The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court rules on PDP crisis Wednesday

    Supreme Court rules on PDP crisis Wednesday

    The Supreme Court will on Wednesday resolve the lingering leadership dispute plaguing the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    This was contained in hearing notices sent to parties in the dispute by the court’s registry on Monday.

    The Supreme Court on May 25 reserved judgment on the appeal challenging the affirmation of Sen. Ali Modu Sheriff as National Chairman of the PDP.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, who presided over the case, reserved the judgment after counsel to parties adopted their written addresses.

    Sen. Ahmed Makarfi-led PDP Caretaker Committee had on March 16 filed the appeal against Sheriff’s position as PDP chairman.

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt on February 27 declared Sheriff as authentic national chairman of the party.

    Counsel to Sheriff, Chief Akin Olujimi (SAN), described Makarfi’s appeal as abuse of court process.

    He said Makarfi failed to seek the leave of court before filing the application.

    Olujimi also submitted that the Makarfi’s faction seized to be recognised following the appeal court’s judgment.

    Makarfi’s counsel, Chief Wole Olanikpekun (SAN), prayed the court to disregard the argument advanced by Sheriff’s counsel, adding that the submissions were baseless.

     

  • Ex-Council Officials to Fayose: Obey Supreme Court, pay our allowances

    Ex-Council Officials to Fayose: Obey Supreme Court, pay our allowances

    Local government officials in Ekiti State who served between 2008 and 2010 on Tuesday took to the streets to protest alleged refusal of Governor Ayo Fayose to obey the Supreme Court order that they be paid the allowances covering the remainder of their tenure.

    The former local government chairmen and councillors who were elected on December 20, 2008, alongside the supervisors and advisers were removed from office on 29th October, 2010 by former Governor Kayode Fayemi.

    The placard-carrying protesters started their demonstration at the gate of Christ’s School, Ado-Ekiti before moving to other parts of the town. They expressed dismay that since the Supreme Court judgment delivered on December 9 last year, nothing has been done to pay them
    as ordered.

    Some of their placards read: “Ekiti Government Should Respect the Rule of Law,” “Gov Fayose, Pay Our Money,” “No Individual is Bigger than Supreme Court,” “Mr Governor, Stop Dragging Judiciary Judiciary in the Mud,” “ALGON 2008-2010 Challenge Gov Fayose To Pay Our Allowances as Ordered by Supreme Court,” among others.

    One of the protesters, Babalola Adekunle, who served as Special Adviser on Internally Genrated revenue in Oye Local Government, wondered why Fayose is allegedly punishing fellow Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) members by refusing to pay them their salaries, allowances
    and emoluments.

    Babalola who disclosed that they resorted to the protest having waited for seven months without any action from the government said some of their colleagues had died while others are finding it difficult to meet up with their responsibilities.

    He said: “We don’t know why Fayose is delaying the payment of our financial entitlements as ordered by the Supreme Court. We are PDP members like Fayose, he should pay us from the N9.6 billion Paris Club Refund cash.”

    Another protester, Clement Omotoyinbo, who served as Councillor in Gbonyin Local Government, advised Fayose to stop what he called “frivolous projects” and pay the former council officials their entitlements as ordered by the apex court.

    Omotoyinbo said: “Fayose should stop these frivolous projects he is executing and pay us our entitlements. It is only a living person that can climb and ride a vehicle on the flyover he is constructing.”

  • KOWA urges Obaseki to be magnanimous in victory

    KOWA urges Obaseki to be magnanimous in victory

    KOWA, a political party, has urged Gov. Godwin Obaseki of Edo to be magnanimous in his political victory by working with all stakeholders, irrespective of political affiliations.

    Mr Thompson Osadolor, KOWA’s candidate in the 2016 Edo Governorship election, gave the advice in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Benin on Tuesday.

    Osadolor, who was reacting to Obaseki’s victory at the Supreme Court, described the victory as a call to unite all stakeholders for the purpose of moving the state forward.

    He said just like his previous victory at the Tribunal and Appeal Court, the Supreme Court victory had again reaffirmed that the people truly voted for Obaseki to be the Governor.

    Osadolor said: “Now that the legal battle of the governorship election has been put to rest, it is time for all, irrespective of political affiliations, to put the state at work.

    We must all now come together to work for the common good of the people and the state. We must now put our individual interest or ambition on hold for the common good of all – Osadolor.

    “As for the Governor, I urge him to see his victory as a call to unite all, whether they worked for him or not.

    “He should be magnanimous and humble enough to tap knowledge from his political opponents. What matters most is the overall development of the state,’’ he said.

