The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court upholds death verdict on man for killing goat meat’s thief

    A man, Moavega, has lost a 15-year battle to stay alive as the Supreme Court has held that he must die for killing a man, who stole his friend’s goat meat.

    Igba, a member of a vigilance group in his community, Gungul in Konshisha Local Government Area of Benue State, was arraigned with Michael Ankpergher before the state’s High Court in Makurdi.

    They were charged with conspiracy and culpable homicide over the death, on May 19, 2002, of a village petty thief – Kyernum Kervo (a.k.a Kagh Kpela Hwange) – in Gungul.

    The prosecution argued that the deceased was said to have stolen the remnant of a goat killed for a funeral ceremony.

    He (the deceased) was arrested by some community members and handed to the defendants to report the matter to the police. But instead, they (the defendants) resorted to self-help by setting him ablaze.

    At trial, the owner of the goat meat, who testified as the 1st defence witness (DW1), Ayakpa Ayo, said it was his younger brother, Agena Mua, who died and he killed the goat for his in-law, who was attending the funeral.

    He said after killing the goat, he decided to smoke some parts in his compound. The deceased sneaked into the compound and stole the meat and sold some of its.

    Ayo said when a search was conducted, it was only the tail of the goat that was found in the deceased’s bag.

    The trial court, in its judgment on November 16, 2005, convicted the defendants and sentenced them to death.

    Igba appealed to the Court of Appeal in Jos, Plateau State, where the court, in its judgment on July 9, 2013, upheld the trial court’s judgment, a decision Igba appealed to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court, in a June 16, unanimous judgment by a five-man panel, a copy of which The Nation accessed yesterday, upheld the appellate court’s decision.

    Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs, who read the lead judgment, described the appellant’s conduct as among others, bestial and an exhibition of pristine savagery.

    After reviewing the evidence before the court, Justice Akaahs said: “There was, therefore, overwhelming evidence to support the conviction and sentence of the appellant and his co-accused to death for conspiracy and causing culpable homicide punishable with death.

    “The appellant’s action, with the co-accused, of setting the deceased ablaze for stealing goat meat, was bestial, and it brought out of pristine savagery in man, depicting his brutish instinct in a Hobbesian state of nature.

    “I, therefore, find no redeeming features in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.

    “I further affirm the conviction and sentence of death passed on the appellant for conspiracy and culpable homicide, contrary to sections 97 and 221 of the Penal Code, which the lower court entered against the appellant in its judgment delivered on July 9, 2013, dismissing his appeal against the judgment of the Benue State High Court, Makurdi delivered on November 16, 2005,” Justice Akaahs said.

    Justices Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, Mary Peter-Odili, Olukayode Ariwoola and Amina Admu Augie, who were also on the panel, agreed with the lead judgment

  • Supreme Court blames politicians for unsettled polity

    Supreme Court blames politicians for unsettled polity

    THE Supreme Court has blamed politicians for the unsettled political climate in the country.

    It said politicians’ unwillingness to play by the rules and abide by the dictate of the law account for why the nation’s polity is riddled with crises.

    This forms part of the substance of two judgments delivered on Friday by a five-man panel of the apex court, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Justices Musa Dattijo Muhammad, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, Amina Adamu Augie and Ejembi Eko were also on the panel.

    Both judgments were in appeals filed by Isah Shuaibu Lau (relating to Taraba North Senatorial District) and Mrs. Dorothy Mato (relating to Vandeikya/Konshisha Federal Constituency, Benue State).

    The court found that both the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in Lau’s case; and All Progressives Congress (APC), in Mato’s case, ignored the Electoral Act and parties’ guidelines, in the conduct of primaries, to impose unqualified candidates.

    The court noted that while the PDP in Taraba knew that former Acting Governor Sani Abubakar Danladi was not qualified for its primary, it chose him over Lau, who was more qualified.

    In the Benue case, the court noted that the APC went further to breach its existing principle of rotation in Vandeikya and Konshisha local government areas and handed both the Senate and House of Representatives seats to Barnabas Andyar Gemade and Iorwase Herman Hembe (both from Konshisha Local Government Area).

