The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Breaking: Supreme Court voids APC’s victory in Zamfara elections

    The Supreme Court has voided the victory of the candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Zamfara State in the last general elections.

    Those affected are candidates for the governorship, National and state assemblies’ elections held on February 23 and March 11, 2019.

    A five-man panel of the Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment on Friday, held that the APC in Zamfara State did not conduct valid primaries from which its candidates emerged.

    After holding that the APC had no valid candidates for the elections, the panel, led by Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, declared that the first runner-ups, who scored the second highest votes and the required spread are winners.

    Read Also: Adeleke, PDP to challenge verdict at Supreme Court

    Candidates of the APC had won all the seats contested, including outgoing Governor, Abdulaziz Yari, who won a Senatorial seat,with candidates of the PDP emerging first runner-ups in most cases.

    In the lead judgment by Justice Paul Galumje, the court upheld the earlier judgment by the Court of Appeal in Sokoto and dismiss the three appeal the affected APC candidates filed.

    Justice Galumje said, since the APC had no valid candidates, having not conducted valid primaries, the votes recorded by its candidates are wasted votes.

  • ‘Supreme Court Justices answerable to God’

    The Supreme Court operates independently and is never dictated to by anyone, Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, said yesterday.

    He said: “We take our time in taking notes and writing judgments to avoid making mistakes. We subject every case before us to intense debates and arguments during our conferences in order to be as dispassionate and objective as possible.

    ‘’Let me state clearly that we are not answerable to anybody and can never be intimidated by anybody whatsoever in taking our decisions.

    “But for certain, we are only answerable to God Almighty because he is the owner of our lives. No human being, living or dead can influence the reasoning or judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

    “We are very independent in Supreme Court because of the enormity of the trust and responsibility reposed in us by the almighty God, the Constitution and our dear nation.”

    Justice Muhammad spoke in Abuja when he hosted the management of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), who paid him a courtesy visit in his office.

    He noted that the apex court remains the busiest and most hardworking Supreme Court in the world, in view of the number of appeals received and heard on weekly basis as well as the number of judgments delivered within short durations.

    The CJN said: “I beat my chest to say that there is no Supreme Court in the world that works the way Supreme Court of Nigeria does.

    “Except when we go on our annual vacation between late July and early September of every year, we keep hearing appeals. It is on record that there is no day of the week, between Monday and Friday that we don’t sit.

    “We deliver judgments on Fridays. Sometimes, we give as much as 35 judgments on some Fridays. We often times over-stretch ourselves, as we work assiduously day in, day out.

    “If you see the number of appeals that come to this court on a regular basis, it will shock you.

    “Basically, as it is today, there is nothing we can do about it for now, except there is a Constitutional amendment. Ideally, it is not every case that is supposed to reach Supreme Court. Some ought to be terminating at the Court of Appeal.”

    Muhammad assured that will always endeavour to bend over backwards, to give all cases involving both private individuals and other critical sectors expeditious hearing and attention, as part of its contribution to the nation’s economic development.

    AMCON Chairman Muiz Banire (SAN) said his agency, established in 2010, acquired over 120,000 toxic loans, valued at N3.8 trillion, from 23 banks.

    The AMCON chair further stated that additional N2.2 trillion was paid as financial accommodation for the then ailing banks.

    He noted that the total current exposure as at April 30th, 2019, according to him, is N4.19 trillion, with an excess of 7,000 outstanding obligors.

    Banire said: “Unfortunately, the top 350 obligors account for 82 per cent of the outstanding loans of N4.19 trillion, while just the top 100 made up 67 per cent.

    He revealed that top 20 accounts with total current exposure of N1.71 trillion, made 41 per cent of the total current exposure of N4.19 trillion.

    Banire noted that the major handicap of the Corporation, he stated, is the delay tactics often employed by the defaulters to frustrate the cases currently pending in various courts across the country.

    Other Justices of the Supreme Court at the event were Olukayode Ariwoola, Kekere-Ekun, Musa Dattijo, Ejembi Eko and Uwani Abba-Aji.

