Tag: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment in an appeal filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Okey Ahiwe, seeking the nullification of the election of Alex Oti as the Governor of Abia.

Justice John Okoro reserved the judgment to a date to be communicated to parties after taking their final arguments.

Alhough PDP’s legal team was led by the immediate past Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (AGF), Abubakar Malami SAN, the arguments were however presented by Uche Ihediuwa, SAN.

While presenting the PDP’s submissions, Ihediuwa alleged that Ahiwe was short-changed with over 84,000 votes during the collation of the governorship election results.

The lawyer alleged that the agent of the PDP was chased away at the collation center and as such, was not obliged a copy of the results as required by law.

He claimed that his client had to approach the All Progressives Congress (APC) before it could access results sheets and discovered the alleged malpractices.

However, Otti, represented by Abiodun Owonikoko, SAN, asked the apex court to dismiss the appeal for want of merit.

Owonikoko informed the court that Otti scored over 174,000 votes at the March 18, 2023 governorship election to emerge victorious adding that even if the purported 84,000  short-changed votes were added to PDP, the appellants would still not win.

He said that a purported result sheet produced by the PDP before the State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal was rejected because it could not be read by the witness of the party.

Read Also: UPDATED: Supreme Court reserves judgments in Plateau, Delta governorship disputes

It will be recalled that Otti of the LP  was declared the winner of the governorship election in the Abia  by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on March 22.

He polled 175,466 votes to defeat his closest rival, Ahiwe of the PDP, who scored 88,529 votes.

Ahiwe and the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC),  Ikechi Emenike, separately challenged Otti’s victory at the tribunal.

The tribunal in its judgment on October 6, 2023 dismissed the petitions by Ahiwe and Emenike and affirmed Otti’s election.

The judgment of the tribunal was later affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

(NAN)

The Supreme Court has reserved judgments in the appeals about the disputes over the last governorship elections that produced Governors Caleb Mutfwang and Sheriff Oborevwori of Plateau and Delta states respectively.

A five-member panel of the court, presided over by Justice John Okoro announced on Tuesday, January 9, that parties in the various appeals will be informed when the judgment is ready.

Justice Okoro announced after the court took arguments from lawyers to parties in the appeals.

Three appeals were filed in respect of Plateau State, while the same number was filed about Delta State.

Out of the three filed in respect of Plateau, the court heard the one filed by Mutfwang (SC/CV/1190/2023), with an agreement by parties that the decision in the one heard shall be applied to the appeal filed by the Governor’s party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), marked: SC/CV/1191/2023.

The third appeal, filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was withdrawn by its lawyer, Samuel Atung (SAN) when the court made him realise that the other appeals were sufficient to resolve the dispute.

The three appeals are directed against the November 19 judgment of the Court of Appeal, which voided Mutfwang’s election.

Arguing Mutfwang’s appeal, his lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) urged the court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restore the judgment of the election tribunal which affirmed his client’s election.

Agabi argued that the Court of Appeal erred in reaching its conclusion that Mutfwang was not validity-sponsored and therefore not qualified to have contested the election.

He further argued that, as against the lower court’s finding that the PDP disobeyed an order of the High Court of Plateau State, the order was complied with, because the party conducted fresh congresses as directed by the court.

Kanu contended that his client was validly nominated and sponsored by the PDP, adding that he won the majority of votes cast, which accounted for why INEC declared him the winner of the election.

When asked by Justices Okoro and Emmanuel Agim about the effect of the subsisting order of the Plateau High Court on the candidacy of his client, Agabi said it has no effect, because the PDP complied with the order.

He noted that the Court of Appeal equally agreed that PDP complied with the order, but only said there was no substantial compliance.

Professor Joshua Olatoke (SAN), lawyer to the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the election, Nentawe Yilwatda (listed as the first respondent) urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Olatoke argued that the lower court was right to have held that Mutfwang was not qualified to contest the election given his invalid nomination and sponsorship because the PDP had no valid structure in place in the state to produce a valid candidate.

He further argued that the PDP in Plateau, having failed to comply with the court order directing it to conduct fresh ward congresses to constitute its state executive, the party was under the control of an illegal executive, which could not conduct a valid primary to produce candidates for elections.

Read Also: BREAKING: Supreme Court reserves judgment on appeals against Oborevwori’s victory

When asked to react to Agabi’s claim that the PDP complied with the order, Olatoke faulted the claim.