    Justice Onnoghen, in the lead judgment in Mrs. Mato’s appeal, wondered why politicians think of self alone.

    In deciding the appeal in favour of Mrs. Mato, Onnoghen said: “I am satisfied and hold that the plaintiff has proved that the 1st defendant/respondent (Hembe) was not a member of the APC as at December 10, 2014, when the primary election was held. Accordingly, he was not qualified to contest the said primary election as he was still a member of the PDP.”

    Relying on a report dated December 16, 2014, issued by APC’s National Assembly Primaries Appeal Committee on the primary that produced Hember, and INEC’s report, dated December 11, also on the primary, Justice Onnoghen concluded that it was wrong for Hembe to have been made APC’s candidate.

    He said: “From all I have endeavoured to say above, it is crystal clear that the primaries, which produced the 1st defendant/respondent (Hembe) was fraught with manifold irregularities aside the fact that he was not even qualified to contest same.

    “Thus, since only the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were the contestants, the 2nd defendant (APC) ought to have given effect to the recommendations of its Primary Election Appeal Panel, which recommended that appellant’s name be submitted to the 3rd respondent (INEC).

    “There is nothing on record to contradict the principle of rotation as contained in the said report.

    The principle of justice, equity and fair play demanded that, since Konshisha Local Government Area had taken the office of Senate, through Gemade, the other local government area, that is, Vandeikya, where the plaintiff belongs, ought to produce a member of the House of Representatives.

    “I do not know how politicians think, but for me, it was unfair to give both the Senate and House of Representatives seats to Konshisha Local Government, while Vandeikya had nothing to show for it.

    “In view of the above provision and the fact that only the plaintiff/appellant and Herman Hembe were the candidates, who contested the primaries for Vandeikya/Konshisha Federal Constituency seat in the House of Representatives, I enter judgment for the plaintiff/appellant.

    Justice Augie, in the lead judgment in Lau’s appeal wondered why politicians and political parties find it impossible to play by the rules.

    She noted how Danlandi, who was not qualified, was imposed as candidate in disregard of due process.

    Justice Augie said: “The 3rd respondent (Garba Umar) basically admitted that he was screened and cleared as a gubernatorial candidate, but was allowed to participate in the primaries for National Assembly after he was removed by this court as acting governor of the state.

    “To make it very clear, the 3rd respondent admitted that he was not an aspirant for the said senatorial seat; that as at the time he submitted his expression of interest form and nomination form for the gubernatorial office of Taraba State, the time for the submission of similar forms for the National Assembly had expired.

    “And that, although he did not obtain similar forms for the National Assembly election and was never screened nor cleared for the seat, the 1st respondent (PDP) declared him the winner of the primary election for the senatorial seat and sent his name to the 2nd respondent (INEC),” she said.

    Justice Augie noted that to drive its impunity home, the PDP, despite knowing that Lau was qualified to participate in the primary, preferred Danladi, who was not qualified.

    She said: “So, it (PDP) brings in the former acting governor of the state (Danladi), who did not do any such thing – satisfy conditions and fulfil all requirements. And after he had won the primaries, it submitted his name to INEC.

    “The appellant complained, then filed an action challenging the eligibility of the 3rd respondent (Umar) to participate at the said primaries.

    “While the matter is pending, the 3rd respondent withdrew his candidature, and the 1st respondent (PDP) did the same thing again.

    “This time, it brought the current Acting Governor (Danladi) to replace the 3rd respondent in total disregard for the action pending in court, that is, the action questioning the said primary that produced the 3rd respondent as its (PDP’s) candidate in the first place.

    “And it (PDP) thereby took it upon itself to determine the appellant’s right and obligations with regard to his complaint against the said primaries,” she said.

    Justice Augie, while ordering Danladi’s replacement with Lau, said:”This is a hard and very better lesson for political parties to learn.