  • Adeleke, PDP to challenge verdict at Supreme Court

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has vowed to challenge yesterday’s verdict of the Court of Appeal that upheld the election of Mr. Gboyega Oyetola as governor of Osun State.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Oyetola, who contested on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winner of the election.

    But the Election Petition Tribunal nullified Oyetola’s election and declared Senator Ademola Adeleke of the PDP winner of the poll, consequent upon which Oyetola challenged the tribunal’s ruling at the appellate court.

    The Court of Appeal, sitting in Abuja, upturned the tribunal’s ruling and affirmed Oyetola’s election in a majority of four justices to one.

    Reacting to the ruling, in a statement by its spokesman, Kola Ologbondiyan, the PDP said Adeleke and the PDP will challenge the judgment.

    The party said: “It’s not in any way shaken by the judgment of the Court of Appeal, but rather stands with Nigerians in the confidence that justice and respect for the will of the people of Osun state will definitely prevail at the apex court.”

    It insisted that the will of the people, which it claimed was given to Senator Adeleke by the people of Osun, will not be allowed to be taken away.

    The PDP noted that the fact the Court of Appeal had a split judgment indicated that justice was not fully served at the appellate court.

    Read also: Jubilation in Osun over Oyetola’s court victory

    It said: “It is instructive to state that the Court of Appeal did not contest or invalidate the fact that Senator Adeleke won the election but only cited technicalities and speculations to arrive at its decision.

    “The PDP has also noted that the Court of Appeal failed to act on the full and substantial import of the failure of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to produce the ballot papers and record of accreditation to disprove our position that INEC altered results and subverted the will of the people of Osun State.

    “Our party and candidate are therefore confident that the Supreme Court will look at the merit of the matter and ensure that justice is served.”

    Senator Adeleke vowed to challenge the verdict before the Supreme Court.

    He said, in a statement, that he was disappointed by the judgment, which reversed the judgment of the election tribunals, which upheld the petition he and his party filed against the outcome of the election.

    Adeleke, representing Osun West Senatorial District, said: “I received with dissatisfaction the judgement of the Court of Appeal on the ruling of the election petition tribunal which had duly returned me as the validly elected governor of Osun state.

    “I have subsequently instructed my counsel to prepare for an appeal against today’s judgement at the Supreme Court immediately.

    “Today’s judgement relied on weak technical foundation.The substantive issue which formed the basis of the lower tribunal judgement was relegated to the background.

    “We are reviewing the full ruling and action has already commenced to appeal the judgement and ensure the eventual retrieval of the stolen mandate.

    “To the good people of Osun state, don’t be downcast. The struggle for good governance and retrieval of People’s mandate cannot be truncated by any flawed judgement.

    “We are taking the legal battle further to the topmost court in the land. I am confident the apex court will upturn today’s unsustainable ruling.

    “To all members of PDP in Osun State and my campaign Organisation, the struggle is now at the most critical stage.

    “We cannot waiver nor slow down. We must forge ahead in high spirit until final victory is attained. In this endeavour, I promise to provide the leadership as the genuine governorship mandate holder in Osun state.

    “My good people of Osun state, I know the pain and suffering you are passing through. The move to reclaim your mandate is still very much alive despite the jaundiced ruling of today.

    “We will not abandon the mandate you freely conferred on us. We will deploy all legal means to retrieve the stolen mandate. I appreciate the massive support from home and abroad. We shall triumph at last.”

  • Pre-election dispute: Supreme Court hears Zamfara APC’s appeals on May 16

    The Supreme Court has slated hearing for May 16 in the appeals filed by candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the last general elections in Zamfara State.

    Zamfara Governor-elect, Mukhtar Shehu Idris and elected members of the state’s House of Assembly filed the appeals against the March 25, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeal in Sokoto.

    The Court of Appeal had, in its judgment, set aside the judgment by the Zamfara State High Court, which upheld the primaries conducted by the APC and allowed it to field candidates for the 2019 general elections.

    The appellate court, also in the judgment, nullified the primaries, from which the appellants emerged, on the grounds that the APC spurned due process in the conduct of the primaries.