    Osadolor said many candidates that contested the election with Obaseki did so with the desire to uplift the standard of living of the people and for the overall growth of the state.

    “In going into the contest, however, we were also conscious of the fact that only one will emerge as governor at the end of the day.

    “My point here is that since Obaseki defeated us to the seat, he needs our support; let us avail ourselves to assist him when he requests for it.

    “Obaseki is the governor today; his time has come and it will definitely end one day for another person to take the battle of leadership, but the state remains while leaders come and go.”

    Obaseki, who contested the election the election on the platform of All Progressives Congress (APC), September 2016, defeated his closest rival and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Mr Osagie Ize-Iyamu.

    Ize-Iyamu, who was not satisfied with the results of the poll, challenged the victory of Obaseki at the Election Petitions Tribunal alleging irregularity.

    However, the Three-Member Edo Election Petition Tribunal in April dismissed the petition filed by the PDP and its candidate, for lack of merit.

    Similarly, in June, the Appeal Court again upheld Obaseki’s victory at the poll while Ize-Iyamu proceeded to the apex court to challenge the Appeal Court’s judgment.

    In the seven-man panel at the Supreme Court on Monday, the judges, in a unanimous decision, dismissed Ize-Iyamu’s case for lack of merit.

  • Supreme Court upholds Obaseki’s election

    Supreme Court upholds Obaseki’s election

    The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the election of the All Progressives Congress’ (APC’s) Godwin Obaseki as governor of Edo State.

    The court, in two unanimous judgments by a seven-man panel, dismissed the two appeals filed by the candidate of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), Osagie Ize-Iyamu in the last governorship election in Edo State.

    The court merely gave its decisions in both appeals and promised to make available its reasons for the decisions on July 24.

    Justice John Inyang Okoro, who read the lead judgments in both appeals, dismissed them for lacking in merit.

    On the interlocutory appeal, Justice Okoro said: “after a careful consideration of all the argument of counsel in their various briefs in this interlocutory appeal, I am of the firm view that there is no merit in this appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed. I shall give reasons for the judgment on the 24th of July 2017. Parties shall pick up copies of the said judgment from the registry of the court on that date. I make no order as to cost.”

    In relation to the main appeal against the June 9, 2017 judgement of the Court of Appeal, Benin division, Justice Okoro said: “I have carefully considered all the issues canvassed by all the parties in this appeal, and I hereby hold that this appeal is devoid of merit and deserves an order of dismissal.

    “Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Reasons for the judgment shall be given on the 24th July 2017.  Parties are directed to pick up copies of the reasons for the judgment on the 24th of July 2017 at the registry of the court. I make no order as to cost.”

    Other members of the panel: the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen, Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad, Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, Justice Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs and Justice Sidi Dauda Barge, agreed with the lead judgments in both appeals.

    The interlocutory appeal was against an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal before its final judgement on June 9, 2017.  The main appeal by Ize-Iyamu was against the final judgment.

    By its decisions yesterday, the Supreme Court equally upheld the June 9, 2017 judgment by the Court of Appeal, Benin in an earlier appeal by Ize-Iyamu against the judgment of the trial tribunal, which found his petition unmeritorious and affirmed Obaseki’s victory recorded on September 28, 2016.

    Earlier yesterday, the seven-man panel of the Supreme Court allowed lawyers representing parties to adopt their written briefs, with Yusuf Ali (SAN), adopting for Ize-Iyamu; Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) listed as 1st respondent; Wole Olanipekun (SAN) for Obsaeki (listed as 2nd respondent) and Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) for the APC.

    While Ali urged the court to allow his client’s appeasl and grant his prayers, Ikpeazu, Olanipekun and Fagbemi urged the court to dismiss the appeals for lacking in merit.

    After listening to the lawyers, Justice Onnghen, who coordinated affairs, announced that the appeals would be stood down until 11.15am for it to be recalled. The proceedings later resumed around 11.30am, following which Justice Okoro was invited to give the court’s lead decisions in respect of both appeals.

    Many PDP chieftains, who were in court, including Ize-Iyamu, Dan Orbih, Ben Obi and Tom Ikimi wore long faces on hearing about the court’s decisions.

     

     

  • Supreme Court pegs lawyers’ appearance at five per party

    Supreme Court pegs lawyers’ appearance at five per party

    In a move aimed at curbing crowding, the Supreme Court has pegged the number of lawyers that could appear for a party in a case before it at five, including the lead lawyer.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen announced this yesterday, shortly before the Supreme Court opened proceedings in the two appeals filed by former governorship candidate of the People’s Democratic Pary (PDP) in Edo State, Osagie Ize-Iyamu.