    “They may have chosen candidates or eminent personalities they want to present as candidates to INEC, but they have to play by the rules.

    “The chosen candidate must abide by the provisions of the Electoral Act, which creates a level-playing field for all aspirants, who seek to contest elections. So, the political parties and their candidates must obey the rules.”

  • Supreme Court blames politicians for unsettled polity

    Supreme Court blames politicians for unsettled polity

    The Supreme Court has blamed politicians for the unsettled political climate in the country.

    It said politicians’ unwillingness to play by the rules and abide by the dictate of the law account for why the nation’s polity is riddled with crises.

    This forms part of the substance of two judgments delivered on Friday by a five-man panel of the apex court, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Justices Musa Dattijo Muhammad, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, Amina Adamu Augie and Ejembi Eko were also on the panel.

    Both judgments were in appeals marked: SC/ 583/2016 filed by Isah Shuaibu Lau (relating to Taraba North Senatorial District) and SC/733/2016 by Mrs. Dorothy Mato (relating to Vandeikya/Konshisha Federal Constituency, Benue State).

    The court found that both the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), in Lau’s case; and All Progressives Congress (APC), in Mato’s case, blatantly ignored the Electoral Act and parties’ guidelines, in the conduct of primaries, to impose unqualified candidates.

    The court noted that while the PDP in Taraba knew that former Acting Governor, Sani Abubakar Danladi was not qualified for its primary, it chose him over Lau, who was more qualified.

    In the Benue case, the court noted that the APC went further to breach its existing principle of rotation in Vandeikya and Konshisha Local Government Areas and handed both the Senate and House of Representatives seats to Barnabas Andyar Gemade and Iorwase Herman Hember (both from Konshisha Local Government Area).

    Justice Onnoghen, in the lead judgment in the Mrs. Mato appeal, wondered why politicians think of self alone.

    In deciding the appeal in favour of Mrs. Mato, Onnoghen said: “I am satisfied and hold that the plaintiff has proved that the 1st defendant/respondent (Hember) was not a member of the APC as at December 10, 2014 when the primary election was held. Accordingly, he was not qualified to contest the said primary election as he was still a member of the PDP.”

    Relying on a report dated December 16, 2014, issued by APC’s National Assembly Primaries Appeal Committee on the primary that produced Hember, and INEC’s report, dated December 11, also on the primary, Justice Onnoghen concluded that it was wrong for Hember to have been made APC’s candidate.

    He said: “From all I have endeavoured to say above, it is crystal clear that the primaries, which produced the 1st defendant/respondent (Hember) was frought with manifold irregularities aside the fact that he was not even qualified to contest same.

    “Thus, since only the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were the contestants, the 2nd defendant (APC) ought to have given effect to the recommendations of its Primary Election Appeal Panel, which recommended that appellant’s name be submitted to the 3rd respondent (INEC).

    “There is nothing on record to contradict the principle of rotation as contained in the said report.

    The principle of justice, equity and fair play demanded that, since Konshisha Local Government Area had taken the office of Senate, through Gemade, the other Local Government Area, that is, Vandeikya, where the plaintiff belongs, ought to produce a member of the House of Representatives.

    “I do not know how politicians think, but for me, it was unfair to give both the Senate and House of Representatives seats to Konshisha Local Government, while Vandeikya had nothing to show for it.”

    “In view of the above provision and the fact that only the plaintiff/appellant and Herman Hember were the candidates, who contested the primaries for Vandeikya/Konshisha Federal Constituency seat in the House of Representatives, I enter judgment for the plaintiff/appellant.

    Justice Augie, in the lead judgment in Lau’s appeal wondered why politicians and political parties find it impossible to play by the rules.

    She noted how Danlandi, who was not qualified, was imposed as candidate in disregard of due process.

    Justice Augie said: “The 3rd respondent (Garba Umar) basically admitted that he was screened and cleared as a gubernatorial candidate, but was allowed to participate in the primaries for National Assembly after he was removed by this court as Acting Governor of the state.

