any other public officer of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or of a state is a party ex-officio in any proceedings in the court, whether civil or criminal, any notice or other document may be served on him by leaving it at or by sending it by registered post or electronically or by serving it in the open office/chambers of the Attorney-General of the Federation or of the state concerned, as the case may be; and service in this manner shall be as effective as if it were personal service.”

    Sub-rule 2 states: “The mode of service in sub-rule (1) of this Rule shall be deemed to be good and sufficient service on the state as a respondent in a criminal appeal other than an appeal in a private prosecution.”

    Time within which to respond to an application

    As against the case with the 1985 Rules that was silent on response timelines, Order 4 Rules 2 to 4 of the 2024 Rules specify the time within which responses must be filed.

    Under the new rules, respondents now have 14 days, from the date of service of an application on them, to file their responses, while applicants have seven days to file a reply (if any).

    The written address in opposition to an application shall not be more than seven pages, and any reply address shall not be more than five pages.

    Exemption of poor persons from payable fees

    Order 5 deals with payable fees, but Rule 3 of Order 5 exempts those considered to be poor persons from paying any fee.

    It states: “Any party may apply to the court for leave to prosecute or defend an appeal as a poor person and such application shall be by notice of motion, supported by affidavit, and shall be served on the other party or parties to the proceedings. No fees shall be payable on filing any such application.

    “No party shall be permitted to proceed as a poor person unless he has satisfied the court that he has a reasonable probability of success; a person permitted to proceed as a poor person shall not be liable to pay any of the court fees prescribed by these Rules nor shall he be required to make any deposit or to give security for costs.

    “Where the court grants leave to a party under these Rules, the Chief Justice or any Justice so designated shall assign a legal practitioner to that party; the court may for good cause shown, review, rescind or vary an order permitting any person to proceed as a poor person.

    “The court may, on account of the poverty of any party (although such party may not have been formally permitted to proceed as a poor person under this Rule) or for other sufficient reason, dispense, if it deems fit, with payment of any fees, if the circumstances of the case so require.

    “Provided that if such party succeeds in any appeal, which results in an order for payment to him of any costs, the court may order that such fees shall be a first charge on any money recovered or to be recovered under such order.

    “Except as otherwise stated in this Order or the context so admits, this Order shall apply to all matters, whether civil or criminal.”

    Abolition of stay of proceedings in respect of interlocutory appeal

    Another measure directed at addressing the resort to dilatory tactics by some lawyers is to abolish the stay of proceedings at the lower courts in relation to interlocutory appeals in both civil and criminal cases.

    Order 7 Rule 2(1) of the 2024 Rules provides that “the proceedings in any matter before the court below or any tribunal shall not be stayed in any form to await the outcome of an interlocutory appeal to this court.”

    Rule 3(4) of Order 7 provides instances where a stay of execution of an order or judgment could be granted. 

    It states: “Where an appellant has filed an application for stay of execution and the application is accompanied by prima facie evidence of the satisfactions of the conditions under Sub-rule 3(a), (b) and/or (c) no steps shall be taken to enforce the judgment appealed against, pending the determination of the application for stay of execution by the court.”

    Sub-rule 3(a), (b) and (c) provides: “The court shall have powers to make orders, by way of injunctions or the appointment of a Receiver or Manager, and such other necessary orders for the protection of property or person, pending the determination of an appeal to it, even though no application for such an order was made in the court below, upon the fulfilment of the following conditions to the satisfaction of the court”

    An undertaking to diligently prosecute the appeal is given by the applicant.

    In appeals relating to monetary judgments, a bond, guarantee or other like instrument from a reliable financial institution, in such sum not exceeding the judgment sum, as the court may direct, as security for the judgment sum or such sum as the court may determine, deposited into an interest yielding account in the name of the Chief Registrar or Deputy Chief Registrar of the court.

    In appeals relating to land, an undertaking to pay damages if the appeal is unsuccessful.

    Award of costs

    Courts in the country are usually criticised for being reluctant to award costs on at full indemnity basis even in obviously frivolous cases.

    Order 12 of the 2024 Rules now contains provisions to address this.

    Order 12 Rule 1 provides that where the costs of an appeal are allowed, they may either be fixed by the Court at the time when the judgment is given and may be ordered to be taxed.

    In fixing the amount of costs, the principle to be observed is that the successful party is to be indemnified for the expenses to which he has been unnecessarily put in the proceedings and compensated for his time and effort in coming to court. The court may take into account all the circumstances of the case.

    In the event of an abuse of the court’s process, the court may award punitive cost personally against the counsel responsible for the abuse.

        The costs to be awarded by the court in a civil appeal and an application in a civil appeal are hereby fixed as follows:

     (a) costs to a successful party in a civil appeal is fixed at a minimum of N2million.