He drew the court’s attention to a portion of the Court of Appeal judgment, where the lower court found that the PDP only conducted fresh congresses in five out of the state’s 17 Local Government Areas.

A lawyer to the APC, Omosanya Popoola argued similarly and prayed the court to dismiss the appeal.

The Supreme Court, also on Tuesday, heard three appeals, seeking to unseat Governor Sheriff Oborevwori of Delta State.

The court also reserved judgments till a date to be communicated to parties.

The first appeal, marked: SC/CV/1202/2023 was filed by the candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in the election, Kenneth Gbagi.

The second, marked: SC/CV/1203 was filed by the candidate of the APC, Ovie Omo-Agege, while the third (SC/CV/1204/2023) was filed by the candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Kennedy Pela.

• Lagos, others stopped from levying businesses on channels

The Supreme Court has held that the control of activities on the nation’s inland waterways, including levying and licensing of operators, belongs solely to the Federal Government.

The apex court, in a judgment on Friday, held that it was wrong for states to seek to control the sector and impose levies on businesses operating in the nation’s inland waterways.

The Supreme Court held that existing laws give exclusive control of such activities to the Federal Government through its agencies – the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) and the Nigerian Maritime Standard and Safety Agency (NMSSA) – and no other tier of government.

The judgment, authored by Justice John Okoro but read by Justice Emmanuel Agim, was on the appeal marked: SC/CV/17/2018, filed by the NIWA, NMSSA, the Minister of Mines and Steel Development, and the Minister of Transport.

Read Also: Can of worms

Respondents to the appeal were the Lagos State Waterways, the state’s Commissioner for Waterfront Infrastructure Development, the state’s Attorney General, Governor of Lagos State, the Incorporated Trustees of Association of Tourist Boat Operators and Water Transportation of Nigeria (ATBOWTN) and the Incorporated Trustees of Dredgers Association of Nigeria (DAN).

The appeal filed in 2018 was prosecuted for the appellants by a team of lawyers led by Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), who was recently appointed as the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice.

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants’ argument that NIWA is the only agency saddled with the responsibility to levy, impose and charge rates utilization along the declared waters of Nigerian Inland Waterways.

It added that NIWA is the rightful and legal agency of the Federal Government with the powers to exclusively manage, direct and control all activities on the navigable waters and its right of ways throughout the country for the purpose of inland navigation, pursuant to Sections 8 and 9 of NIWA Act.

The apex court equally agreed with the appellants that the activities of the Lagos government and its agencies constitute a flagrant usurpation and an illegal encroachment on the statutory functions of NIWA because the waterways of Lagos State, among others in Nigeria, fall under the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

It held that it is only the Federal Government, through the National Assembly, that can validly legislate on maritime, shipping and navigation, adding that the power to legislate on any subject in the Exclusive Legislative List does not lie with the Lagos State Government.

The appellants had also argued that the activities of the Lagos State Waterways Authority (LASWA) created by the Lagos Government, though the enactment of LASWA Law No. 14 of 2008 (LASWA 2008) by the House of Assembly to regulate, develop and manage all aspects of the waterways in Lagos State is unconstitutional.

The apex court noted that existing laws do not favour Lagos government’s arguments on resource control, but that political stakeholders, including the Legislature could work on ways to amend the law to address the concern raised by Lagos and others on the issue.

The Supreme Court restored the judgment delivered on March 28, 2014 by Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court in Lagos and reversed the July 18, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lagos division), which set aside the Federal High Court judgment.

The Court of Appeal had, among others, held that the inland waterways within Lagos, not captured by the National Inland Waterways Act, are within the legislative competence of the state’s legislature and that the state could collect taxes/levies on businesses on waterways which start and terminate in the state.

Confronted with a regime of multiple charges by the agencies of both the Federal Government and Lagos, ATBOWTN and DAN in 2012 filed a suit, marked FHC/L/CS/543/2012 at the Federal High Court, Lagos to determine which tier of government was empowered by extant laws to license and levy business operators on the nation’s inland waterways.

In his judgment on the case, Justice Tsoho held among others, that NIWA and NIMASA are the proper and lawful agencies with authority in matters relating to the commercial activities of ATBOWTN and DAN, who are involved in water tourism, transportation and sand dredging within the national inland waterways.

Justice Tsoho restrained the Lagos Waterways Authority and the Commissioner for Waterfront Infrastructural Development from further seeking to control the commercial activities of the plaintiffs – ATBOWTN and DAN.