    “To make it very clear, the 3rd respondent admitted that he was not an aspirant for the said Senatorial seat; that as at the time he submitted his expression of interest form and nomination form for the gubernatorial office of Taraba State, the time for the submission of similar forms for the National Assembly had expired.

    “And that, although he did not obtain similar forms for the National Assembly election and was never screened nor cleared for the seat, the 1st respondent (PDP) declared him the winner of the primary election doe the Senatorial seat and sent his name to the 2nd respondent (INEC),” she said.

    Justice Augie noted that to drive its impunity home, the PDP, despite knowing that Lau was qualified to participate in the primary, preferred Danladi, who was not qualified.

    She said: “So, it (PDP) brings in the former Acting Governor of the state (Danladi), who did not do any such thing – satisfy conditions and fulfil all requirements. And after he had won the primaries, it submitted his name to INEC.

    “The appellant complained, then filed an action challenging the eligibility of the 3rd respondent (Umar) to participate at the said primaries.

    “While the matter is pending, the 3rd respondent withdrew his candidature, and the 1st respondent (PDP) did the same thing again.

    “This time, it brought the current Acting Governor (Danladi) to replace the 3rd respondent in total disregard for the action pending in court, that is, the action questioning the said primary that produced the 3rd respondent as its (PDP’s) candidate in the first place.

    “And it (PDP) thereby took it upon itself to determine the appellant”s right and obligations with regard to his complaint against the said primaries,” she said.

    Justice Augie, while ordering Danladi’s replacement with Lau, said “This is a hard and very better lesson for political parties to learn.

    “They may have chosen candidates or eminent personalities they want to present as candidates to INEC, but they have to play by the rules.

    “The chosen candidate must abide by the provisions of the Electoral Act, which creates a level playing field for all aspirants, who seek to contest elections. So, the political parties and their candidates must obey the rules,” Justice Augie said.

     

  • Supreme Court sacks Taraba Senator, Benue House of Reps member

    THE Supreme Court yesterday sacked Senator Sani Abubakar Danladi, representing Taraba North Senatorial District, Taraba State and replaced him with Isah Shuaibu Lau. The court also sacked a House of Representatives member, Iorwase Herman Hember, representing Vandeikya/Konshisha Federal Constituency of Benue State and replaced him with Mrs. Dorothy Mato. The court sacked Danlada and Hember in two separate judgments delivered yesterday in appeals marked: SC/ 583/2016 and SC/733/2016 by Lau and Mrs. Mato.

    While finding that both Danladi and Hember were not proper candidates of their parties for the last legislative elections, the Supreme Court ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the certificate of return issued to them and issue fresh ones to Lau and Mrs. Mato. The apex court ordered the Senate President to swear in Lau as Danladi’s replacement, and that the Speaker or Clerk of the House of Representatives should do so in relation to Mrs. Mato as replacement for Hember.

    The court ordered Danladi, who was once acting Governor of Taraba State and Hember to refund all they have earned while in as Senator and House of Reps member, within 90days of the judgement. Justice Amina Augie, in the lead judgment of a five-man panel in the appeal by Lau, found that Danladi was not qualified to have been made a candidate of the Peoples Democractic Party (PDP) in the last Senatorial election. Lau, who came second in the primary held on December 11, 2016 challenged the announcement of Garba Umar (who was by then sacked as Acting Governor of Taraba State by the Supreme Court) as winner of the primary.

    Before the case could be determined, the PDP replaced Umar with Danladi after giving the governorship ticket to Darius Ishaku. Lau pressed on with his case, arguing that the substitution of Umar with Danladi was unlawful because Umar was not a valid candidate in the first place, an argument the Supreme Court upheld yesterday. Justice Augie said: “The appellant (Lau) satisfied conditions and fulfilled all requirements for participating in the 1st respondent’s (PDP’s) primaries for a Senate seat. But apparently, the 1st respondent had better candidates in mind. “So, it brings in the former acting Governor of the state, who did not do any such thing – satisfy conditions and fulfil all the requirements – and after he had won the primary, it (PDP) substituted his name to INEC.