    On Thursday, the Supreme Court conducted preliminary proceedings on the appeals, during which parties were allowed to regularise their various appeals.

    Lawyer to the appellants, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) objected to move by respondents’ lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN) to argue his objection to the appeals.

    Read also:

    Fagbemi urged the court to direct that the objection be heard with parties’ briefs of argument in relation to the substantive appeals. He relied on Order 6 Rule 5 of the court’s Civil Procedure Rules.

    He noted that the court had, in many cases before now, adopted the practice of hearing objection along with the briefs of argument for it to deliver a single judgement.

    The court’s panel of Justices, led by the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, agreed with Fagbemi’s argument and adjourned till May 16 for hearing.

    Justice Muhammad assured parties that the court will hear and decide the appeals before its annual vacation.

  • Buhari can’t interfere in our affairs – Supreme Court management

    The authorities the Supreme Court have said that it was impossible for President Muhammadu Buhari to dictate to them or interfere in the court’s decision-making process.

    The court also said a media report, which blamed the fate that befell the immediate past Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen on some supposed disagreement among some directors of the court.

    It also faulted insinuations that members of the court’s bench are currently factionalised, insisting that justices of the court are as united as ever.

    Supreme Court’s spokesman, Festus Akande, in a statement on Monday, said: “Our attention has been drawn to a publication with the caption, “How Six Directors Cost Onnoghen his Job,” in the Nigerian Tribune of Monday 29 April, 2019.

    “It is imperative to let the public know that the story is misleading, ill-informed and obviously calculated to fan the ember of discord and as well whip up premature sentiments.

    “The Supreme Court of Nigeria is an organized and well-structured arm of government that is governed by well-defined rules and regulations which all staff are expected to observe and align within their daily operations. The Nigerian state, as it is well known, has three arms of government which evidently makes provision for the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary.

    Read also: Ex-Governor Oni loses bid to sack Fayemi at Supreme Court

    “As it is in practice, these three Arms are mutually independent and largely enjoy separation of powers; thus for anyone to insinuate that the Executive or the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, is the one dictating to the Chief Justice of Nigeria on how to run the affairs of the Supreme Court or the kind of disciplinary measures to mete out as a form of internal discipline of the staff for whatever reason is both false and logically defective.

    “In his capacity as the head of the Nigerian Judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular, as it was then, Hon Justice Walter Onnoghen had no cause to seek external advice or intervention in the discipline of his staff, if such occasion had arisen. Similarly, the alleged six Directors or what the publication referred to as “ASCON 6” have no cause or power whatsoever to plot against Justice Onnoghen as reported in the publication.

    “Let it be noted that the President and Commander- in -chief has never interfered or meddled into the internal administration of the Supreme Court, let alone granting audience to the six Directors with a view to plotting Justice Onnoghen’s down fall on the grounds that the former Chief Justice of Nigeria allegedly failed to heed to the President’s advice of sacking them for the alleged “massive underhand dealings”

    “As for the Finance and Accounts Department of the Court, there is no power tussle between three directors, as the current acting Director, Alhaji Gambo Ibrahim came in from the National Judicial Institute on secondment for a specified duration which has not yet elapsed.

    “Once again, it is necessary to caution peddlers of misleading and divisive rumours to always work in tandem with their conscience before hitting the public domain with their usual avalanche of falsehood that will end up doing no one any good.  There is no fracture or dislocation in the internal administrative mechanism of the Supreme Court.

    “Evidently, the entire publication is replete with falsehood and garnished tales, as there is nothing like “anti-Onnoghen campaign” group among the Honourable Justices of the Court.

    “This claim could aptly be taken as a fairy tale that only dwells in the imagination of the author and his informants. The Supreme Court Justices have no camps, groups or any form of division in their ranks as alleged.

    “In reality, they are even more united and cohesive in the discharge of their judicial functions and service to their fatherland.”

  • Fayemi, Oni: What next after Supreme Court verdict?

    The Supreme Court has delivered its judgement on the eligibility suit filed by former Ekiti State Governor Segun Oni against Governor Kayode Fayemi. In this peice, a commentator, Imman Nye, urges the two leaders to focus attention on reconciliation and harmony in the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the state.