It is the decision by Justice Tsoho that the Court of Appeal set aside in its July 18, 2017 judgment on the appeal, marked: CA/L/886/2014.

NIWA and three others challenged the Appeal Court’s decision at the Supreme Court, which in the January 5 judgment reversed the decision of the lower court and affirmed the March 28, 2014 judgment by Justice Tsoho.

The Supreme Court has held that the control of activities on the nation’s inland waterways, including levying and licensing operators in the sector belongs solely to the federal government.

The apex court, in a judgment on Friday, January 5, held that it was wrong for states to seek to control the sector and impose levies on businesses operating in the nation’s inland waterways.

The Supreme Court held that existing laws give exclusive control of activities in the nation’s inland waterways to the FG through its agencies – the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) and the Nigerian Maritime Standard and Safety Agency (NMSSA) – and no other tier of government.

The judgment, authored by Justice John Okoro, but read on Friday by Justice Emmanuel Agim, was on the appeal marked: SC/CV/17/2018, filed by the NIWA, NMSSA, the Minister of Mines and Steel Development, and the Minister of Transport.

Respondents to the appeal were the Lagos State Waterways, the state’s Commissioner for Waterfront Infrastructure Development, the state’s Attorney General, Governor of Lagos State, the Incorporated Trustees of Association of Tourist Boat Operators and Water Transportation of Nigeria (ATBOWTN) and the Incorporated Trustees of Dredgers Association of Nigeria (DAN).

The appeal filed in 2018 was prosecuted for the appellants by a team of lawyers led by Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), who was recently appointed as the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice.

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants’  argument that NIWA is the only agency saddled with the responsibility to levy,  impose and charge rates utilization along the declared waters of Nigerian Inland Waterways.

It added that NIWA is the rightful and legal agency of the Federal Government with the powers to exclusively manage, direct and control all activities on the navigable waters and its right of ways throughout the country for the purpose of inland navigation, pursuant to Sections 8 and 9 of NIWA Act.

The apex court equally agreed with the appellants that the activities of the Lagos government and its agencies constitute a flagrant usurpation and an illegal encroachment on the statutory functions of NIWA because the waterways of Lagos State, among others in Nigeria, fall under the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

It held that it is only the Federal Government, through the National Assembly that can validly legislate on Maritime Shipping and Navigation, adding that the power to legislate on any subject in the Exclusive Legislative List does not lie with the Lagos State Government.

The appellants had also argued that the activities of the Lagos State Waterways Authority (LASWA) created by the Lagos Government, though the enactment of LASWA Law No. 14 of 2008 (LASWA 2008) by the state’s House of Assembly, to regulate, develop and manage all aspects of the waterways in Lagos State  is unconstitutional.

The apex court noted that existing laws do not favour Lagos government’s arguments on resource control, but that political stakeholders, including the Legislature could work on ways to amend the law to address the concern raised by Lagos and others on the issue.

The Supreme Court restored the judgment delivered on March 28, 2014 by Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court in Lagos and reversed the July 18, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lagos division), which set aside the Federal High Court judgment.

The Court of Appeal had, among others, held that the inland waterways within Lagos State, not captured by the National Inland Waterways Act, are within the legislative competence of the state’s Legislature and that the state could collect taxes/levies on businesses on waterways which start and terminate in the state.

Confronted with a regime of multiple charges by the agencies of both the FG and Lagos govt, ATBOWTN and DAN in 2012 filed a suit, marked FHC/L/CS/543/2012 at the Federal High Court, Lagos to determine which tier of government was empowered by extant laws to license and levy business operators on the nation’s inland waterways.

In his judgment on the case, Justice Tsoho  held among others, that NIWA and NMSSA are the proper and lawful agencies with authority in matters relating to the commercial activities of ATBOWTN and DAN, who are involved in water tourism, water transportation and sand dredging within the national inland waterways.

Justice Tsoho restrained the Lagos State Waterways Authority and the state’s Commissioner for Waterfront Infrastructural Development from further seeking to control the commercial activities of the plaintiffs – ATBOWTN and DAN.

It is the decision by Justice Tsoho that the Court of Appeal set aside in its July 18, 2017 judgment on the appeal, marked: CA/L/886/2014 filed by the Governor of  Lagos State and three others.

NIWA and three others challenged the Appeal Court’s decision at the Supreme Court, which in the January 5 judgment reversed the decision of the lower court and affirmed the March 28, 2014 judgment by Justice Tsoho.