    “The appellant complained then filed an action challenging the eligibility of the 3rd respondent (Umar) to participate at the said primaries. While the matter is pending, the 3rd respondent withdrew his candidature, and the 1ts respondent (PDP) did the same thing again. “This time, it brought the current acting Governor to replace the 3rd respondent in total disregard for the action pending in court. That is, the action questioning the said primary that produced the 3rd respondent as its candidate in the first place, and it thereby took it upon itself to determine the appellant”s right and obligations with regard to his complaint against the said primaries,” Justice Augie said.

    She proceeded to invoke the powers of the court under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to rehear the case and determine same. She said ordering that the case be taken to the trial court for retrial will not do the needed justice in the case. “To this end, I will simply say that from all that I have said so far, and with the issues resolved in favour of the appellants, this appeal is allowed and the decision of the court below is therefore set aside. “In the circumstances of this case, it will amount to additional miscarriage of justice to remit this case to the trial court for hearing and determination of the substantive suit – a pre-election matter,” she said. Other members of the panel, including the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen, Justices Musa Muhammad, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun and Ejembi Eko agreed with the lead judgement.

  • Court sacks APC Senator, orders him to return salaries

    Court sacks APC Senator, orders him to return salaries

    The Supreme Court on Friday ordered Sen. Abubakar Danladi, (APC- Taraba North) to vacate his seat and refund all salaries and allowances he received within 90 days.

    The court also declared Alhaji Shuaibu Lau, as the senator to represent Taraba North.

    The court gave the orders while delivering judgment in the appeal filed by Lau.

    Lau had challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal that upturned his victory during the primary elections, that he was wrongfully substituted.

    The apex court also ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the certificate issued to Danladi and issue a fresh certificate of return to Lau.

    The apex court in the unanimous judgment by a five-member panel, held that the appellant had the right to participate just like any other candidate in the primary election.

    The court added that if Lau felt that his right was infringed upon, he had the right to approach the court.

    “From the totality of the appeal before this court, all the issues are resolved in favour of the appellant.

    “His substitution at the primary election is null and void since the appellant scored the highest number of votes; the only option is to declare the appellant as the winner of primary election.

    ” This court hereby orders that the appellant be issued with the certificate of return and the respondent should immediately vacate the seat.

    “He should return to the National Assembly, all salaries and allowances received as a senator within 90 days.

  • Supreme Court outlaws stay of proceedings in criminal trials

    The Supreme Court has stopped granting of stay of proceedings in criminal trials.

    It said the grant of stay was unlawful as it violates the provisions of Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, and Section 40 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004.

    Opponents of the provisions in Sections 306 of ACJA and 40 of the EFCC Act have argued that prohibiting courts from staying proceedings in criminal trials was a violation of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to appeal.

    But, the apex court, in its ruling on Friday, said the provisions of both laws were in conformity with the constitutional provision in Section 36(4), which provides that any person charged with a criminal offence “shall be…entitled to fair hearing in public within a reasonable time.”

    The Supreme Court gave the verdict in its ruling, last Friday, while rejecting an application for stay of proceedings brought by ex-spokesman of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh.

    The court, in a unanimous decision by a five-man panel, held that, as against Metuh’s lawyer’s contention, the provision of Section 306 of the ACJA was not limited to the trial court.

    In the lead ruling written by Justice Clara Bata Ogunbiyi, but read by Justice Ejembi Eko, the court held that Metuh’s application for stay of proceedings was “violently in conflict” with the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Constitution as well as Section 306 of ACJA, Section 40 of the EFCC Act 2004 and a number of case law authorities.

    Justice Ogunbiyi, in the lead ruling, faulted Metuh’s lawyer’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in 2016, in granting a stay of proceedings in the trial of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    Justice Ogunbiyi said:  “This court (the Supreme Court) pronounced also in Olubukola Saraki V Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) SC 531 that the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) is not a court of superior record of jurisdiction, but a court of qusi-criminal jurisdiction.