    Penultimate Wednesday, April 17, 2019 the Supreme Court brought to an end the long search for electoral redemption by Engr. Segun Oni, a former governor of Ekiti State in his bid to assert himself as a candidate in the last governorship election in the state.

    Following his defeat in the party primary election, the former governor had shifted in between congratulating Dr. Kayode Fayemi who emerged the clear winner and exploring legalistic loopholes to claim the top prize that he did not get during the voting.

    His resort to the courts was in the consideration of many who know him, not wholly the decision of the former governor. The belief remains that some of his associates either supported the decision to go to court or were prevailed upon by some political chieftains bent on torpedoing the Ekiti renaissance as championed by the Kayode administration.

    Oni had following his failure to get reprieve at the lower courts approached the apex court to invalidate the emergence of Dr. Kayode Fayemi as the candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC in the governorship election that took place last year.

    The resolution of the case should ordinarily provide a stimulus for total reconciliation by all tendencies within the APC. Even more, it should be the anchor for stakeholders within and outside the state to latch on to towards giving momentum to the enterprising programmes of the incumbent administration led by Dr. Fayemi.

    But whether Oni and his associates would grab that opportunity or not is another question.

    That internal party dispute over the candidature of the APC in the governorship election had to the surprise of many, including associates of Oni, continued even after the party concluded its primaries. Oni was one of about 30 aspirants who contended for the ticket of the party.

    The former governor who was deputy national chairman of the party was undoubtedly the highest political party office holder from the state in the APC just before the election. A former member of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, the party on whose platform he served as governor before his 2007 election was invalidated in 2010, his tentacles in the APC were even to the admission of his core supporters, largely superficial. He had crossed over to the Progressives Camp following the implosion that hit the PDP in the period leading to the 2015 General Election.

    Irrespective of the political differences he had with people both in the PDP and in the APC, Engr. Oni has at almost every time come out as a gentleman. His moral compass on financial matters is a testimony that has often enchanted political folklore.

    Gentle speaking yet assertive in his missions, it was not difficult finding common interests with other chieftains of the APC after he defected to the newly registered party in 2014 alongside other members of the New Peoples Democratic Party, nPDP.

    His pursuit of redress to the apex court may well be considered in some quarters as part of his natural gravitation towards rectitude in the political space. It is also remarkable that while the court arbitration lasted that Governor Fayemi did not begrudge him, use the instrument of the state to molest him or intimidate him as some others in his position would have done.

    Such examples of tolerance especially within political parties is commendable and the example in Ekiti State should be demonstrated for the enlightenment of political operators who do not brook nonsense or opposition from fellow stakeholders.

    However, as the courts ruled severally, Oni may have unusually erred in his summation of the propriety of the election that set Dr. Fayemi as governor.

    It is on the basis of this that the former governor and his associates appear to be limited in their options. The easiest option he may have should be to join the new administration in Ekiti towards restoring the dignity of the people of the state after four years of rapacious rule of the commonwealth by the preceding administration.

    Engr. Oni’s capacity is definitely not in doubt. It behooves him and all major stakeholders in the state to work towards the kind of political stability that would enable the incumbent administration achieve its set goals.

    Besides the now concluded case involving Oni and the governor, Dr. Fayemi is also being challenged by his main challenger in the governorship election, Prof. Olusola Eleka, the candidate of the PDP in the election.

    Fayemi emerged triumphant in the two judgments given at the tribunal and the court of appeal. Expectedly, the PDP has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court where stakeholders are calmly waiting to check off the opposition.

    The calm that engulfs the governor’s camp in respect of the claims by his opponent, Eleka is understandable. Fayemi believes he won the election and has a template to punch away whatever allegations are raised against him.

    While it is doubtful that reason be put forward to the ultimate godfather of the PDP candidate for him to step down the case, confident associates of the governor are themselves anxious for the case to be settled on its merit to the purpose of bringing enlightenment to all political stakeholders as to the clear victory of Dr. Fayemi in the election.