    (b) costs for delaying the hearing of a civil appeal by a party on the day the appeal has been fixed for hearing is fixed at a minimum of N1million.

    (c) costs in any application in a civil appeal being heard in open court is fixed at a minimum of N500,000.

    (d) costs, where the court has found that there has been an abuse of its process, is fixed at a minimum of N2m.

    Costs may be imposed personally on any counsel representing the Federal Republic of Nigeria, State or Local Government or any governmental department as the case may be.

    Where costs have been ordered to be paid personally by counsel, it shall be paid within 90 days of the order and a certificate of compliance filed in the court within the said time.

    Counsel who fails to comply with Rule 6 of this Order shall cease to have the right of audience in any court in Nigeria until compliance. Notice of such default shall be served on all superior courts of record in Nigeria by the Chief Registrar.

    Appearance of lawyers in sessions

    To reduce the time spent in recording lawyers’ appearances and to also reduce the number of lawyers that appear in a case, Order 13 now prescribes the number of lawyers that could appear in a particular case.

    Order 13 Rule 2 provides: “The court shall regulate the number of counsel who may appear before it in any matter: Provided that:

    (a) A Senior Advocate of Nigeria shall not appear with more than five counsel;

    (b) Where more than one Senior Advocate of Nigeria appears for the same party in a matter, such number of counsel in that matter shall net exceed eight, inclusive of the Senior Advocates of Nigeria.

    (c) Other learned counsel shall not appear with more than four junior counsel.

    Except as otherwise stated in this order, or the context so implies, this order shall apply to all matters, whether civil or criminal.

    Adoption of fast track procedure in some criminal cases

    To prevent undue delay and ensure swift disposal, the 2024 Rules, in Order 14 provides for fast-track measures in dealing with some criminal cases.

    Order 14 Rule 3(1) provides: “In any appeal articularly those relating to the offences of terrorism, rape, kidnapping, corruption, money laundering and human trafficking, the Registrar of the court below shall, not later than 15 days after the filing of the notice of appeal, compile and transmit the record of appeal to the court (Supreme Court).”

    Rule 3(2) states: “In any appeal in respect of matters listed above, the Registrar of the court below shall not later than 15 days after filing of a notice of appeal, with the assistance of the appellant, compile and transmit the records of appeal to the (Supreme Court). “

    Rule 3(3) provides: “Pursuant to Rule 3(2) of this Order, the Registrar of the court below shall within seven days summon the parties before him to settle the documents to be included in the record of appeal; and fix the amount to be deposited by the appellant to cover the estimated cost of compiling and forwarding the record of appeal to the court.”

    Rule 3(4): “Where at the expiration of 15 days after the filing of the notice of appeal, the Registrar has failed or neglected to compile and transmit the record of appeal in accordance with the provisions of this rule it shall become mandatory for the appellant to compile the record, all documents and exhibits necessary for his appeal and transmit same to the court within 15 days after the Registrar’s failure or neglect.”

    Rule 3(5): “The record compiled by the appellant, pursuant to Rule 3(4) of this order, shall be served on the respondent within 15 days.”

    Rule 3(6) provides: “Where the respondent considers that there is additional record which may be necessary in disposing of the appeal, he shall be at liberty to, within five days of the service on him of the record, compile and transmit to the court such record to be known as the additional record of appeal.

    Electronic filing and virtual hearing

    The 2024 Rules have made provisions for the adoption of technology by introducing detailed provisions for electronic filing and virtual court proceedings.

    Orders 17 and 18 outline the procedures for filing court documents through the Nigerian Case Management System (NCMS) electronic filing portal and for conducting virtual hearings, respectively.

    Order 17 (Electronic filing) (1—(1): “Where under these Rules, a party is required to file any document, application or any process, such document, application, or process shall henceforth be filed via the NCMS E-Filing portal (the Nigeria Case Management System Electronic filing platform), and after a date announced by the Chief Justice pursuant to this rule, no other mode of filing by a party or by a legal practitioner shall be valid.

    • “Where in fling any court process under these Rules, a party is required to accompany such process with affidavit or any statement on oath, it shall suffice to file a scanned cony via the NCMS E-filing portal and hand in the original at the Registry of the court to be kept along with originals of uploaded documentary evidence.

    • “Save as otherwise provided under these Rules or other relevant laws, only documents received through and stored in the NCMS are proper records of the court, and Justices, parties and all registry staff shall consider and treat them accordingly.

    • “Where a process is filed electronically before midnight on a public holiday or non-judicial day, it shall be deemed to have been filed on the next working day.”

    Order 18 — Virtual hearing

    • Upon application by any of the pasties or suo motu, the court may conduct its proceedings virtually where it deems appropriate.