    “Therefore the application of the cases to the circumstances of this case (Metuh’s case) cannot be relevant, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel to the first respondent (EFCC’s lawyer).

    “The appellant/applicant’s (Metuh’s) motion for stay of proceedings is violently in conflict with the provisions of section 36(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), section 306 of ACJ and section 40 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 as well as the plethora of case law authorities cited.”

    “I wish to emphasise that this is a criminal proceeding. There are also clear constitutional and statutory provisions that enjoin and mandate the trial court not to delay criminal cases.”

    Justices Dattijo Muhammad, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun,  Eko and Sidi Bage, who were also on the panel,  agreed with Justice Ogunbiyi.

    Metuh and his firm, Destra Investments Limited are being tried before Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja on a seven-count charge of money laundering and fraudulent receipt of N400m from from the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) on November 22, 2014, for PDP’s campaign activities.

  • Supreme Court gets second woman Chief Registrar

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (NJC), Justice Walter Onnoghen, has announced the appointment of Mrs. Mrs. Hadizatu Uwani Mustapha as the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court.

    Mrs. Mustapha, who is expected to assume office on July 1, will replace Ahmad Gambo Saleh, who will on the same day assume a new responsibility as the Secretary of the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    The Gwoza, Borno State-born Mrs. Mustahpahe is the second female to be so appointed in the history of the court established on October 1, 1960.

    The first female Chief Registrar of the court was Mrs. G. O. Jackman, who held office from 1978 to 1983.

    Spokesman to the CJN, Awassam Bassey, who stated this in a statement yesterday, said Mrs. Mustapha’s  appointment was contained in a letter signed by the Secretary of the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), Mrs. Bilkisu Bashir, dated May 31.

    Part of the statement reads: “Mrs. Mustapha emerged from a strong field of six applicants interviewed by the FJSC headed by its Chairman, the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, GCON, on Tuesday May 30, 2017.

    Until her appointment, Mrs. Mustapha, was the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    “Born in Gwoza in Borno State on the 8th August 1961, Mrs. Mustapha holds a Bachelor of Law (LL.B) degree from the University of Maiduguri, which she earned in 1984 before attending the Nigerian Law School, Victoria Island, Lagos, for her Barrister at Law (BL) programme in 1985.”

  •  Constitution Amendment: CCT now on First Line Charge

     Constitution Amendment: CCT now on First Line Charge

    …Judges increased from 3 to 40

     

    The House of Representatives Special Ad-hoc Committee on the review of 1999 constitution has moved to insulate the Code of Conduct Tribunal from political influence and enhance its efficiency and effectiveness.

    To this end, Members of the committee unanimously agreed that Code of Conduct Tribunal should not only become full-fledged ‎court, but be listed among the courts that benefit from the first line charge meant for judiciary.

    The committee also agreed that there should be more than one tribunal to handle breach of code of conduct considering the size of nation and baglog of pending cases. For this reason, the committee is proposing an increase in the number of judges of the Code of Conduct Tribunal from three to at least 40.

    The committee chaired by the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon Sulaimon Lasun Yussuff  after a robust debate at the last Monday meeting of the committee, consultants and PLAC Representatives concluded that only cases involving death penalty, enforcement of human rights and interpretation of the constitution would be entertained at the supreme Courts.

    All matters relating to pre-election matters or election matter and any other cases would be terminated at the Appeal Courts, the committee said.

    The committee so far has treated 40 Bills and at the last meeting, considered the Judiciary ‎Reform Bill. The Bill is a consolidated Bill prepared by heads of courts and judicial bodies in Nigeria.

    The Bill was forwarded to the National Assembly on 26th of January 2017 by the then Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice W S N Onnoghen (CFR) and was sponsored by Hon Aminu Shehu Shagari, chairman House committee of judiciary.

    Some of the highlights of the Bill indicated that the judiciary is trying to review the composition of members of Supreme Court from 21 prescribed by the constitution to 16.