    With the case settled and out of the way, the nation would then again and again observe without the present distractions the unfolding renaissance in Ekiti.

     

     

     

  • Ekiti set to implement Supreme Court’s verdict on council relocation

    THE Ekiti State Government has begun moves to implement the decision of the Supreme Court on a council relocation.

    The court had in a judgment delivered by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour on December 14, 2018, ordered the relocation of Ilejemeje council headquarters from Iye to Eda Oniyo.

    It ended a 19-year battle, which began at the state high court.

    The apex court held that the establishment of the headquarters of the

    Local Government in Eda Oniyo was backed by statute and could not be relocated elsewhere without the promulgation of a new law.

    The seven-man committee constituted by the state government to examine the apex court’s decision paid a fact-finding visit to Iye and Eda Oniyo yesterday.

    The panel, chaired by the deputy governor, Otunba Bisi Egbeyemi, who interfaced with the people of the two communities, urged them to give peace a chance in the wake of the court’s verdict.

    According to a statement signed by his Special Assistant (Media), Odunayo Ogunmola, Egbeyemi said the panel visited the two communities to see what is on the ground, having received documents from both parties.

    Egbeyemi explained that the visit was part of the assignment of the panel, which would turn in its report to Governor Kayode Fayemi.

    The deputy governor stressed that government was interested in ensuring that peace reigns in all communities in the state appealing to indigenes of Iye and Eda Oniyo not to engage in any act that could disrupt the peace enjoyed in the State.

    Egbeyemi led other members of the panel to visit the present local government secretariat and the palace of the Oniye, where he met with the monarch, Oba Jonathan Adeleye-Oni and community leaders, including Afenifere leader, Senator Ayo Fasanmi.

    He also visited Eda Oniyo, where a building that has been designated as the temporary local government secretariat and the permanent site of the council secretariat.

    The deputy governor and his team made up of panel members and officials of Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs were received by the Eleda of Eda Oniyo, Oba Julius Awolola.

  • Supreme Court gets records of appeal by Zamfara Governor-elect, others

    THE Supreme Court has received the records of proceedings at the lower courts in relation to the appeal filed by Zamfara State Governor-elect Mukhtar Idris and 37 others.

    The appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Sokoto.

    The compilation and transmission of records by an appellant and the receipt of such records by the Supreme Court are major requirements for a competent appeal.

    The Court of Appeal in Sokoto had, in a judgment some weeks ago, faulted the primary elections conducted by the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the state prior to the last general elections.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), acting on the Appeal Court’s judgment, has failed to issue the certificates of return to Idris (the governor-elect) and others, who are also members of the APC, elected to the state’s House of Assembly.

    Idris and others are, by their appeal, seeking among others, the setting aside of the judgment by the Appeal Court in Sokoto.

    It was learnt that although the records of appeal have been received at the Registry of the Supreme Court, a date is yet to be set for the hearing of the appeal.

    The Nation learnt that parties to the appeal are required to file, serve and exchange their various briefs of argument before a date could be set for the hearing of the appeal.

    A senior court official informed The Nation that in view of the urgency involved, the case being election-related, the court could be moved to abridge time.

    The official said the court may abridge the time for parties to file and serve their processes because of the nature of the case and the urgency involved.

    Idris and others had last week, written to the INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmud Yakubu, drawing his attention to the notice of appeal filed at the Supreme Court.

    In the letter dated April 2, 2019, authored by their lawyer, Mahmud Magaji (SAN), Idris and others argued that the judgment by the Court of Appeal in Sokoto contained no positive or direct order.

  • Supreme Court seals Rivers APC’s fate

    It was the end of the road on Thursday for the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers State as the Supreme Court struck out three appeals filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC), Tonye Patrick Cole and members of his faction of the party.

    The appeals were against the judgment that excluded the APC from fielding candidates in the last elections in the state.

    A seven-man panel of the apex court, led by Justice Ibrahim Muhammad held, in a ruling on Thursday that the three appeals were defective, incompetent and could not be heard by the court.