    • Virtual hearing shall be by means of any audiovisual platform approved by the court and a link will be provided to enable the public to observe the virtual proceedings.

    • Where the court adopts a virtual hearing for any proceedings in an appeal, the Registrar shall notify the parties.

    • The Justices of the court and counsel appearing in the appeal shall be fully robed for the virtual hearing subject to the directions of the court in exceptional circumstances.

    • The rules and practices on decorum and etiquette during a physical hearing shall be observed by counsel and parties during a virtual hearing.

    Electronic case scheduling and management/reading of judgment at virtual sitting

    Orders 19 and 20 make provisions for electronic case scheduling and management as well as the reading of the court’s judgments in either in the open court or at virtual sessions on either the day the appeal was heard or a later date communicated to parties.

    Order 19: Electronic case scheduling and management

    • The court shall implement a suitable electronic case scheduling and management platform that will be functional in the court for the purpose of efficient and effective management of case loading and case scheduling.

    • In the implementation of any case schedule and management platform, the court may at any time of its own initiative or on notice to the parties, review the progress of an appeal and give directions to facilitate the efficient and timely determination of such appeal.

    Order 20: Judgment

    • The judgment of the court shall be pronounced in open court or at a virtual hearing either on the day the suit or appeal was heard or at any subsequent time, prior to which notice shall be given by the Registrar to the parties in the appeal.

    • Whenever a reserved judgment is to be given and the counsel concerned are duly notified, the presence of such counsel or their juniors is required in court when judgment is being delivered. Failure to observe this will be regarded as an act of disrespect to the court.

    Lawyers commend initiative

    Law experts, including Prof. Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN) and Paul Obi (SAN), hailed the Supreme Court for the new rules and expressed confidence in its ability to transform the court’s operations and enhance the pace at which cases are decided.

    Akinseye-George said the new Rules if strictly applied, will positively affect the activities of the court and reduce delays in justice administration.

    Obi commended the leadership of the apex court for the initiative and was optimistic that the new rules would make the required difference.

    He said: “The CJN has talked about the new Supreme Court Rules. Although the document is not available yet, from the snippets we got, and from what the CJN said, I believe the provisions in the new rules will certainly speed up the process of administration of justice.”

  • Respect Supreme Court judgment on LG autonomy, CSOs tell Lagos Assembly

    Respect Supreme Court judgment on LG autonomy, CSOs tell Lagos Assembly

    A group of stakeholders, led by civil society organizations, staged a peaceful protest on Monday, October 7, at the Lagos State House of Assembly in Alausa, Ikeja, urging lawmakers to respect the Supreme Court’s judgment on local government autonomy.

    The protesters called on the state legislature to stop interfering in the affairs of local councils, asserting that only councillors have the authority to hold local government chairmen accountable.

    Shina Loremikan, the national coordinator of the Campaign Against Impunity in Nigeria, spoke on behalf of the protesters, emphasising that the state assembly’s attempt to sanction local government chairmen contradicts the ruling of the Supreme Court.

    According to Loremikan, the Supreme Court has ruled that local government autonomy means councillors, not the state assembly, are responsible for disciplining local government chairmen when necessary.

    Read Also: Alleged money laundering: Court adjourns to Oct 30 as Yahaya Bello heads to Supreme Court

    “There is no law except what the law says. The Supreme Court ruled that local governments should be autonomous. This means that if a local government chairman commits an offence, only the councillors, who are part of the local legislative arm, have the authority to sanction or discipline the chairman. The state House of Assembly cannot interfere in this process,” Loremikan explained.

    He further criticized the Lagos State Assembly for reportedly issuing queries to local government chairmen, stating that such actions go against the principles of autonomy outlined by the court.

    Loremikan compared the situation to the relationship between state governors and the National Assembly, where only the state legislature has the power to address any wrongdoing by the governor, not the federal lawmakers.

    Loremikan called for transparency in any public hearings related to local government matters, stressing the importance of public participation in the decision-making process. “If there is a public hearing today, it must be open to the public. We are part of the public, and we should be allowed to attend and contribute to these discussions, especially when it comes to reminding them of the law,” he added.

    The protesters also acknowledged that the Lagos Assembly has concerns regarding some local government chairmen and has placed certain individuals on a “watch list” for potential sanctions.

    However, Loremikan urged the state assembly to forward any allegations or evidence of wrongdoing to the local government councillors for investigation, in line with the Supreme Court ruling.

    “We are from different local governments across Lagos, and the state assembly should not dictate the fate of all councils in the state. Doing so would undermine the Supreme Court judgment. Whether we are comfortable with the ruling or not, it stands and must be followed,” Loremikan concluded.