    On the other hand, the proposed law seeks to increase the prescribed minimum membership of the court of Appeal from 41 to 100 justices.

    Similarly, another proposal by the judiciary seeks to reduce in a radical manner the type of cases that goes on appeal to Supreme Court to only three.

    The purpose of this, according to a statement from the committee, is to reduce the workload of the Supreme Court and also increase the capacity of the court of Appeal to shoulder additional responsibilities, including entertaining appeals from the National Industrial Court of Nigeria.

    Members of the committee retained the 20-man composition of the Supreme Court but increase the minimum membership of court of appeal to 100.

    The committee also agreed that cases from the National Industrial court should terminate at the court of Appeal, for this reason, a special division for Industrial matter would be created in line with the existing ones for customary law and Islamic law.

     

  • PDP crisis: Supreme Court reserves judgment 

    PDP crisis: Supreme Court reserves judgment 

    …To communicate date to parties

     

    The Supreme Court reserved judgment Monday in the appeal filed the sacked National Caretaker Committee of the party led by Ahmed Makarfi.

    The Makarfi Committee is by the appeal, challenging the February 17 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt division declaring among others, that the Makarfi-led Committee is illegal.

    Monday, a five-man panel of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen took arguments from parties and informed that that judgment has been reserved, and that a date will be communicated to them.

    At the commencement of argument Monday, the court invited lawyer to the Ali Modu Sheriff faction of the PDP to move his application, with which he sought the striking out of the appeal.

    Fagbemi argued that the judgment of the Court of Appeal having not be set aside, Sheriff and members of the executive committee remained the alter ego of the party and that only them could validly file any court process in the name of the party.

    “In urging your Lordships to grant the application, I will say that the point here is not about the locus of counsel but about the competence of the appeal, whether it was filed with authority or not and whether or not the party in whose name the appeal was filed has a right to withdraw the appeal.

    “PDP is a corporate body, therefore the corporate personality is defined in terms of the (party’s) constitution, which gives power, and the decision of the lower court that has not been set aside or suspended.

    “If the party, through its directing minds, led by Ali Modu Sheriff and backed by the constitution of the party and the judgment of the Court of Appeal, have withdrawn the appeal, there is evidence that they exercised their rights and their powers rightly.

    “Whoever is interested in the appeal can only come as an interested party and not to file an appeal in the name of the party,” Fagbemi said.

    Lawyer to the Makarfi-led Committee, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) urged the court to grant his client’s appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and also dismiss the application seeking the striking of the appeal.

    “I urge your lordships not only to dismiss this application but to do so with heavy cost.

    “Apart from Rule 29 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 27(1) and (4) of the rules also demonstrate that the application is incompetent and the Supreme Court does not even have the vires to countenance it.”

    Olanipekun noted that Niyi Akintola (SAN), who represented Sheriff and Oladipo against the PDP at the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal and who still represented the same clients at the Supreme Court could not decide who should represent the PDP at the apex court.

    He said: “Appeal is a continuation of hearing. The initiator of this application has shot themselves in both legs. Are they saying they were respondents to a a non-competent respondent (the PDP) at the lower court? It is short of words to say it is abuse of process.”

    Olanipekun prayed the court to grant his appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

    Lawyer to Sheriff and Prof Wole Oladipo, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), aligned with Fagbemi’s submission in relation to his application.

    Olujinmi added that he had in his preliminary objection raised a similar issue of lack of authority on the part of the Makarfi committee to file the appeal.

    He said: “In urging your lordships to grant the application filed by Lateef Fagbemi, we rely on all these processes and my own application filed on March 16, 2017. I rely on all the processes that I have identified.

    “The issue we have raised in the application relates to the lack of authority of the people who brought the appeal. It is fundamental.

    “The issue is very narrow and your lordships will have to consider whether the appeal is filed in the name of the PDP without authority is competent.

    “The issue of counsel who represented the various parties at the lower court is irrelevant. Apart from lack of authority to file the appeal, there are no grounds to sustain the appeal.