    The appeals were: SC/295/ 2019 filed by APC, with People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) listed among respondents; SC/266/2019 filed by APC, with Magnus Abe and others as respondents and SC/267/2019 filed by Tonye Patrick Cole, with Magnus Abe and others as respondents.

    Justice Muhammad, in the first ruling delivered on SC/295/2019, upheld that argument by PDP’s lawyer, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) to the effect that the notice of appeal filed by the APC was defective.

    Read Also: Rivers APC Primaries, INEC and Supreme Court uncertainty

    The judge noted that, rather the heading a portion of the notice of appeals “Reliefs sought from the Supreme Court,” it was wrongly headed “Reliefs sought from the Court of Appeal.”

    He said the implication of that error was that the appellant did not seek any relief from the Supreme Court, and thereby contravened the court’s rules, particularly Order 8 Rule 2, a development that rendered the appeal incompetent.

    The same errors were noticed in the other two appeals, which made the appellants’ lawyers, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) and Tuduru Ede to withdraw both appeals, following which the court struck them out.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had, based on a judgment of a Rivers State High Court, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal, excluded candidates of the Rivers APC from its last elections.

    By the three appeals, the APC had sought a consolidation of all existing appeals relating to the dispute over the primary elections held in the state; the avoiding of the judgment on which INEC acted and the recognition of Patrick Cole and others as the party’s actual candidates.

    Patrick Cole (APC governorship candidate) and others had emerged from the primary conducted by a faction of the party, which the Senator Magnus Abe faction objected to.

    When the first appeal marked: SC/295/2019 was called, Okutepa, for the appellant, adopted the appellant’s brief of argument and urged the court to allow the appeal.

    Okutepa urged the court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which described the appeal by the APC against the judgment of the trial court as mere academic exercise.

    He urged the court to invoke it powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to hear and determine this issue on the merit and grant the reliefs the Court of Appeal failed to grant.

    While responding, Ukala urged the court to dismiss the appeal for being unmeritorious and uphold his preliminary objection.

    Ukala in arguing his preliminary objection, referred the court to page 1768, volume 3 of the records of appeal and argued that the reliefs sought by the appellant, as contained in the page, are not grantable by this court.

    He noted that “all the reliefs it (the appellant) sought can only be granted by the Court of Appeal, because it is directed at that court. In this instance, there are no valid reliefs before this court.”

    Ukala, who argued that the error noted in the notice of appeal was fatal to the appeal, said it breached Order 2 Rule 8 and Order 8 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court’s Rules.

    He argued that, by asking the court to invoke Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to determine the case on the merit and set aside the judgment in the suit marked: PHC/78/2018, the appellant wants the court to overrule itself.

    Ukala contended that the court had, in its earlier decisions in cases relating to the
    Continue on Page 2

  • Breaking: Rivers poll: Supreme Court rejects APC, Tonye Cole’s three appeals

    The Supreme Court has struck out three appeals filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC), Tonye Patrick Cole and members of his faction of the party, against the judgment that excluded the APC from fielding candidates in the last elections in Rivers State.

    A seven-man panel of the apex court, led by Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, held that three appeals were defective, incompetent and could not be heard by the court.

    The appeals are: SC/295/ 2019 filed by APC, with People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) listed among respondents; SC/266/2019 filed by APC, with Magnus Abe and others as respondents and SC/267/2019 filed by Tonye Patrick Cole, with Magnus Abe and others as respondents.

    Read Also: Supreme Court refuses appeal by sacked Kwara APC exco

    Justice Muhammad, in the first ruling delivered on SC/295/2019, upheld that argument by PDP’s lawyer, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) to the effect that the notice of appeal filed by the APC was defective.

    The judge noted that rather than heading a portion of the notice of appeals “Reliefs sought from the Supreme Court,” it was wrongly headed “Reliefs sought from the Court of Appeal.”

    He said the implication of that error was that the appellant did not seek any relief from the Supreme Court, and thereby contravened the court’s rules, a development that rendered the appeal incompetent.

    The same errors were noticed in the other two appeals, which made the appellants’ lawyers, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) and Tuduru Ede to withdrew both appeals, following which the court struck them out.

    Details later.