    Justice Onnoghen said the directive was meant to curb the practice of about 100 lawyers, in most political cases, announcing appearance for a party.

    He said the practice adds nothing to court’s proceedings, but only end up congesting the court, thereby denying lawyers with legitimate business the opportunity to access court and sit comfortably.

    The CJN noted that in recent time, lawyers have been compelled to stand in court, while some sit on the floor, because some senior lawyer, who came to court with over 100 junior lawyers have taken up available space.

    Justice Onnoghen said: “There was a mater we had here and 106 lawyers appeared, the whole space was taken up and some lawyers had to stand and others sit on the floor. I have issued a directive, which should extend to other courts, that lawyers appearing in the Supreme Court, should not be more than five for each party, including the lead lawyers.

    “This large number of lawyers don’t always consume space; it takes take time to announce appearance. Appearance in cases have to have utility value, such appearance has to serve a purpose. I have to repeat this directive today, because I believe it was not brought to the attention of the Bar.

    Former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Wole Olanipekun (SAN) who was in court for the Ize-Iyamu appeals, appealed to the CJN to allow 30 lawyers per party, a request another Justice of the court, Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour rejected.

    Olanipekun said on the utility value, he agreed that a junior lawyer appearing in court with his senior must have a role to play in court in the matter, but that in some cases there are clients, who insist on having some lawyers on the list. He added that because many senior advocates are involved in some cases, they are often accompanied by a number of lawyers.

    Justice Rhodes-Vivour said the number proposed by Olanipekus was too much, because almost every election petition comes with at list five parties. He noted that “if you allow them to come with a team of 30 as you (OLanipekun) suggest, the intention of the directive by the CJN would have been defeated.

    “Some of them (the young lawyers) just come to court, they do not even know what is going on. If I call one of them sitting there now, I believe he/she would not know what the business of the day is. We know what is going on,” Justice Rhodes-Vivour said. He later conceded to an increase to 10 per party.

    In his final intervention, Justice Onnoghen said: “We are not saying a litigant is not entitled to a counsel of his choice. He can have a whole Bar. But, for the purpose of appearance, a choice of the few number should be made by the lead counsel. I have issued instruction out to the Bar; it should not be more than five. That is the position for now,” the CJN said.

  • CJN pegs lawyers’ court appearance

    CJN pegs lawyers’ court appearance

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, on Monday pegged the number of lawyers that could appear for a party in court at five, including the lead lawyer.

    Justice Onnoghen announced this shortly before the Supreme Court opened proceedings in the two appeals filed by former governorship candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Edo State, Osagie Ize-Iyamu.

    He said the directive was meant to curb the practice when about 100 lawyers, in most political cases, announce appearance for a party in court.

    He said: “There was a matter we had here and 106 lawyers appeared. The whole space was taken up and some lawyers had to stand and others sit on the floor. I have issued a directive, which should extend to other courts, that lawyers appearing in the Supreme Court, should not be more than five for each party, including the lead lawyers.

    “This practice consumes space and it takes take time to announce appearance. Appearance in cases have to have utility value, such appearance has to serve a purpose. I have to repeat this directive today, because I believe it was not brought to the attention of the Bar.

    A former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who was in court for the Ize-Iyamu appeals, appealed to the CJN to allow 30 lawyers per party, a request another Justice of the apex court, Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, rejected.

  • Supreme Court affirms Obaseki as Edo governor

    Supreme Court affirms Obaseki as Edo governor

    The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the election of Godwin Obaseki as the governor of Edo.

    The court dismissed appeal filed by Osagie Ize-Iyamu, the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2016 governorship election in the state.

    Ize-Iyamu had challenged the decision of the appeal court which affirmed the position of Obaseki as governor.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria Walter Onnoghen led seven other judges that gave the judgement

  • Supreme Court should resolve executive/Senate face-off

    SIR: It is apposite to view the Senate’s insistence that the acting President recant his legal opinion on heads of agency appointments as patently puerile.

    The eighth Senate has been in a combat mode since it was prorogued with most of its agenda driven by reactionary leadership.

    Asking the executive arm to head to Supreme Court is not only reflective of lack of any sense of urgency in the red chamber’s attitude to legislative business, it also cast a big slur on the patriotic credentials of members as it were.

    One would rather expect the senate to confirm all appointments tabled before it and isolate that of Ibrahim Magu pending the Supreme Court’s interpretation of section 171 of the constitution.

    To freeze every confirmation and thus deny critical agencies like INEC and others the much needed administrative stability is to allow some unruly elements in the Senate who are caught in the web of legal battles to destabilize the fledging democratic process.