    “I urge your lordship to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit and for being incompetent.”

    On point of law, Fagbemi contended that Rule 29 of Rules of Professional Conduct referred to by Olanipekun “does not apply to the competence of the application seeking the striking out of the appeal.”

    Earlier court reelected the objection by Sheriff’s lawyer to the motion by the Makarfi committee seeking leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and filed.

    The court proceeded to grant the application after dismissing objection and deemed the appeal as properly filed.

    Other members of the court’s panel Justices Tanko Muhammad, Bode Rhodes-Vivour, Kayode Ariwoola and Dattiji Muhammad.

    Prominent members of the party, representing both sides of the dispute were in court to witness proceedings.

    Sheriff and Makarfi were in court in person. They sat on opposing sides of the large courtroom.

    Some of those who accompanied Sheriff were the Deputy National Chairman of the faction, Cairo Ojugo, and Oladipo (Secretrary).

    Those who came with Makarfi included a former Vice Chairman of the party (South West), Chief Bode George, the present occupant of the position in the faction, Chief Eddy Olafeso, former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha, Dayo Adeyeye and Tom Ikimi.

     

  • Supreme Court Verdict:  Abia PDP set to go on fence mending mission 

    Supreme Court Verdict:  Abia PDP set to go on fence mending mission 

    The Supreme Court judgement which affirmed the validity of Governor Okezie Ikpeazu’s nomination for the governorship election he won two years ago has made the Abia state chapter of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to set machinery in motion to bring back estranged members.

    Speaking in Umuahia on the outcome of the judgement the chairman of the party Chief Johnson Onuigbo said that with the court case over that the party has commenced moves to bring back some those who left the party.

    Onuigbo said that it is obvious that some of their members who felt aggrieved with the result of the party’s governorship primary left the party and that now the court case is over, “The next thing to be done is to bring them back”.

    He said, “We’ve lost friends and associates during the legal tussle, now that the apex court has finally laid to rest any doubt concerning Governor Ikpeazu’s victory at the polls all those that had left the party should come back and join hands with the governor to build Abia”.

    Onuigbo said that it was a thing of joy Uche Ogah, who was one of the litigants that dragged the Abia governor all the way to the Supreme Court, has congratulated Governor Ikpeazu after the Supreme Court judgment.

    He said, “I learnt that Ogah had called to congratulate the governor which is welcome development which means that the war is over, the next thing is for others like him to do the same and also come forward to help build the state”.

    The Abia PDP chairman acknowledged that the long drawn legal tussle had taken its toll on the governor because “for two years now this governor had been under pressure from left, right and centre.”

    Onuigbo said that notwithstanding the distractions Governor Ikpeazu has been performing very well in driving development across Abia, adding that having finally overcome his traducers he would redouble his efforts to do more for Abia people.

    He said, “The CJN wondered how four people would want to be governor of a state at the same time which is not possible, I advise politicians to put their house in order and stop putting undue pressure on the judiciary”.

    “The judgement of the Supreme Court shows that there are still good people in Nigeria as their judgement on the Abia governorship issue has shown that there is future for the common man which the judiciary represents”.

    Onuigbo commended the governor for the rapid development in the state despite all forms of distractions which have come his way in the last two years he has been in office and urged him to continue the good work he has been doing.

    He lauded the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen for exposing the antics of politicians and chiding for interfering with the judicial process by trying to influence judicial officers with inducements.

    He said that the advice the CJN gave to politicians was in order, adding that the disposition of justice Onnoghen was a strong indication that “good men are still around and that the judiciary remained the last hope of the common man”.

    The CJN had while delivering judgment on the Abia governorship advised that politicians “should allow the judiciary to be independent because without an independent judiciary, there will not be a just society”.

    He had noted that there were several security breaches, where desperate politicians made frantic efforts to compromise the court officials in the course of doing their job.

    The CJN therefore warned that attempts to bribe judicial officers to pervert justice constituted serious offences and they would be thoroughly investigated to unmask the politicians and make them face the wrath of the law.