    The protest highlights the ongoing struggle for local government autonomy in Nigeria, a cause that has been fought for many years.

    The stakeholders insisted that the Lagos State Assembly must comply with the Supreme Court’s decision and respect the independence of local government councils across the state.

  • Stakeholders rally ALGON to ensure implementation of Supreme Court judgement

    Stakeholders rally ALGON to ensure implementation of Supreme Court judgement

    The Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON) has expressed commitment to ensure that the judgement of the Supreme Court on Local Government administration in Nigeria yields positive fruits for citizens, especially those at the grassroots.

    ALGON National President, Hon Aminu Muazu Maifafa said the association would work with all relevant stakeholders to develop strategies to enhance the implementation of the judgement.

    Maifafa spoke at a One-Day meeting organised by ALGON with support from Partnership to Engage, Reform and Learn (PERL), a UK, Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) programme.

    The meeting was attended by ALGON state chairmen across the country, members of Civil Society Groups and other stakeholders including the Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE), Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) and Local Government Health workers.

    Maifafa said all ALGON members are determined to ensure that the judgement aids good governance and enhances service delivery to people at the Local Government level across the state.

    According to him, “We have the seal and the passion to ensure the success of this autonomy for local government so that our people at the local government level can be proud of us and that the efforts of all stakeholders towards this local government autonomy would not go in vain.”

    The Team Leader of the Partnership to Engage, Reform and Learn (PERL), Engage Citizens, Dr. John Mutu said Nigerians would benefit when there is good governance at the local government level.

    Read Also: FG resolves mining firms’ conflict in Nasarawa, says state hits 1 billion revenue monthly

    He said, “With ALGON and other stakeholders, it’s for us to reflect together on the judgement, the implications on the local government and to collectively identify challenges that may limit the implementation of the judgement and to collectively agree on strategies to ensure that the judgement is not just well implemented but that serves are delivered to the citizens.”

    “And a lot of issues have emerged from the conversation from NULGE, the local government workers, the NUT, as regards to primary and basic education on what they see as challenges and recommendations have been made on what to do through constitution amendment process and through administrative processes.

    If carefully done, we believe that the local government will be able to complement the efforts of the state and federal government  to deliver services to the people that they are meant to serve”, Mutu said.

    The FCDO Senior Governance Adviser, Chris Okeke harped on the need to ensure that local government funds are utilised judiciously to deliver services to the people at the grassroots.

  • Kogi govt condemns attack on Ajaka at Supreme Court

    Kogi govt condemns attack on Ajaka at Supreme Court

    …urges security agencies to fish out perpetrators

    The Kogi state government on Sunday, August 25, condemned the unprovoked attack on Alhaji Muritala Yakubu Ajaka, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) governorship candidate, by suspected hoodlums at the Supreme Court. 

    The incident occurred shortly after the court’s decision on the electoral disputes involving the governors of Kogi, Imo, and Bayelsa States.

    Governor Ahmed Usman Ododo of Kogi State, through a statement issued by the Commissioner for Information and Communications, Kingsley Fanwo, condemned the actions of the hoodlums as barbaric, uncivilized, and a serious threat to the institution of justice. 

    He called on security agencies to identify and apprehend those responsible. 

    Read Also: Kogi: SDP candidate Ajaka decries Supreme Court attack

    The Governor also urged Nigerians to refrain from taking the law into their own hands.

    Ododo said: “As a Government, we implore the law enforcement agencies to fish out the perpetrators and make them face the full wrath of the law to serve as a deterrent to others as well as protect the integrity and safety of our court environments across the country. 

    “We urge all Nigerians to support the path of constitutionalism and unity, which are the core values of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration.

    “We all must support his lofty policies and values for the progress and development of our dear nation.”

  • Supreme Court judgement on Kogi guber, will of the people – Sule

    Supreme Court judgement on Kogi guber, will of the people – Sule

    Nasarawa State Governor and Chairman, North Central Governor’s Forum, Abdullahi Sule, has congratulated Kogi State governor, Ahmed Usman Ododo, on his victory at the Supreme Court.

    Reacting to the ruling of the apex Court yesterday in Lafia, Governor Sule said, “the judgement is an affirmation of the will of the people of Kogi state, and a triumph for justice and democracy”.

    Read Also: Kogi: SDP candidate Ajaka decries Supreme Court attack

    The governor in a statement signed by his Chief Press Secretary, Ibrahim Addra, called on Governor Ododo to “put the litigations behind you and redouble efforts to deliver good governance and prosperity to the people of your great state in line with the manifesto of our party the APC”.

    He urged the Kogi governor to be magnanimous in victory and be a governor for all while calling on the people of the state to rally round the administration for the benefit of the state, the region and the country as a whole.