    Since the executive has transmitted the instrument for confirmation to the legislature and the latter declined on issues of constitutional ambiguity, then the onus is on the Senate to seek the Supreme Court’s interpretation and not to put governance in limbo.

    One must also add that the matter when eventually brought to the Supreme Court should be given accelerated attention as is being done in civilized climes.

    The recent Trump’s travel ban was expeditiously dispensed with by the U.S. Supreme Court because if allowed to hang, it could hurt other sundry national interests.

    It’s rather disconcerting that the anti-corruption bill before the eighth Senate remains pigeon-holed for lack of political will to do the right thing.

    It is even shameful that the leadership of the Senate could be so insular as to dismiss the anti-corruption war as ineffectual when it’s actually the one putting spanner in the wheel.

     

    • Bukola Ajisola,

    bukymany@yahoo.com

  • Supreme Court affirms robber’s death sentence

    The Supreme Court has affirmed the death sentence passed on  Daniel Kekong for armed robbery.

    It okayed the Court of Appeal decision of October 28, 2014 affirming the appellant’s conviction and sentence by the Cross River State High Court.

    Prosecution counsel Ade Oyebanji said Kekong was among three men who attacked and robbed a recharge card dealer, Perpetua Ubua, of her handbag containing N128,000-worth of recharge cards, N285,000 cash and two mobile phones.

    Ubua testified that she was on her way home after the day’s business on a motorcycle, when her attackers, riding on another motorcycle, snatched her bag.

    She struggled with them but was overpowered, while the boys started shooting to scare people away.

    Kekong gave the recharge card to Promise Inyang to sell. Inyang in turn gave it to Elizabeth Obu to help him sell. Obu took the recharge cards to Ubua, asking her to pay whatever she wished for them, not knowing that the recharge cards were stolen from Ubua.

    Ubua reported the matter to the police, and the recharge cards were traced to Kekong. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to death for armed robbery, while his co-accused Inyang, was discharged.

    Kekong’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division, which upheld his death sentence.

    He further appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming a miscarriage of justice over the non-admission in evidence of a Police Investigation Report, which stated that Ubua could not identify those who stole her recharge cards.

    The Supreme Court held that the report lacked substance and did not meet the requirements of Section 232 of the Evidence Act 2011.

    It further held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

    “The evidence linked the appellant to the Glo recharge cards violently stolen from Ubua when she was robbed on 19th January 2013. The appellant had thus come to be in possession of stolen goods.

    “Thus, a proper foundation had been laid for the invocation of the presumption under Section 167 (a) of the Evidence Act 2011 to the effect that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after theft or robbery is either the robber or a receiver of stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, unless he could give account of his possession.

    “There is no reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant for the offence of armed robbery charged. The trial court found him guilty; holding that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The finding was affirmed by the court below.

    “No good cause has been shown why I should disturb the concurrent findings of the two lower courts. On the whole, there is no substance in this appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed in its entirety,” the Supreme Court held in the April 28 judgment delivered by Justice Ejembi Eko.

  • Justice Ngwuta lied about age, missing passport’ – Witness

    Justice Ngwuta lied about age, missing passport’ – Witness

    A prosecution witness in the trial of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta of the Supreme Court has said the judicial officer lied about his actual age and his report to the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) that the diplomatic passport issue him in 2014 was missing.
    The witness, Tanko Nuhu Kutana, a Forensic Document Analysis expert with the NIS, said he investigated the case involving Justice Ngwuta after officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) searched his (the judge’s) house and recovered multiple travel passports.
    Led in evidence by lead prosecuting lawyer, Mrs. Olufemi Fatunde, Kutana, who was recalled, having earlier testified as prosecution’s 3rd witness, said while Justice Ngwuta claimed 1951, as his birth year, in one of the four diplomatic passports recovered in his house, he claimed 1952 in the others.
    The witness also said there was doubt as to Justice Ngwuta’ claim that he lost the diplomatic passport issued him in 2014, because there are evidence that he (the judge) continued to use the passport after he reported it missing and a replacement issued to him.
    Kutana said: “My first observation was that the year of birth in the 64-page passport, issued in 2014 (exhibit 13C) had 1951 as the year of birth, while the other three have 1952 as the year of birth.
    “After the 2016 passport was issued for the replacement of the one of 2014 which he claimed to have been lost.
    “There was evidence that he continued to use the 2014 which he claimed was lost, thereby casting doubt about his claim that the 2014 passport was lost.
    “His antecedents of using the passports interchangeably, raise doubt about the claim that he lost the passport.
    “When one also look at him filling 1951 as against 1952 that he had used as his birth date, all these raise doubt about everything, including his claim to the lost of the passport,” the witness said.
    Details later.